Difference between revisions of "Keck-presentation"
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | I) Who we are (Mike 5 min) | + | = I) Who we are (Mike 5 min) = |
| − | II) Why Earlham (Charlie 15 min) | + | = II) Why Earlham (Charlie 15 min) = |
*Notes | *Notes | ||
**re-read grant RFP | **re-read grant RFP | ||
| Line 52: | Line 52: | ||
*Closing | *Closing | ||
| − | III) Why Project (Ron 10 min) | + | = III) Why Project (Ron 10 min) = |
| − | IV) What Project (50 min total) | + | = IV) What Project (50 min total) = |
* Goals and Objectives Mike (5 min), or as part of Why Project | * Goals and Objectives Mike (5 min), or as part of Why Project | ||
* Courses (Mike 5 min) | * Courses (Mike 5 min) | ||
| Line 85: | Line 85: | ||
interdisciplinary projects | interdisciplinary projects | ||
| − | V) Why Keck (Lori 5 min) | + | = V) Why Keck (Lori 5 min) = |
Why Keck: | Why Keck: | ||
| Line 101: | Line 101: | ||
• Keck support would also raise the visibility of the sciences regionally and nationally. | • Keck support would also raise the visibility of the sciences regionally and nationally. | ||
| − | Wrap-up: Review, questions, tour next (Mike 5 min) | + | = Wrap-up: Review, questions, tour next (Mike 5 min) = |
Revision as of 14:47, 24 September 2006
Contents
I) Who we are (Mike 5 min)
II) Why Earlham (Charlie 15 min)
- Notes
- re-read grant RFP
- re-read grant proposal
- paul's one pager on the history of student/faculty research at earlham
- timed run-through
- How much time spent with small liberal arts colleges? Answer dictates level of coverage in different parts of what follows.
- Tension between Quaker modesty and our desire to put the best facia on our college and our people.
- Overview of Earlham
- 1847, Quakers were a large portion of the early settlers to this area
- Liberal arts with masters in teaching and seminaries
- Quaker
- Governance
- Student/faculty interactions
- Teaching first and formost
- Student Body
- International
- Diversity (science in particular)
- Efforts to improve enrollments in STEM disciplines
- Selectivity
- Curriculum
- Liberal arts, distribution requirements (new language)
- Science a part of everyone's course of study
- Actual details of the requirements
- More below on our majors
- Science division
- Our cohesiveness and collective strength
- Multidisciplinary experience
- Science major to PhD strength
- Numbers for particular departments
- Overlap w/ major/minors
- Multidisciplinary applied science groups
- Hardware interfacing project
- Cluster computing group
- Green Science
- Student/faculty research experience (history, current)
- Computational Experience
- Folding@Home
- Computational Economics
- LittleFe and SC Education
- Instrumentation and experience with it
- Enumerate - ESM, Laser,
- Pedagogical creativity experience
- Our cohesiveness and collective strength
- Closing
III) Why Project (Ron 10 min)
IV) What Project (50 min total)
- Goals and Objectives Mike (5 min), or as part of Why Project
- Courses (Mike 5 min)
- Intro: Gen Chem (Mike 10 min)
- Upper: Geology (Ron 10 min)
- Break
- Research: Biology (David 10 min)
- Seminars (Meg 5 min)
- Dissemination/Evaluation (Lori 5 min)
Dissemination activities will include:
• NITLE workshop on integrating multi-disciplinary computational methods into the undergraduate science curriculum. We have already arranged with the National Institute for Technology and Liberal Education (NITLE) to offer a workshop for our peers where we will describe what we have done and offer suggestions for how similar programs can be implemented at their institutions.
• Earlham Science Poster Session (held each Fall)
• Student presentation of papers at regional and national scientific conferences (Butler Undergraduate Research Conference, Geological Society of America, American Chemical Society, etc).
• CUR publications and programs
• Student/Faculty papers in science pedagogy journals and basic science journals, as appropriate.
Evaluation will include:
• External evaluation both during and at the conclusion of the grant period
• Qualitative evaluation: open-ended surveys, interviews
• Quantitative evaluation: quantitative surveys, pre and post grant levels of undergraduate research, curricular use of computational modeling and interdisciplinary projects
V) Why Keck (Lori 5 min)
Why Keck:
• Long tradition of supporting curricular innovation: Funding for undergraduate research at small liberal arts colleges is limited. The W.M. Keck Foundation is known and respected throughout the scientific community as a foundation that supports innovative science programs at high-quality libral arts institutions.
• Limited sources of support for such a comprehensive multidisciplinary program: Most sources support only limited interdisciplinary work (bio and chem., for example) and most do not support such work at undergraduate institutions
• NSF funding for science education at 4yr institutions has been flat for past 10 years and curricular improvements funding has decreased by 50% over same timeframe
• Strong supporter of computational science education: the Keck Undergraduate Computational Science Education Consortium headed by Capital University.
• Keck support would also raise the visibility of the sciences regionally and nationally.
