Difference between revisions of "Keck-presentation"
Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
* Seminars (Meg 5 min) | * Seminars (Meg 5 min) | ||
* Dissemination/Evaluation (Lori 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) | 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. | ||
+ | |||
Wrap-up: Review, questions, tour next (Mike 5 min) | Wrap-up: Review, questions, tour next (Mike 5 min) |
Revision as of 13:31, 24 September 2006
I) Who we are (Mike 5 min)
II) Why Earlham (Charlie 15 min)
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.
Wrap-up: Review, questions, tour next (Mike 5 min)