Quality Education for Minorities (QEM) Network
National Science Foundation (NSF) Tribal Colleges and Universities Program (TCUP)
Workshop on Assessment and Evaluation of STEM Instructional Practices
at TCUP-supported Institutions
October 30-31, 2015
Hilton Baltimore BWI Airport • 1739 West Nursery Road • Linthicum Heights, MD
I. GENERAL INFO
NSF Proposal & Award Policies & Procedures Guide (PAPPG) – [NSF 16-1]
About the NSF TCUP Program
- TCUP Program Solicitation: http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2014/nsf14572/nsf14572.pdf
- Report: NSF's Tribal Colleges and Universities Program: Nations United in Improving Science and Technology Education for Native Americans [NSF02072]. http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2002/nsf02072/nsf02072.pdf
American Indian Higher Education Consortium (AIHEC) Indigenous Evaluation Framework
Carnevale, Anthony, Nicole Smith, and Michelle Melton. 2011. Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM).
Washington, DC: Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce.
Frechtling, Joy, Melvin Mark, Debra, Rog, Veronica Thomas, Henry Frierson, Stafford Hood,
and Gerunda Hughes. 2010. The 2010 User-friendly Handbook for Project Evaluation. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and Thomasian, John. 2011. Building a Science,
Technology, Engineering, and Math Education Agenda: An Update of State Actions. Washington, DC.
Quality Education for Minorities (QEM) Network. Effective Institutional STEM Instructional Strategies at HBCU-UP
Grantee Institutions Report. December 2012.
Southern Regional Education Board. Instructional Strategies: How Teachers Teach Matters.
The Partnership for 21st Century Learning (P21). Framework for 21st Century Learning.
- P21 Framework: http://www.p21.org/storage/documents/P21_framework_0515.pdf
- P21 Framework Definitions http://www.p21.org/storage/documents/docs/P21_Framework_Definitions_New_Logo_2015.pdf
II. STEM EDUCATION AND EVIDENCE-BASED PRACTICES
American Association for the Advancement of Science and the National Science Foundation.
2009. New Challenges, New Strategies: Building Excellence in Undergraduate STEM Education. Washington DC.
Austin, Ann. 2011. Promoting Evidence-based Change in Undergraduate Science Education.
Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences. http://www7.nationalacademies.org/bose/DBER_Austin_March_Paper.pdf
Cullinane, Jenna and Lacey Leegwater. 2009. Diversifying the STEM Pipeline: The Model
Replication Institutions Program. Washington, DC: Institute for Higher Education Policy.
Fairweather, James. n.d. Linking Evidence and Promising Practices in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM)
Undergraduate Education: A Status Report for the National Academies National Research Council Board of
Science Education. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences.
Labov, Jay, Susan Singer, Melvin George, Heidi Schweingruber, and Margaret Hilton. 2009.
Effective Practices in Undergraduate STEM Education Part 1: Examining the Evidence. CBE Life Sciences Education, 8, 157-161.
National Research Council. 2011. Promising Practices in Undergraduate Science, Technology,
Engineering, and Mathematics Education: Summary of Two Workshops. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
National Research Council. 2012. Discipline-Based Education Research: Understanding and Improving Learning in
Undergraduate Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
III. ASSESSMENT AND EVALUATION
Arum, Richard, Josipa Roksa, and Esther Cho. n.d. Improving Undergraduate Learning:
Findings and Policy Recommendations from the Social Science Research Council-Collegiate Learning Assessment
Longitudinal Project. New York, NY: Social Science Research Council.
Coalition for Evidence-based Policy. 2003. Identifying and Implementing Educational Practices Supported by Rigorous Evidence:
A User-friendly Guide. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education Institute of Education Sciences.
Dodge, Judith. n.d. “What are Formative Assessments and Why Should We Use Them?: Tips for
Using Formative Assessments to Help You Differentiate Instruction and Improve Student Achievement.” Scholastic, Inc. website.
Henderson, Charles and Melissa Dancy. 2011. “Increasing the Impact and Diffusion of STEM Education Innovations.”
Presented at the Characterizing the Impact of Diffusion of Engineering Education Innovations Forum,
February 7-8, in New Orleans, LA.
Mathematical Association of America. MathNotes #49. 2005 Revision. Assessment Practices in Undergraduate Mathematics.
Washington, DC. http://www.maa.org/press/ebooks/assessment-practices-in-undergraduate-mathematics
Middle States Commission on Higher Education. 2007. Student Learning Assessment- Options
and Resources. Philadelphia, PA: Middle States Commission on Higher Education.
Stanovich, Paula and Keith Stanovich. 2003. Using Research and Reason in Education: How
Teachers Can Use Scientifically Based Research to Make Curricular and Instructional Decisions. Portsmouth, NH: RMC
Research Corporation. http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/detail?accno=ED482973
IV. INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES
A. Active Learning
Armbruster, Peter, Maya Patel, and Erika Johnson. 2009. Active Learning and Student-centered
Pedagogy Improve Student Attitudes and Performance in Introductory Biology. CBE Life Sciences Education, 8(3), 203-213.
Michael, Joel. 2006. Where’s the Evidence that Active Learning Works? Advanced
Physiological Education, 30, 159-167. http://advan.physiology.org/content/30/4/159.full.pdf+html
B. Blended Learning
Blackboard, Inc. 2009. Blended Learning: Where Online and Face-to-Face Instruction Intersect
for 21st Century Teaching and Learning. Washington, DC: Blackboard, Inc.
Dziuban, Charles, Joel Hartman, and Patsy Moskal. 2004. Blended Learning. Boulder, CO: EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research.
Pecorino, Philip. n.d. “Pedagogy for Blended Instruction: A Primer.”
Sahin, Mehmet. 2010. Blended Learning in Vocational Education: An Experimental Study.
International Journal of Vocational Education, 2(6), 95-101.
C. Incorporating Technology into Teaching
Glenn, Marie and Debra D’Agostino. 2008. The Future of Higher Education: How Technology
Will Shape Learning. Austin, TX: New Media Consortium.
McDaniel, Carl, Bradford Lister, Michael Hanna, and Harry Roy. 2007. Increased Learning Observed in Redesigned Introductory
Biology Course that Employed Web-enhanced, Interactive Pedagogy. CBE Life Sciences Education, 6(3), 243-239.
Miller, Ben. 2010. The Course of Innovation: Using Technology to Transform Higher Education.
Washington, DC: Education Sector.
Noeth, Richard and Boris Volkov. 2004. Evaluating the Effectiveness of Technology in Our
Schools: ACT Policy Report. Iowa City, IA: ACT.
Williams, David. 2002. Improving Use of Learning Technologies in Higher Education through
Participant Oriented Evaluations. Educational Technology & Society, 5(3).
D. Inquiry-based Learning
Brickman, Peggy, Cara Gormally, Norris Armstrong, and Brittan Hallar. 2009. Effects of Inquiry-based Literacy Skills and
Confidence. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching Learning, 3(2).
Wood, William. 2003. Inquiry-based Undergraduate Teaching in the Life Science at Large
Research Universities: A Perspective on the Boyer Commission. Cell Biology Education, 2, 112-116.
E. Problem-based Learning
Colliver, Jerry. 2000. Effectiveness of Problem-based Learning Curricula: Research and Theory.
Academic Medicine, 75(3), 259-266. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10724315
Gallow, De. n.d. “What is Problem-based Learning?” Problem-based Learning Faculty Institute
website at the University of California, Irvine. http://www.pbl.uci.edu/whatispbl.html
Savery, John. 2006. Overview of Problem-based Learning: Definitions and Distinctions.
Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning, 1(1), 9-20. http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/ijpbl/vol1/iss1/3/
F. Process-oriented Guided Inquiry Learning
Hanson, David. 2005. “Designing Process-oriented Guided-inquiry Activities.” In Faculty
Guidebook: A Comprehensive Tool for Improving Faculty Performance. Second Edition, eds.
D.K. Apple and S.W. Beyerlein. Lisle, IL: Pacific Crest.
Moog, Rick, James Spencer, Frank Creegan, Troy Wolfskill, David Hanson, Andrei Stroumanis,
Diane Bunce, Jennifer Lewis, et al. n.d. “Process-oriented Guided-inquiry Learning.” Science Education Resource Center
Pedagogy in Action web portal. http://serc.carleton.edu/sp/library/pogil/index.html
G. Project-based Learning
Larmer, John and John Mergendoller. 2010. Seven Essentials for Project-based Learning. Giving
Students Meaningful Work, 1, 34-37. ASCD website.
National Academy Foundation. n.d. Project-based Learning: A Resource for Instructors and
Program Coordinators. New York, NY: National Academy Foundation. http://naf.org/files/PBL_Guide.pdf
H. Supplemental Instruction/Peer-led Instruction
Arendale, David. 2002. History of Supplemental Instruction (SI): Mainstreaming of
Developmental Education. http://a.web.umkc.edu/arendaled/SIhistory02.pdf
Crouch, Catherine and Eric Mazur. 2001. Peer Instruction: Ten Years of Experience and
Results. American Journal of Physics Teachers, 60(9), 970-977. http://web.mit.edu/jbelcher/www/TEALref/Crouch_Mazur.pdf
Duranczyk, Irene, Jeanne Higbee, and Dana Lundell. 2004. Best Practices for Access and
Retention in Higher Education. Minneapolis, MN: Center for Research on Developmental Education and Urban
Literacy at the University of Minnesota. http://www.cehd.umn.edu/CRDEUL/pdf/monograph/5-a.pdf#page=37
Horwitz, Susan and Susan Rodger. 2009. “Using Peer-led Team Learning to Increase
Participation and Success of Underrepresented Groups in Introductory Computer Science.” Paper presented at the
Association for Computing Machinery’s Symposium on Computer Science Education, March 3-7, in Chattanooga, Tennessee.