1. Russell Pimmel, Roger Seals and Stephanie Beard

2.  Spring 2010, NSF/DUE Engineering PDs initiate IWBW Series; Spring 2011-CS PDs join  Overall goals of the IWBW Series ◦ improve the quality and quantity of proposals submitted to the TUES Program ◦ Improve effectiveness and impact of TUES projects ◦ Movement to IWB approach –improce cost and reach

3.  Annual webinar (IWBW) series consists of 16 2-hour webinars on 4 different subjects  Subjects and content may vary from year to year  Invitations to participate sent via email to Engineering Deans and Associate Deans; CCLI/TUES ENG/CS Awardees; and CS Department Chairs

4.  Materials and Workshops presented by ENG and CS PDs- adaptations from earlier facto to face  Logistical support for the workshops provided via NSF sponsored projects at LSU A series of grants from NSF  Workshops presented over Internet using commercially available software

5.  WebEx (Fall 2009 only) ◦ NSF-controlled ◦ Conference telephone audio (participant muting)  GoToWebinar ◦ PI-controlled (Program Technoical Coor) ◦ VoIP and/or conference telephone (PI muting) ◦ Registration scheme and “work-around” ◦ Periodic but infrequent audio distortion/feedback ◦ Local facilitation  Blackboard Collaborate (waite till end) ◦ Virtual groups ◦ Enhanced recording capabilities

6.  Registration is via a website  Institutional responsibilities ◦ Provide local facilitator ◦ Make arrangements for facilities ◦ Promote participation  Directed at ENG and CS faculty but…(necessary?) ◦ Institutions free to invite faculty, students and staff from all STEM disciplines

7.  Overview of NSF R&D Programs with Emphasis on TUES Program  Proposal Writing Strategies and Reviewer Feedback  Project Evaluation  Making an Impact: Building Transportable and Sustainable Projects

8.  Learning must build on prior knowledge ◦ Some knowledge correct ◦ Some knowledge incorrect – Misconceptions  Learning is ◦ Connecting new knowledge to prior knowledge ◦ Correcting misconceptions  Learning requires engagement ◦ Actively recalling prior knowledge ◦ Sharing new knowledge ◦ Forming a new understanding 8

9.  Effective learning activities ◦ Recall prior knowledge -- actively, explicitly ◦ Connect new concepts to existing ones ◦ Challenge and alter misconceptions  Active & collaborative processes ◦ Think individually ◦ Share with partner ◦ Report to local and virtual groups ◦ Learn from program directors’ responses 9

10.  Goal  Expected Outcomes  Think-Pair-Share-Report Activity  PD Responses

11. The session will enable you to collaborate more effectively with evaluation experts in preparing credible and comprehensive project evaluation plans …. it will not make you an evaluation expert. 11

12. After the session, participants should be able to:  Be able to write importance of goals, outcomes, and questions in the evaluation process ◦ Cognitive and affective outcomes  Describe several types of evaluation tools ◦ Advantages, limitations, and appropriateness  Discuss data interpretation issues ◦ Variability, alternative explanations  Develop an evaluation plan in collaboration with an evaluator ◦ Outline a first draft of an evaluation plan 12

13.  Write expected measurable outcomes for each of the following goals: ◦ Improve the students’ understanding of the fundamental concepts in statics (cognitive) ◦ Improve the students’ self confidence (affective)  Long Exercise ---- 6 min ◦ Think individually -------- ~2 min ◦ Share with a partner ----- ~2 min ◦ Report in local group ---- ~2 min  Watch time and reconvene after 6 min  Use THINK time to think – no discussion, Selected local facilitators report to virtual group ” 13

14. Understanding of the fundamentals ◦ By the end of the class, 70% of the students will be able to:  Correctly draw freebody diagrams of 2D truss structures  Correctly write Newton’s laws when given a FBD  Describe the effects on member force when one angle in a 2D truss is changed Self-Confidence ◦ By the end of the semester:  30% of the class volunteers to show the solution to any homework problem on the board  Self reported test anxiety reduces to 50% of the initial amount  80% will say the class was easier than they expected it would be  50% report they are excited about taking the follow-on course 14 Handout 4

15. delete  Feedback based on responses from PDs (presenters and non-presenters)  Does not represent an official NSF position

16.  Several Q&A segments included  Handouts provided to local facilitators for distribution during workshop  Assessment- Likert scale, open-ended and demographic questions  Presentations made available for downloading at conclusion of workshop www.nsflsu.com (Feel free to download any presentations of interest)

17.  Establishing reliable 2-way communications  Institutional filtering of emailed logon instructions  Individual vs. group participation  Production of workshop video-casts  Reaching the “right” institutional rep who will take the necessary steps  Representative completion of assessment surveys  Assessment of the impacts of the workshop series

18.  Data see notes

19.  IWBWs can be an efficient and cost-effective means of transmitting content and achieving learning outcomes in faculty development Anecdotally, IWBWs appear to be as effective as face-to-face workshops  The available Internet conferencing software is generally user friendly and reasonably inexpensive (combine)  Internet conferencing software provides another tool for dissemination of project results- currently, it seems under utilized

20. If you are interested in this approach, see paper which includes…  A brief literature survey of virtual approaches to faculty development  Assessment survey results for perceived achievement of expected outcomes  Participant demographic data  Institutional demographic data  Go to website