Search for: All records

The preparation of future scientists, the technical workforce, and informed citizens will require continued transformation to the ways we approach STEM teaching and learning. Undergraduate STEM education is rapidly emerging as a focus of faculty scholarship, but new models for reform need to be developed and tested to accelerate changes in teaching practices. This paper describes a flexible, participant-driven, multi-phase, collaborative approach to developing open educational resources (OERs) that leverages linked communities of practice (CoPs). Equally valuable, our framework for development, adaptation, dissemination, and validation of OERs provides a platform for faculty professional development and sustained support through cooperative mentoring. The three linked CoPs in the framework include incubators for the creation of initial OERs, Faculty Mentoring Networks (FMNs) for the implementation and adaptation of OERs for classroom use, and Education Research Communities to assess the effectiveness of the OERs. The CoPs create numerous benefits for participating faculty, including the ability to collaborate in the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL) through scholarly publication of OERs and their assessment; ongoing mentorship in implementation of OERs in the classroom; and development of educational leadership skills and experience. Thus, the three CoPs synergize with one another to build and sustain capacity through providing vetted, up-to-date educational resources, as well as ongoing training and support for faculty. While we developed this approach for the rapidly changing field of bioinformatics, the linked CoP framework will have utility for STEM education reform more broadly and disciplines beyond STEM.

 

You develop a plan for testing the prototype for a new learning strategy in your class or across institutions. How can you ensure that your plan is clearly understood by reviewers and the managing NSF program officer? What goes through the reviewer's mind once a proposal is submitted? What prompts one proposal to be recommended for funding but another declined? Close examination of the panel review process can inform proposal writing and ensure that reviewers will understand an idea, identify its merit, and value a PI's vision of how the work will broaden participation in STEM education. This workshop steps through the NSF proposal review process from submission of proposal to award or decline, touching on NSF intellectual merit and broader impact criteria, mapping the project pipeline to appropriate evaluation. Participants gain insight into writing a good review and improving one's own proposal writing. For further information and travel support see: https://people.cs.clemson.edu/~etkraem/UPCSEd/. Laptops recommended. 

You develop the prototype for a new learning strategy, and want to test it in class or across institutions. You identify an NSF program that supports proposals for the idea, and then what? What goes through the minds of reviewers once a proposal is submitted? What prompts one proposal to be recommended for funding while another is declined? Close examination of the panel review process can inform proposal writing and ensure that reviewers will understand a PI’s idea, identify its merit, and value a PI’s vision of how the work will broaden participation in STEM education. This workshop steps through the NSF proposal review process from submission of a proposal to award or decline, touching on elements of a good review, NSF intellectual merit and broader impact criteria, elements of a good proposal, and volunteering to review proposals. Participants gain insight into writing a good review and improving one’s own proposal writing. The interactive workshop leads participants through each topic by introducing related issues, engaging participants in group exercises designed to explore and share their understanding of the issues, and providing “expert” opinion on these issues. Examples include funded and non-funded projects and a Top Ten List of Do’s and Don’ts. One night of lodging and workshop registration fees will be covered by an NSF grant for the first 25 participants who submit their own one-page proposal summary to the organizers one month prior to the workshop and participate fully in the workshop. For further information see - https://people.cs.clemson.edu/~etkraem/UPCSEd/ 

The lack of an instructional definition of bioinformatics delays its effective integration into biology coursework. Using an iterative process, our team of biologists, a mathematician/computer scientist, and a bioinformatician together with an educational evaluation and assessment specialist, developed an instructional definition of the discipline: Bioinformatics is “an interdisciplinary field that is concerned with the development and application of algorithms that analyze biological data to investigate the structure and function of biological polymers and their relationships to living systems.” The field is defined in terms of its two primary foundational disciplines, biology and computer science, and its interdisciplinary nature. At the same time, we also created a rubric for assessing open‐ended responses to a prompt about what bioinformatics is and how it is used. The rubric has been shown to be reliable in successive rounds of testing using both common percent agreement (89.7%) and intraclass correlation coefficient (0.620) calculations. We offer the definition and rubric to life sciences instructors to help further integrate bioinformatics into biology instruction, as well as for fostering further educational research projects.

 

While it is essential for life science students to be trained in modern techniques and approaches, rapidly developing, interdisciplinary fields such as bioinformatics present distinct challenges to undergraduate educators. In particular, many educators lack training in new fields, and high‐quality teaching and learning materials may be sparse. To address this challenge with respect to bioinformatics, the Network for the Integration of Bioinformatics into Life Science Education (NIBLSE), in partnership with Quantitative Undergraduate Biology Education and Synthesis (QUBES), developed incubators, a novel collaborative process for the development of open educational resources (OER). Incubators are short‐term, online communities that refine unpublished teaching lessons into more polished and widely usable learning resources. The resulting products are published and made freely available in the NIBLSE Resource Collection, providing recognition of scholarly work by incubator participants. In addition to producing accessible, high‐quality resources, incubators also provide opportunities for faculty development. Because participants are intentionally chosen to represent a range of expertise in bioinformatics and pedagogy, incubators also build professional connections among educators with diverse backgrounds and perspectives and promote the discussion of practical issues involved in deploying a resource in the classroom. Here we describe the incubator process and provide examples of beneficial outcomes. Our experience indicates that incubators are a low cost, short‐term, flexible method for the development of OERs and professional community that could be adapted to a variety of disciplinary and pedagogical contexts.