Checking the Virtues of Going for a STEP Grant using Minutes from November 30, 2007

There are two main items covered by this file. 

  1. Proposing a meeting that follows the suggestion of Dave for going for a STEP Proposal:
  2. Minutes from Nov 30, 2007 that will help structure this upcoming meeting:
I. Proposing a meeting that follows the suggestion of Dave for going for a STEP Proposal:

Here are some guidelines I suggest.
  1. Specific discussion by each member of the seminar as to what appeals to, or disheartens, them on two issues:
  2. That the meeting be long enough to include such discussions (like 1 1/2 hours; maybe a dinner meeting, so everyone can stay for the meeting)
  3. Proposal of names and reasons for bringing particular people on campus into a later meeting (or discussion) to further the directions of #2.
For #3, we need to say specifically what we are doing so we can tell someone named in #3 why they would be valuable/necessary.  Getting specific people aboard is our first action item. Even more, we need an action item, and soon. 

Our meetings – where Dave has been present for just the first part – have been very specific about the relation between mathematics and science. This makes sense because all three of us (Christy, Mark,  and Mike) spoke of the precise intertwining of mathematics, engineering and physics. Here is a piece of our respective experience brought out at the meetings:
So, to give shape to the discussion proposed at for this meeting, statements of Dave's appear from his previous e-mail. Questions follow these that might come up at the proposed meeting. The statement are directly from Dave's message, numbered as Statement 1, Statement 2, etc.

Statement 1: "First, it is my thought that we do not want to focus on the calculus class alone. Many of our students may need precursor classes before even getting to the calculus class that is most likely required for most math/science majors.  If we examine the demographics of our students (as opposed to UCI), I think we will see a significant need for improvements to our lower-level math classes.  I believe that incorporating a series of classes that help propel a student successfully forward in math concepts may be a good idea." 

Response to Statement 1: Two of the four people on the seminar are mathematicians. Why was UCI brought into this statement? The example of UCI brought up in our discussions was how WebWorks (mastery learning technology) was used to allow one person to handle courses before calculus for hundreds of students. The experience at UCI was exactly what Dave was asking for. Also, in the years after its introduction, Webworks was used by Science teachers at UCI to produce success for many more students in introductory science courses, documented in a talk Mike gave on campus.

Two of the four people on the seminar are mathematicians with physics/engineering training. They know it is unlikely that a student who needs pre-algebra will even want to do science. Some students who need pre-calculus training may manage to like and handle science, yet it is rare. Is Dave's statement suggesting we must turn students who require pre-calculus training into scientists?

Statement 2: "We need to think through the process of what the students need, not focus on what we can provide with existing technology and programming."

Response to Statement 2: Two of the four people on the seminar believe that assessment holds the key to understanding MSU-B students. The phrase "existing technology and programming" does not speak in detail to the seminar discussions on assessment, and it sounds dismissive, as if the seminar spoke blandly of "technology and programming." Does Dave have examples of the "technology and programming" other projects use, so we can compare those with our discussions? Section II.2. from our last seminar meeting (after Dave left) is a brief summary what we mean by technology.

Statement 3: "We need to allow individual schools to develop programs that will help that school increase majors in STEM fields.  There are many components to enhancing the student experience, and the use of the computer technologies is one of those components ..."  [This comes with ] "Finally, I don't want to sound like a naysayer; however, the general mood around campus is rather negative and difficult at present.  Getting a large-scale involvement and commitment to a project like we are developing may be difficult.  It may work to get a few key people on board with us  but we have to be very careful that our ideas incorporate all of the appropriate parties early on.  I have heard so many stories from faculty that describe a feeling of helplessness due to poor communications from the administration."

Response to the combination of the two parts of Statement 3: The seminar has discussed the difficulty of involving people on campus, though it wasn't said so negatively as is Statement 3. That is why we came to this conclusion: Start with something that is sure to be successful in getting students through a set of core courses. That is why the surprisingly positive experience at UCI came up.

Further, since you can't do much science without calculus, that is why pre-calculus and calculus was used. Also, the mathematics department is already inundated with low level courses. You can't ask the present faculty in any subject to teach more. Unless the adminstration is willing to hire more people, where would extra teaching power come from, except from deft use of the technology we are discussing? That technology allows multiplying feedback so that instructors do much less grading. Grading and student feedback – the first element of assessment – is what inundates instructors. Do people know that? Faculty do.

Finally, three people in the seminar thought that getting others on the campus to do actual writing on the proposal would be difficult. That is also Mike's experience with the grants he has gotten. One way in that direction is to interview people in person in their offices. Then, write it up yourself for inclusion in the proposal.

Statement 4: "As we continue to develop our ideas, I think the best direction is to address the total student concept.  The use of technology is one aspect.  Additional student services (e.g., additional tutoring, social support interventions, academic support services and remedial classes, etc.) have been pretty standard parts of highly rated STEP proposals. Also required is strong university support that demonstrates that the program will be integrated into the standard operations of the university.  This will have to be developed and it is not merely asking the right questions of an administrator. "

Response to Statement 4: What is "the total student concept?" Three of us thought you, Dave, were going to bring in precise statements about "Additional Student Services," at this time, to this meeting.

Is it possible to get a STEP proposal in the negative atmosphere you describe in Statement 3? Maybe you say, "YES!" if we work hard enough. On the other hand, you are describing an atmosphere were it is hard to get others to work in such a direction "due to poor communications from the administration." At the talk Mike gave two years ago – Dave, was there – Janie Park asked Matt Benequista (in front of the whole group of 59 people – my son counted) to start in the direction of what my talk suggested about using WebWorks and IQs. Matt's response, "What would I get for that?"

Aren't most faculty here going to ask that in private? Three people on this seminar are curricular motivated. Those people also happen to be much more service oriented than most of MSU-B faculty. Aren't we service oriented enough?

Statement 5: "We need to develop (and we have time to do this) a comprehensive approach to increasing math/science majors at MSU-B.  We need to involve more members of the science and math departments.  We need to involve Deans.  We need to build a case for a focused push to increase math/science majors.  And, perhaps most importantly, we need to develop the data that supports our directions and provides the evidence that our proposed program/interventions will succeed."

Response to Statement 5:  Our seminar meetings have been very specific on approach specific faculty, departments and Deans. On the other hand, we have taken the approach that we will approach one person at a time. It's a tiny campus, with a lot of politics. We have little political power. We thought approaching one person at a time, and getting their specific approaches, was a good idea, agreeing with many of your statements. Was that wrong?

Mike has suggested at the seminar that STEP will be a hard step for us. The success rate of proposals to NSF has never been especially high.

In that direction, Mike has also suggested starting smaller, and directed toward the actual expertise of the people on this committee. Is that wrong?

II. Minutes from mtg Nov 30, 2007 that will help structure this upcoming meeting:

II.1. Researching MSU-B Students:

Stacy K has been contacted about retention
Ms. Gwenn Braun (academic support system) was contacted

We haven't yet found out if these two people can help us understand the possibility of gathering/collecting data on MSU-B students. Questions: – access to student records directly/indirectly; we need this data – identify info we need to create profile and write the proposal – will we have access to ACT or SAT – identify key courses; we have the expertise in math/science areas – academic advising

STEP grant is geared toward producing Math/Science majors – increase students in Math and/or Science discipline --cross-curricular emphasis

MSUB has hired Director of eLearning Hub – Tim Tirrell. Christy will be working closely with Tim

II.2. Overall Technology Tool:

Reports are important for every activity. One advantage of using technology is that text-based material – for example, gathered from seminar people  interacting with faculty, departments and Deans – can  be manipulated to produce automated reports.  

For example, WebWorks and I(nteractive) Q(uestionnaire)s,  are not multi-media. The seminar discussed how to show the faculty what non-multimedia technology could do for them, without their needing to ever use the technology directly themselves.

First stage: Transformational Learning theory can be incorporated into the process.

– one on one communication from one of our seminar with faculty, to discuss problems they have with finding success with students. This listening stage asks how it would help if students were able to get more time from faculty.

Second stage: Discuss with faculty what they could do with more info on their students. What things about their students – background, feelings of competence, desires to accomplish – faculty would find helpful to know. This is where we would show faculty how technology like WebWorks and IQs would produce such information.

Third stage: Develop IQ's together with an instructor/expert. Show the faculty how to revamp exam questions to parse what aspects of critical/higher order thinking skills that have been stymied from current questioning. In this way, the instructor sees what kind of things they (instructors) can do with technology; even though they may never program themselves.

II.3. Another proposal from NSF came up:

http://www.nsf.gov/funding/pgm_summ.jsp?pims_id=503233 Workforce Program in the Mathematical Sciences Among intermediate goals to this end are improvements in recruitment, retention, education, and placement of trainees in the mathematical sciences.