Search for: All records

More than 27 years have passed since the National Science Board identified Broader Impacts as one of two merit criteria for National Science Foundation proposals. Yet many researchers remain less certain of how to develop, implement, and assess a broader impact plan. This multi-method study of a Broader Impacts (BI) rubric analyzed expert panels that included BI professionals and researchers for both content validity and reliability. Focus groups with researchers explicate the challenges researchers face regarding BI plans and the potential value of the rubric as a tool for use. It revealed the challenges researchers have in weighing proven strategies versus innovative strategies, a bias documented by other scholars. Researchers stated concern with how to weigh the different facets of the rubric to arrive at a single score. Moreover, researchers reported that their disciplinary field influenced how they interpreted the audiences whose needs and interests may be met through BI plans. These distinctions represent a range of different types of community engaged scholarship (e.g., public information network, community-campus partnership, K-12 schools’ partnerships). Finally, researchers found the BI rubric useful in evaluating and developing their own BI plans as well as their role in panels to ultimately strengthen the field of funded BI work. 

Research development professionals at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln (UNL) used the Center for Advancing Research Impact in Society (ARIS) Broader Impacts (BI) Toolkit with early-career faculty preparing grant proposals for the National Science Foundation’s Faculty Early Career Development Program (CAREER). This prestigious career-development funding mechanism places unique emphasis on the integration of research and education, positioning awardees to enhance the impact of their research programs through education initiatives like curriculum development, outreach, and community engagement. However, many early-career faculty lack experience or training to develop robust education plans that are thoughtfully aligned with and responsive to their research. With the aim of developing practical ways to help faculty gain these skills, the study team used mixed methods to analyze the integration of research and education in CAREER proposals submitted by UNL faculty. These methods included using the ARIS BI Rubric to evaluate the proposals, convening two panel review discussions, and interviewing principal investigators about their ARIS BI Toolkit use and approach to research-education integration. Case study findings reveal that while effective and impactful integration can take many forms, early-career faculty and those who support them can utilize the ARIS BI Toolkit strategically to strengthen this aspect of grant proposals, positioning faculty to write well-integrated CAREER proposals and potentially contributing to long-term grant-writing and research program success. 

Climate change is affecting Polar Regions at a greater rate than other parts of the planet and bringing information about Polar Regions to learners in informal settings is an integral part of increasing polar literacy. Inspired by escape rooms and mystery-themed materials that have increased in popularity over recent years and necessitated by disruptions during the pandemic, the Arctic Mystery engaged youth in small groups by challenging them to work together to make claims based on evidence and reasoning. This CSI-style kit features Arctic ecology, geography, and local connections as well as scientific data, research materials, and field research as content through which youth solve the mystery of a scientist’s disappearance. Preliminary results from virtual user-testing indicate high engagement throughout the six-session program. Further testing is required to determine whether the kit is associated with gains in self-reported scientific identity, fascination in science, and valuing science. The kit’s versatile format may be successful in other formats, including asynchronous and in-person settings. 

We compared 236 geoscience instructors’ histories of professional development (PD) participation with classroom observations using the Reformed Teaching Observation Protocol (RTOP) that describe undergraduate classes as Student-Centered (score ≥ 50), Transitional (score 31–49) or Teacher-Centered (score ≤ 30). Instructors who attended PD (n = 111) have higher average RTOP scores (44.5 vs. 34.2) and are more frequently observed teaching Student-Centered classes (33% vs. 13%) than instructors with no PD (p < 0.001). Instructors who attended PD that is topically-aligned with content taught during the classroom observation are likely to have RTOP scores that are higher by 13.5 points (p < 0.0001), and are 5.6 times more likely to teach a Student-Centered class than instructors without topically-aligned PD. Comparable odds of teaching Student-Centered classes (5.8x) occur for instructors who attended two topical PD events but were observed teaching a different topic. Models suggest that instructors with at least 24 h of PD are significantly more likely to teach a Student-Centered class than instructors with fewer hours. Our results highlight the effectiveness of discipline-specific PD in impacting teaching practices, and the importance of attending more than one such PD event to aid transfer of learning.