the independent colleges office - ico-dc.com 2016 ico liaison meeting the independent colleges...

ICO

2016 ICO LIAISON MEETING

The Independent Colleges Office

MAA Carriage HouseWashington, DC

September 28 - 30, 2016

Challenges and Opportunities for Nudging Campuses toward

Transformative and Sustainable Change

2016 ICO Liaison Meeting Challenges and Opportunities for Nudging Campuses toward Transformative and Sustainable Change

n 1

Summary Agenda

nWednesday, September 28

12:00 p.m. Registration

12:00 p.m. Lunch: NSF Taking a Systemic Approach to Strengthening Undergraduate STEM Education: Making an

Impact and Learning from Implementation and Assessment

1:15 p.m. Plenary Session I: NSFKeeping Up-to-date on the Nuts and Bolts of NSF Processes and Expectations for those

Responsible for Preparing and Submitting Proposals and Following-up on Funded Projects

2:15 p.m. Plenary Session II: IIE/FulbrightFunding Programs: Opportunities for Connecting the Dots between Faculty and

Curricular Renewal and the World Beyond the Campus

3:00 p.m. Break

3:15 p.m. Plenary Session III: AAC&UStrengthening Liberal Education and Inclusive Excellence in a Climate of Skepticism:

Policy, Practice, and Advocacy

4:30 p.m. ICO Conversation I

5:30 p.m. Happy Hour at The Riggsby

Thursday, September 29

8:00 a.m. Breakfast & ICO Conversation II

8:45 a.m. Plenary Session IV: NSFThe Implications of the ADVANCE Program Both for Advancing Women and Transforming

Institutional Culture for Learning Science

10:00 a.m. Break

10:45 a.m. Plenary Session V: NSFOpportunities and Challenges within NSF’s Directorate for Education and Human

Resources— Now and into the Future

12:00 p.m. Lunch

1:15 p.m. Plenary Session VI: NSFWhat Makes a Competitive Proposal to the NSF MRI Program—Now and into the Future

2:15 p.m. Break

2:30 p.m. Plenary Session VII: HHMITaking a Systemic Approach to Inclusive Excellence: Where We Are and What Next?

3:30 p.m. Break

Washington, DCSeptember 28 – 30, 2016

2 n

3:45 p.m. Plenary Session VIII: NEHHumanities Connections: Opportunities for Connecting between Humanities Faculty and

Their Colleagues on New Curricula, New Pedagogies

5:00 p.m. Sessions Conclude: Evening on your ownSuggested activity - The Phillips Collection: Phillips after 5 (1600 21st Street NW)http://www.phillipscollection.org/

Friday, September 30

8:00 a.m. Breakfast & ICO Conversation IIIFacing the Future: Are We Asking the Right Questions?

8:45 a.m. Plenary Session IX: NSFA Conversation About the Evolution of DUE Programs Toward Institutional Change and

What We are Learning from the Community

9:45 a.m. Break

10:00 a.m. Plenary Session X: NIHTeam Science: What it is and the Implications for the Select Liberal Arts College

11:00 a.m. Closing RemarksPersonal Reflections: Take-home Questions and “A-ha” Ideas

11:30 a.m. Meeting Concludes

The power of the unaided individual mind is highly overrated. Much human creativity is social, arising from activities that take place in a social context in which interaction with other people and the artifacts that embody collective knowledge are essential contributors. Social creativity is not a luxury but a necessity to address the problems faced by societies in the 21st century. Our research has focused specifically on complex design problems requiring the contributions of many stakeholders. These stakeholders come from many different backgrounds, requiring cultural and epistemological pluralism to make all voices heard.

The analysis of creative people and creative objects has demonstrated that most scientific and artistic innovations emerge from joint thinking, passionate conversations, and shared struggles among different people, emphasizing the importance of the social dimension of creativity.

— Gerhard Fischer. “Social Creativity: Making All Voices Heard.” 2005. http://l3d.cs.colorado. edu/~gerhard/papers/social-creativity-hcii-2005.pdf

n 3


Facilitator: � Ann E. Austin

Program Director, DUE/EHRNational Science FoundationProfessor, Higher, Adult, and Lifelong EducationAssociate Dean for Research, College of EducationAssistant Provost for Faculty Development/Career PathsMichigan State University

Notes:

Lunch: NSF

nTAKING A SYSTEMIC APPROACH TO STRENGTHENING UNDERGRADUATE

STEM EDUCATION: MAKING AN IMPACT AND LEARNING FROM IMPLEMENTATION AND ASSESSMENT

Time: 12:00 – 1:00 p.m. DaTe: WeDnesDay, sepTember 28

New ApproAches to evAluAtioN ANd AssessmeNt

In addition to [the] longstanding inputs and processes, this Strategic Plan establishes a commitment to innovation and experimentation to strengthen the assessment process:

n New Strategic Review (SR): A new assessment process has been established in response to the GPRA Modernization Act of 2010. Its implementation is described in OMB Circular A-11, Part 6. The new process, the Strategic Review (SR), is based on an agency-level self-assessment of each strategic objective in this plan. A report of the annual SR will be submitted to OMB as part of the annual budget process.

n NSF Evaluation Initiative: The Administration has emphasized the need to use evidence-based assessment methodology in budget, management, and policy decisions to make government work effectively. In response, NSF has launched the NSF Evaluation Initiative to expand the agency’s capability in the area of evidence-based evaluation. The effort will be staffed to carry out an agency-wide coordination of data gathering and development of evaluation capabilities, and to conduct pilots for selected programs.

— Investing in Science, Engineering, and Education for the Nation’s Future - National Science Foundation Strategic Plan for 2014-2018. http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2014/nsf14043/nsf14043.pdf

Best ideA to tAke home:

key ideA to shAre with colleAgues:


4 n

Facilitator: � Beth Strausser

Policy SpecialistNational Science Foundation

Notes:

Plenary Session I: NSF

nKEEPING UP-TO-DATE ON THE NUTS AND BOLTS OF NSF PROCESSES AND

EXPECTATIONS FOR THOSE RESPONSIBLE FOR PREPARING, SUBMITTING PROPOSALS AND FOLLOWING UP ON FUNDED PROJECTS


whAt does “iN the AggregAte” meAN iN the secoNd merit review

priNciple?

The second merit review principle states, “NSF projects, in the aggregate, should contribute more broadly to achieving societal goals. These ‘Broader Impacts’ activities may be accomplished through the research itself, through activities that are directly related to specific research projects, or through activities that are supported by, but are complementary to, the project.”

Both the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010 and the NSF Strategic Plan emphasize the value of broader impacts of scientific research, beyond the intrinsic importance of advancing scientific knowledge. NSF recognizes that broader impacts activities may vary from project to project. Such activities may be tied to scientific outcomes inherent to the research or societal outcomes that are complementary to the project. NSF also recognizes that individual projects by themselves are not likely to achieve societal goals. However, there is strength in numbers, and so in the aggregate, NSF projects that address similar goals should help make a difference in achieving those goals. Thus, NSF programs, divisions, and directorates/offices must ensure that their portfolios of funded projects fulfill this principle.

— http://www.nsf.gov/bfa/dias/policy/merit_review/mrfaqs.jsp



n 5


Facilitators: � Lisa Hendricks

Regional Lead, Sub-Saharan Africa / Middle East and North AfricaFulbright U.S. Scholar ProgramCouncil for International Exchange of Scholars (CIES)Institute of International Education (IIE)

Notes:

Plenary Session II: IIE/Fulbright

nFUNDING PROGRAMS: OPPORTUNITIES FOR THE CONNECTING

THE DOTS BETWEEN FACULTY AND CURRICULAR RENEWAL AND THE WORLD BEYOND THE CAMPUS


core FulBright u.s. scholAr progrAm

The Core Fulbright Scholar Program offers over 500 teaching, research or combination teaching/research awards in over 125 countries. Opportunities are available for college and university faculty and administrators as well as for professionals, artists, journalists, scientists, lawyers, independent scholars and many others. In addition to several new program models designed to meet the changing needs of U.S. academics and professionals, Fulbright is offering more opportunities for flexible, multi-country grants.

FAculty developmeNt progrAms

Sponsored by the U.S. Department of State, the Fulbright Visiting Scholar Program for Iraq, and the Fulbright Junior Faculty Development Programs for Egypt, Lebanon, and Tunisia are designed to bring junior scholars to U.S. host institutions for faculty development, mentoring, and cultural exchange activities. The intent of these 10-week programs is to equip scholars with the knowledge and tools needed to build the capacity of their home institutions and to advance the education of future generations. In addition, it lays the foundation for junior scholars and their U.S. hosts to develop long-term institutional relationships and to identify areas of cooperation that can be sustained beyond the grant period.

— http://www.cies.org/

3:00 p.m.: Break




6 n



Facilitators: � Debra Humphreys

Senior Vice President, Academic Planning and Public EngagementAssociation of American Colleges & Universities (AAC&U)Incoming Vice President of Strategic Engagement Lumina Foundation

Notes:

Plenary Session III: AAC&U

nSTRENGTHENING LIBERAL EDUCATION AND INCLUSIVE EXCELLENCE

IN A CLIMATE OF SKEPTICISM: POLICY, PRACTICE, AND ADVOCACYTime: 3:15 – 4:30 p.m. DaTe: WeDnesDay, sepTember 28

For at least two decades, educators, employers and policymakers have confronted an increasingly urgent global hunger for talent—a demand for better-educated workers and more enlightened citizens. Higher education institutions and various oversight entities at the state and federal levels have attempted to respond to this rising demand for education by focusing on policies and practices that support increased graduation rates and improve efficiency.

These considerable efforts notwith-standing, however, current criticism of higher education in general has continued and, most recently, has been directed particularly at the issue of student employability: “whether colleges are graduating students with the skills they need to get jobs and repay their loans.” Executive actions announced in November 2015 clarified such expectations explicitly and brought them to bear on the accrediting organizations charged with assuring the quality of higher education institutions eligible to receive federal student aid. Under Secretary of Education Ted Mitchell, quoted in Inside Higher Ed, described the actions as one way of saying to accreditors “‘we’re paying attention to this with renewed vigor and that it’s going to matter’ whether they focus more intently on student outcomes.”

— Debra Humphreys and Paul L. Gaston. “Quality Assurance and Accreditation in Challenging Times: Examining Priorities and Proposed Reforms.” AAC&U Liberal Education. Fall/Winter 2016, Vol. 101/102, No. 4/1.

Resource: Pages 21 - 22

n 7


ICO Conversation I

nCONNECTING THESE AFTERNOON DISCUSSIONS INTO

TAKE-HOME MESSAGES FOR OUR COLLEAGUESTime: 4:30 – 5:00 p.m. DaTe: WeDnesDay, sepTember 28

QuestioNs to pursue

“A-hA” ideA

5:30 p.m.: ICO Happy Hour: The Riggsby, 1731 New Hampshire Ave NW


8 n

Breakfast: ICO Conversation II

nHOW (WHY) TO THINK LIKE SHAKESPEARETime: 8:00 – 8:45 a.m. DaTe: ThursDay, sepTember 29

my persoNAl “A-hA”

my “A-hA” to tAke BAck to cAmpus

You’ve been cheated of your birthright: a complete education. In the words of Martin Luther King Jr. (at your age of 18), a “complete education” gives “not only power of concentration, but worthy objectives upon which to concentrate.”But now your education is in your own hands. And my advice is: Don’t let yourself be cheated anymore, and do not cheat yourself. Take advantage of the autonomy and opportunities that college permits by approaching it in the spirit of the 16th century. You’ll become capable of a level of precision, inventiveness, and empathy worthy to be called Shakespearean.

... this system somehow managed to nurture world-shifting thinkers, including those who launched the Scientific Revolution. This education fostered some of the very habits of mind endorsed by both the National Education Association and the Partnership for 21st Century Learning: critical thinking; clear communication; collaboration; and creativity. (To these “4Cs,” I would add “curiosity.”) Given that your own education has fallen far short of those laudable goals, I urge you to reconsider Shakespeare’s intellectual formation: that is, not what he purportedly thought — about law or love or leadership — but how he thought. An apparently rigid educational system could, paradoxically, induce liberated thinking.

— Scott L. Newstok. “How to Think Like Shakespeare.” The Chronicle of Higher Education. August 29, 2016.

n 9




Facilitator: � Jessie A. DeAro

Program Officer, ADVANCE National Science Foundation

Notes:

Plenary Session IV: NSF

nTHE IMPLICATIONS OF THE ADVANCE PROGRAM BOTH FOR ADVANCING WOMEN AND TRANSFORMING INSTITUTIONAL

CULTURE FOR LEARNING SCIENCETime: 8:45 – 10:00 a.m. DaTe: ThursDay, sepTember 29

The goals of the ADVANCE program are (1) to develop systemic approaches to increase the representation and advancement of women in academic STEM[1] careers; (2) to develop innovative and sustainable ways to promote gender equity that involve both men and women in the STEM academic workforce; and (3) to contribute to the research knowledge base on gender equity and the intersection of gender and other identities in STEM academic careers. The ADVANCE program contributes to the development of a more diverse science and engineering workforce because of the focus on equity for STEM academic faculty who are educating, training, and mentoring undergraduate and graduate students and postdoctoral scholars.

There are three program tracks. All projects are expected to build on prior ADVANCE work and gender equity research and literature to broaden the implementation of organizational and systemic strategies to foster gender equity in STEM academic careers. All ADVANCE proposals are expected to recognize that gender does not exist in isolation from other characteristics, such as race/ethnicity, disability status, sexual orientation, foreign-born and foreign-trained status, faculty appointment type, etc., and should offer strategies to promote gender equity for all faculty:

n The Institutional Transformation (IT) track

n The Adaptation track n The Partnership track.

— http://www.nsf.gov/funding/pgm_summ.jsp?pims_id=5383



10 n

Facilitator: � Joan Ferrini-Mundy

Assistant Director, Education and Human Resources (EHR) National Science Foundation

Notes:

ABout educAtioN ANd humAN resources (ehr)

The mission of EHR is to achieve excellence in U.S. science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) education at all levels and in all settings (both formal and informal) in order to support the development of a diverse and well-prepared workforce of scientists, technicians, engineers, mathematicians and educators and a well-informed citizenry that have access to the ideas and tools of science and engineering. The purpose of these activities is to enhance the quality of life of all citizens and the health, prosperity, welfare and security of the nation.

1. Prepare the next generation of STEM professionals and attract and retain more Americans to STEM careers.

2. Develop a robust research community that can conduct rigorous research and evaluation that will support excellence in STEM education and that integrates research and education.

3. Increase the technological, scientific and quantitative literacy of all Americans so that they can exercise responsible citizenship and live productive lives in an increasingly technological society.

4. Broaden participation (individuals, geographic regions, types of institutions, STEM disciplines) and close achievement gaps in all STEM fields.

— https://www.nsf.gov/ehr/about.jsp

Lunch: 12:00 p.m.

Plenary Session V: NSF

nOPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES WITHIN NSF’S DIRECTORATE FOR EDUCATION AND HUMAN RESOURCES—NOW AND INTO THE FUTURE

Time: 10:45 a.m. – 12:00 p.m. DaTe: ThursDay, sepTember 29



n 11


Plenary Session VI: NSF

nWHAT MAKES A COMPETITIVE PROPOSAL TO THE NSF MRI

PROGRAM—NOW AND INTO THE FUTURE Time: 1:15 – 2:15 p.m. DaTe: ThursDay, sepTember 29

The MRI program assists in the acquisition or development of major research instrumentation that is, in general, too costly or not appropriate for support through other NSF programs. An instrument acquired or developed with support from the MRI program is expected to be operational for regular research use by the end of the award period.

The MRI program does not fund research or education projects, including research or education projects that use an instrument acquired or developed with support from the program. The program does not support the operation and maintenance of facilities or centers. The MRI program does not support requests for general purpose ancillary laboratory equipment or multiple instruments that serve to outfit a laboratory or research environment. The MRI program also does not support the acquisition or development of instrumentation used primarily for science and engineering education courses.

Proposals to the MRI Program, must be for either acquisition (Track 1) or development (Track 2), of a single, well-integrated instrument.

The MRI program welcomes substantive and meaningful partnerships for instrument development, including partnerships between the academic and private sectors.

— http://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?WT.z_pims_id=5260&ods_key=nsf15504

Facilitator: � Randy Phelps

Staff AssociateNational Science Foundation

Notes:

2:15 p.m.: Break




12 n

Plenary Session VII: HHMI

nTAKING A SYSTEMIC APPROACH TO INCLUSIVE EXCELLENCE:

WHERE WE ARE AND WHAT NEXT?Time: 2:30 – 3:30 p.m. DaTe: ThursDay, sepTember 29

Facilitators: � David J. Asai

Senior Director, Science EducationHoward Hughes Medical Institute

� Susan A. MusanteScience Education Fellow, Undergraduate and Graduate ProgramsHoward Hughes Medical Institute

Notes:

iNclusive excelleNce: eNgAgiNg All studeNts iN scieNce

The Challenge: Widespread and effective science literacy is necessary for the development of future scientists, and it is the best way to build a society whose citizens are prepared to engage in evidence-based dialogue and are empowered in a world dependent on science and technology. Thus, it is important that all students have the opportunity to participate in science in a meaningful way. The undergraduate years are a critical period during which students begin to develop scientific thinking skills in an organized fashion. It is an ideal time to develop the potential of future scientists and increase scientific literacy of all citizens.

The opportunity is large: every year in the United States, about 40 percent of freshmen (more than 1.5 million students) enter college planning to study science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). The opportunity is also short-lived: before they have completed the sophomore year, most of these students switch to non-STEM disciplines. Providing an effective science education experience is further complicated by the dynamic demographics of the nation’s talent pool. A large number of today’s students are arriving at college through remarkably diverse pathways.

— http://www.hhmi.org/sites/default/files/Programs/Inclusive/Inclusive-Excellence-2018-Program-Announcement.pdf



n 13


Plenary Session VIII: NEH

nHUMANITIES CONNECTIONS: OPPORTUNITIES FOR CONNECTING

BETWEEN HUMANITIES FACULTY AND THEIR COLLEAGUES ON NEW CURRICULA, NEW PEDAGOGIES

Time: 3:45 – 5:00 p.m. DaTe: ThursDay, sepTember 29

NEH’s new Humanities Connections program offers grants of up to $100,000 for the development of a series of three or more linked courses focusing on significant humanities content. Humanities Connections projects must involve collaboration between faculty from separate departments or schools within an institution and incorporate meaningful student engagement activities such as undergraduate research projects, opportunities for civic engagement, or a structured experience with community-based, project-based, or site-based learning.

This new grant program is part of the National Endowment for the Humanities’ agency-wide initiative The Common Good: The Humanities in the Public Square, which seeks to demonstrate and enhance the role and significance of the humanities and humanities scholarship in public life.

Linked courses may fulfill general education or core curriculum requirements but could also be designed primarily for students in a particular major or course of study. Special encouragement is given to projects that foster collaboration between humanities faculty and their counterparts in social and natural sciences and pre-service or professional programs in business, engineering, health sciences, law, computer science, and other non-humanities fields.

— http://www.neh.gov/news/press-release/2016-04-29

Facilitator: � Jinlei Persimmon Augst

Senior Program Officer, Division of Education Programs National Endowment for the Humanities

Notes:




14 n

Breakfast & ICO Conversation III

nFACING THE FUTURE: ARE WE ASKING THE RIGHT QUESTIONS?

Time: 8:00 – 8:45 a.m. DaTe:FriDay, sepTember 30

Notes:

A VISION OF INTERDISCIPLINARY RESEARCH 21

physicist (Crick) a half-century ago enriched their insights with evidencefrom x-ray crystallography to imagine the structure of DNA, scientists inevery research area are alert to flashes of understanding from other fieldsthat may illuminate their own specialties. Without sustained and intensediscussion of such possibilities and without special effort by researchers tolearn the languages and cultures of participants in different traditions, thepotential interdisciplinary research might not be realized and might have nolasting effect. Learning a new field is always hard work, and it must becatalyzed by both formal efforts, such as institutional policies that support

TABLE 1-1 Key Conditions for Successful IDR at Academic InstitutionsBased on Committee Interviews with IDR Leaders and Scholars

Aspect Key Conditions

Initial Stages: • Common problem(s) to solveBuilding Bridges • Leadership

• Environment that encourages faculty/researcher collaboration• Establishing a team philosophy• Seed/glue money• Seminars to foster bridges between students, postdoctoral

scholars, and PIs at the same institution• Workshops to foster bridges between investigators at different

institutions• Frequent meetings among team members• Think of the end at the beginning

Supporting • Science and engineering PhDs trained in research administrationthe Project • Support project initiation and team building

• Seamless and flexible funding• Willingness to take risks• Recognize potential for high impact• Involvement of funding organization

Facilities • Physical co-location of researchers• Shared instrumentation• Enhance chance meetings between researchers, such as on-site

cafeterias

Organization/ • Matrix organizationAdministration • Rewards for academic leaders who foster IDR

• Tenure/promotion policies for interdisciplinary work• Utilize experts with breadth and IDR experience for assessment• Professional recognition of successful practitioners of IDR

Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Facilitating Interdisciplinary Research http://www.nap.edu/catalog/11153.html

— Institute of Medicine, National Academy of Sciences, and National Academy of Engineering. Facilitating Interdisciplinary Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2005.

n 15


Plenary Session IX: NSF

nA CONVERSATION ABOUT THE EVOLUTION OF DUE PROGRAMS

TOWARD INSTITUTIONAL CHANGE AND WHAT WE ARE LEARNING FROM THE COMMUNITY

Time: 8:45 – 9:45 a.m. DaTe: FriDay, sepTember 30

Facilitator: � Lee Zia

Division Director (Acting), DUENational Science Foundation

Notes:

ABout uNdergrAduAte educAtioN (due)

Mission: To promote excellence in undergraduate science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education for all students.

The Division accomplishes its mission through the following goals and strategies:

Provide Leadership n Promote cutting-edge efforts, risk-

taking, and continuous innovation in developing new practices and ideas.

Support Curriculum Development n Enable long-term sustainability of

effective activities.

Prepare the Workforce n Promote technological,

quantitative, and scientific literacy. n Support an increase in diversity,

size, and quality of the next generation of STEM professionals who enter the workforce with two- or four-year degrees or who continue their studies in graduate and professional schools.

Foster Connections n Facilitate communication across

disciplinary boundaries.

http://www.nsf.gov/ehr/due/about.jsp




16 n



Plenary Session X: NIH

nTEAM SCIENCE

Time: 10:00 – 11:00 a.m. DaTe: FriDay, sepTember 30

Facilitator: � Kara Hall

Division of Cancer Control and Population SciencesNational Institutes of Health

How do individual factors (e.g., openness to divergent ideas) influence team dynamics (e.g., cohesion), and how, in turn, do both individual factors and team dynamics influence the effectiveness and productivity of science teams?

Notes:

key FeAtures thAt creAte chAlleNges For teAm scieNce

Based on its review of the research evidence, information from team science practitioners, and its own expert judgment, the committee identified seven features that can create challenges for team science. Each feature represents one end of a continuous dimension. For example, large size is one end of the team or group size dimension.

Science teams and larger groups often need to incorporate one or more of these features to address their particular research goals, but the features also pose challenges that are important to carefully manage. The committee returns to these seven features throughout this report in interpreting the implications of the research.

n High diversity of membership. n Deep knowledge integration. n Large size. n Goal misalignment with other

teams. n Permeable boundaries. n Geographic dispersion. n High task interdependence.

— National Research Council. Enhancing the Effectiveness of Team Science. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2015. doi:10.17226/19007.


n 17


Closing remarks

nPERSONAL REFLECTIONS: TAKE-HOME QUESTIONS AND “A-HA” IDEAS

Time: 11:00 – 11:30 p.m. DaTe: FriDay, sepTember 30

Notes:

12:00 p.m.: Meeting concludes

It’s up to you to carve out your place in the work world and know when to change course. And it’s up to you to keep yourself engaged and productive during a work life that may span some 50 years.

To do all of these things well, you’ll need to cultivate a deep understanding of yourself. What are your most valuable strengths and most dangerous weaknesses? Equally important, how do you learn with and work with others? What are your most deeply held values? And in what type of work environment can you make the greatest contribution?

…we will have to learn to manage ourselves. We will have to learn to develop ourselves. We will have to place ourselves where we can make the greatest contribution.

— Peter F. Drucker, Managing Oneself. Best of HBR, 1999.




18 n

n 19


Resources

n

Key Findings from 2015 Survey of Employers— AAC&U’s Liberal Education and America’s Promise (LEAP) Initiative................................................................................................................................................... 21

NSF ADVANCE Program slides......................................................................................................................... 23

Charge to the Committee on Science of Team Science..................................................................................... 30

Team Science Toolkit........................................................................................................................................ 31

Presenter Bios................................................................................................................................................. 33

Participant List................................................................................................................................................ 37

Ideas to carry forward - Tear-out page.............................................................................................................. 41


20 n

n 21


Employer Priorities and Consensus on College Learning Outcomes

Knowledge of Human Cultures and the Physical and Natural World• Knowledge and understanding of democratic institutions and values 87% n

• Broad knowledge in the liberal arts and sciences 78% n

• Intercultural skills and understanding of societies and cultures outside the US 78% n

Intellectual and Practical Skills• Oral communication 85% v• Teamwork skills in diverse groups 83% v• Written communication 82% v• Critical thinking and analytic reasoning 81% v• Complex problem solving 70% v• Information literacy 68% v• Innovation and creativity 65% v• Technological skills 60% v• Quantitative reasoning 56% v

Personal and Social Responsibility• Problem solving in diverse settings 96% n

• Civic knowledge, skills, and judgment essential for contributing to the community and to our democratic society 86% n

• Ethical judgment and decision making 81% v

Integrative and Applied Learning• Applied knowledge in real-world settings 80% v

Key Findings from 2015 Survey of Employers

• It Takes More than a Major: 91% of employers say that a demonstrated capacity to think critically, communi-cate clearly, and solve complex problems is more important than a candidate’s undergraduate major. More than 80% rate critical thinking and analytical reasoning, written and oral communication, teamwork, ethical reasoning, and applied knowledge in real-world settings as “very important.”

• Broad Learning is Expected: 78% of employers agree that, regardless of their major, all college students should acquire broad knowledge in the liberal arts and sciences.

• Students Need Liberal and Applied Learning: Employers strongly endorse educational practices that involve students in active, effortful work. 80% of employers say that it is very important for recent graduates to demonstrate their ability to apply learning in real-world settings.

• Significant Applied Learning Projects Improve Career Readiness: Nearly 4 out of 5 employers say that requiring students to complete a significant applied learning project would improve the quality of college graduates’ preparation for professional success.

Note: These data are taken from Falling Short? College Learning and Career Success, a 2015 report on findings from a survey of employers and a survey of college students conducted for AAC&U by Hart Research Associates. For a full report on this survey and earlier reports on employer views, see www.aacu.org/leap.

n indicates percentage of employers who “strongly agree” or “somewhat agree” that, “regardless of a student’s chosen field of study,” every student should attain this area of knowledge or skill. v indicates percentage of employers who rate this outcome as very important (8-10 on a 10 point scale) for recent graduates entering the job market.

22 n


“Public policy cannot simply assume that program completion and high-level student achievement on key learning outcomes are one and the same. Access and completion are necessary but far from sufficient….the United States now must work both to increase degree attainment and to improve significantly the breadth, level, and quality of students’ actual learning….It should not be liberal education for some and narrow or illiberal education for others…Access to educational excellence is the equity challenge of our time.” —The Quality Imperative (AAC&U Board of Directors, 2009)

Equity Imperative for

Completion and Quality

Three-Part AgendaConsensus on Outcomes

Balancing the Quality/Completion/Equity Agendas—in Policy and Practice

n 23


NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION ADVANCE PROGRAM

[email protected]

Policy & research entities

IHEs

Industry STEM Societies

Publishers

Funding Agencies

Organizational Change

• Recruitment, retention, tenure, and promotion policies and practices• Work-life balance and career flexibility policies and programs and usage• Salaries, start-up packages, and access to resources• Institutional service requirements (committees, mentoring, etc.)• Data collection, reporting, and use in decision making• Culture and climate of organization• Accountability of STEM leadership for diversity


24 n

Gender Equity

Gender equity is not the same as broadening participation in STEM -though it may serve this goal

An example of a gender equity issue in academics:

AAUP Faculty salary survey data U.S. doctoral institutions 2014-2015

To develop systemic approaches to increase the representation and advancement of women in

academic STEM careers

To develop innovative and sustainable ways to promote gender equity that involve both men and women in the STEM academic workforce

To contribute to the research knowledge base on gender equity and the intersection of gender

and other identities in STEM academic careers

ADVANCE Program Goals

n 25


ADVANCE Grant Types NSF 16-594

Institutional Transformation (IT)

• Develop, implement, and study innovative organizational change strategies to foster gender equity

• Up to $3M over five years

• Single IHE that has not had IT before (all STEM)

• Preliminary proposal April 12, 2017* (required)

• Proposal (if invited after preliminary) Jan. 17, 2018*

Adaptation

• Adapt proven organizational gender equity strategies

• Up to $1M over three years

• Single IHE that has not had IT before (all STEM)

or• Single non-profit org. (one or

more disciplines)

• LOI Aug. 9, 2017* (required) • Proposal Sept. 13, 2017*

Partnership

• Scale-up proven systemic gender equity strategies for national or regional impact

• Up to $1M over 3-5 years

• Two or more partner orgs.• One or more disciplines

• LOI Dec. 14, 2016* (required)• Proposal Jan. 11, 2017*

*These deadlines will recur every other year until the solicitation is replaced.

ADVANCE Other Opportunities NSF 16-594

ADVANCE Resource and Coordination Network (ARC)

• National network to advance gender equity in STEM academics

• Anticipate one award for ~$1M per year for five years

• Advised to talk to program office before submission

• Target date March 15, 2017

ADVANCE Longitudinal Evaluation (ALE)

• Study and document indicators of organizational change at past ADVANCE IT institutions

• Partnership with three or more past IT grantees that ended more than 5 yrs ago


• Submit as unsolicited proposal no due date

EAGER, RAPID and Workshops

• Review the NSF Grant Proposal Guide for details on submission (http://www.nsf.gov)


• Submit as unsolicited proposal no due date


26 n

ADVANCE Focus on Intersectionality*

ADVANCE recognizes that barriers to gender equity may not be identical for all groups of women faculty in STEM

Therefore, all ADVANCE proposals are expected to offer strategies to promote gender equity for all faculty

*Note the only additional review criterion in this solicitation is focused on this expectation

Partnership proposals

Letter of Intent – December 14, 2016 Required – must submit in order to submit a full proposal Project synopsis – a short description of proposed project Other text box – provide info on partner organizations proposed involvement Used to recruit appropriate reviewers - only contacted if there are questions An organization can be a partner in more than one proposal but can lead only

one

Full proposal due – January 11, 2016 NSF anticipates making approximately six Partnership awards Partnership proposals must include two or more partnering organizations Prior ADVANCE support is not necessary to participate Past or current ADVANCE grant recipients are eligible to participate

Policy & research entities

Industry

STEM Societies

n 27


Institutional Transformation proposals

Preliminary proposal due - April 12, 2017 Required – must submit preliminary proposal in order to be invited to submit a full

proposal after panel review Content: 8 page decription and letters of commitment as supplementary documents Looking for innovation in project strategies and research If not invited, the Adaptation track may be appropriate

Full proposal due – January 17, 2018 (if invited after preliminary) NSF anticipates making approximately five IT awards Proposal must be from one non-profit academic institution State systems or multi-campus institutions are OK Institutions that have had an ADVANCE IT award in the past cannot apply

Faculty &

leaders

Social Science

Research

HRM Title IX

Adaptation proposals

Letter of Intent – August 9, 2017 Required – must submit in order to submit a full proposal Project synopsis – a short description of proposed project Other text box – provide info on partner organizations proposed involvement Used to recruit appropriate reviewers - only contacted if there are questions Only one per institution or organization (can also be in Partnership proposals but not an IT)

Full proposal due – September 13, 2017 NSF anticipates making approximately six Adaptation awards Proposal must be from either one non-profit academic institution or a non-profit

organization State systems or multi-campus institutions are OK Institutions that have had an ADVANCE IT award in the past cannot apply

Faculty &

Leaders

Social Science

Research

HRM Title IX


28 n

Does the ADVANCE program fit your project?

ADVANCE Projects must focus on:

Gender equity It is not a broadening participation program

STEM academics It is not a pathway or pipeline program

Organizational and systemic change strategies Not direct support to individuals in STEM academics or education

STEM disciplines supported by NSF Not clinical science faculty or allied health

Review the program solicitation and NSF Grant Proposal Guide for official information on proposal preparation, eligibility, etc.

NSF Merit Review Criteria and Peer Review

Both criteria must be addressed in the project summary and the proposal description

Intellectual Merit: The Intellectual Merit criterion encompasses the potential to advance knowledge; and

Broader Impacts: The Broader Impacts criterion encompasses the potential to benefit society and contribute to the achievement of specific, desired societal outcomes.

ADVANCE peer review panels include social and behavioral scientists, other scientists and engineers, gender equity experts, higher education and organizational administrators, and evaluation experts

n 29


ADVANCE Additional Solicitation Specific Review Criterion

Because the experiences of women in STEM academic careers may be influenced by many characteristics in addition to gender, all ADVANCE proposals are expected to take this into account in proposal design, research, evaluation, and data. Reviewers are asked to comment on how well the proposal addresses the intersection of gender with other characteristics such as: race, ethnicity, disability status, foreign-born and foreign-trained status, sexual orientation, and faculty appointment type in both the intellectual merit and broader impacts of the proposal.

Resources

Individual ADVANCE project websites, for example: University of Michigan http://advance.umich.edu/ WISELI http://wiseli.engr.wisc.edu/ Hunter College http://www.hunter.cuny.edu/genderequity/

Synthesis or collections of ADVANCE products and strategies: Strategies for Effecting Gender Equity and Institutional Change

http://www.colorado.edu/eer/research/strategic.html ADVANCE Portal http://www.portal.advance.vt.edu/ ADVANCE Implementation Mentors (AIM) Network

http://advanceaimnetwork.org/


30 n

SUMMARY 3

BOX S-2 Charge to the Committee on the Science of Team Science

An ad hoc committee will conduct a consensus study on the science of team science to recommend opportunities to enhance the effectiveness of collaborative research in science teams, research centers, and institutes. The Science of Team Science is a new interdisciplinary field that empirically examines the processes by which large and small scientific teams, research centers, and institutes organize, communicate, and conduct research. It is concerned with understanding and managing circumstances that facilitate or hinder the effectiveness of collabora-tive research, including translational research. This includes understanding how teams connect and collaborate to achieve scientific breakthroughs that would not be attainable by either individual or simply additive efforts.

The committee will consider factors such as team dynamics, team manage-ment, and institutional structures and policies that affect large and small science teams. Among the questions the committee will explore are

1. How do individual factors (e.g., openness to divergent ideas) influence team dynamics (e.g., cohesion), and how, in turn, do both individual fac-tors and team dynamics influence the effectiveness and productivity of science teams?

2. What factors at the team, center, or institute level (e.g., team size, team membership, geographic dispersion) influence the effectiveness of sci-ence teams?

3. How do different management approaches and leadership styles influ-ence the effectiveness of science teams?

4. How do current tenure and promotion policies acknowledge and provide incentives to academic researchers who engage in team science?

5. What factors influence the productivity and effectiveness of research organizations that conduct and support team and collaborative science, such as research centers and institutes? How do such organizational factors as human resource policies and practices and cyber infrastructure affect team and collaborative science?

6. What types of organizational structures, policies, practices, and resources are needed to promote effective team science in academic institutions, research centers, industry, and other settings?

team approach is selected, the scale and scope of the project. Similarly, individual scientists must make decisions about whether to invest time and energy in collaborative projects or to focus on individual investigations. It is important for scientists and other stakeholders to strategically consider the particular research question, subject matter, and intended scientific and/or policy goals when determining whether a team science approach is ap-propriate, and if so, the suitable size, duration, and structure of the project or projects.

Enhancing the Effectiveness of Team Science

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

— National Research Council. Enhancing the Effectiveness of Team Science. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2015.

n 31


Discover. Contribute. Connect.

What Is The Team Science Toolkit?The Team Science Toolkit is an interactive website that provides resources to help users manage, support,

and conduct team-based research. It also provides resources for evaluating or studying team science.

The Toolkit includes:

• A user-generated collection of resources recommended by experts across disciplines

• Publically available resources such as practical tools to enhance research collaboration, measures for

studying team-based research, and recommended readings

• A platform to connect with colleagues and stay up to date on news and events

How Can You Use The Toolkit?You can use the Team Science Toolkit to:

Discover. Learn from colleagues by

exploring available resources to support your

team science goals, and download them or link

to them online.

Contribute. Share your knowledge by

uploading documents, links, information,

or comments on resources that support the

practice or study of team science.

Connect. Join expert discussions on the blog,

add your name to the expert directory, or stay

up to date on news and events.

“The Toolkit provides a wealth of resources

for team scientists, including practical tools

to use with your colleagues, such as team

assessment guides and training resources.”

—Holly Falk-Krzesinski, Vice President Global Academic & Research Relations Elsevier

www.teamsciencetoolkit.cancer.gov

Natio

nal C

ance

r Ins

titut

e

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health NIH...Turning Discovery into Health

32 n


“After I contributed a measure to the Toolkit, I was contacted by investigators who

were interested in adapting the measure to their own setting. This opened up exciting

possibilities for future collaboration, including new analyses using our pooled data.”

—Dan Stokols, Chancellor’s Professor University of California, Irvine

How Can The Toolkit Help You?

If you are: And you want to: Use the Toolkit to find resources such as:An investigator using team science approaches

Find practical tools and strategies to help support successful team science

• Publications on effective team science approaches

• Model “prenuptial agreements” for new collaborations

• Strategies for team communication and data sharing

• Training resources for team science competencies

A team science evaluator or scholar

Evaluate or study team science processes, outcomes, and contextual influences

• Survey instruments and interview guides

• Measures, metrics, and algorithms

• Reliability, validity, and scoring methods

An administrator at an academic institution, business, or other organization

Support team science approaches and scholarship at your institution

• Promotion and tenure policies recognizing team science

• Resources to develop grant applications for team science initiatives

A funding agency official Provide support for team science • Funding announcements for team science

• Protocols for data sharing and co-authorship

www.teamsciencetoolkit.cancer.gov

Contact: Kara Hall, PhD Health Scientist Behavioral Research Program [email protected]

The Team Science Toolkit was developed and is maintained by the Science of Team Science Team at the National Cancer Institute, Division of Cancer Control and Population Science, Behavioral Research Program. For more information, see http://cancercontrol.cancer.gov/brp/SciTS.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services | National Institutes of Health | National Cancer Institute | USA.gov

n 33


PRESENTER BIOGRAPHIES

nDavid J. Asai is Senior Director in Science Education at the Howard Hughes Medical Institute. He directs the HHMI Undergraduate and Graduate programs, which include: (i) grants to colleges, research universities, and HHMI Professors; (ii) research fellowships to undergraduates, graduate students, and medical students; and (iii) the Science Education Alliance. Before moving to HHMI in 2008, David was on the faculty for 19 years at Purdue University and for 5 years at Harvey Mudd College. He served as Head of Biological Sciences at Purdue and was Stuart Mudd Professor and Chair of Biology at Harvey Mudd. Until 2010 when he closed his lab, his group authored more than 75 papers on the molecular motor dynein in sea urchins and Tetrahymena thermophila. David served as a member of the boards of trustees of the National PTA and the Higher Learning Commission-North Central Association, and served on the BIO Advisory Committee of the National Science Foundation. He is an elected member of the Purdue Teaching Academy and was inducted into Purdue’s “Book of Great Teachers.” Currently, he serves on several advisory committees, including the Progress Through Calculus project of the Mathematical Association of America, the Interdisciplinary Teaching About Earth for a Sustainable Future (InTeGrate) NSF STEP center, the University of Delaware NSF ADVANCE Institutional Transformation project, the Minority Affairs Committee of the American Society for Cell Biology, the Understanding Interventions project, the Committee on Opportunities in Science (COOS) of the AAAS, Research Enhancement for BUILDing Detroit, the NIH Advisory Committee of the Director’s Working Group on Diversity, and the Children’s Opportunity Fund of Montgomery County, Maryland. David received the bachelor’s degree in chemistry and co-terminal master’s degree in biology from Stanford University, and the PhD in biology from Caltech. ______________________________

Jinlei Persimmon Augst, Senior Program Officer, received her Ph.D. in Comparative Literature from the University of California, Berkeley. She has taught as assistant professor at the European College of Liberal Arts in Berlin, Germany, visiting professor at Sichuan University in Chengdu, China, and lecturer at UC Berkeley. Jinlei is also a pianist and has been invited to perform at the New Music Consortium, the Alliance Française, and the Maybeck Recital Hall in Berkeley.______________________________

Ann E. Austin is a Professor of Higher, Adult, and Lifelong Education at Michigan State University, currently on leave to serve as a Program Director in the Division of Undergraduate Education at the National Science Foundation in Washington, D.C. On October 1, 2016, she will return to Michigan State University, where she will serve as Associate Dean for Research in the College of Education and Assistant Provost for Faculty Development/Career Paths. Her research concerns faculty careers and professional development, teaching and learning in higher education, the academic workplace, organizational change, doctoral education, and reform in science, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education. She is a Fellow of the American Educational Research Association (AERA) and the Past-President of the Association for the Study of Higher Education (ASHE), and she was a Fulbright Fellow in South Africa (1998). She has also served for more than a decade as the Co-PI, and now-Co-Leader, of the Center for the Integration of Research, Teaching, and Learning (CIRTL), funded by the U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF), and has been the Principal Investigator of an NSF-funded grant to study organizational change strategies that support the success of women scholars in STEM fields. Her work is widely published, including Faculty Development in the Age of Evidence: Current Practices, Future Imperatives (with A. Beach, M.D. Sorcinelli, and J. Rivard, in press), Rethinking Faculty Work: Higher Education’s Strategic Imperative (with J. Gappa and A. Trice, 2007) and Educating Integrated Professionals: Theory and Practice on Preparation for the Professoriate (with C. Colbeck and K.A. O’Meara, 2008), as well as other books, articles, chapters, and monographs concerning higher education issues in the United States and in international contexts. She has worked with colleagues at the national and institutional levels on higher education issues in a number of countries outside the U.S., including Australia, China, Egypt, Finland, Malaysia, Oman, Thailand, the Philippines, South Africa, the United Arab Emirates, and Vietnam.


34 n

Jessie DeAro started her federal career as a Presidential Management Fellow (PMF) after earning her doctorate in physical chemistry from the University of California at Santa Barbara. She has fifteen years of experience managing federal capacity building and education programs at the U.S. Department of Education and the National Science Foundation (NSF). Her expertise is focused on higher education diversity programs designed to improve the participation and success of underrepresented minorities and women in STEM education programs and the workforce. She spent a year detailed to the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy in 2010 working on policy related to STEM education and diversity. In addition, she has served in temporary Senior Executive Service roles as acting Deputy Division Director in two Divisions in the Directorate for Education and Human Resources (EHR) at NSF. She is currently program officer for the EHR Core Research program (ECR) and the ADVANCE program. ECR supports education research proposals to study STEM learning and learning environments, STEM workforce, and broadening participation in STEM. The ADVANCE program focuses on changing institutions of higher education to be more inclusive of diverse faculty to increase the participation and advancement of women in STEM academic careers.______________________________

Joan Ferrini-Mundy is the Assistant Director of the National Science Foundation (NSF) for Education and Human Resources (EHR), a position she has held since 2011. Previously at NSF she served as inaugural division director of the Division of Research on Learning in Formal and Informal Settings. Dr. Ferrini-Mundy served as an ex officio member of the U.S. Presidents’s National Mathematics Advisory Panel, and co-chaired its Instructional Practices Task Group (2007-2008). She was a member of the Mathematics Expert Group of the Programme for International Student Assessment (2009-2012). Currently Dr. Ferrini-Mundy is co-chair of the White House National Science and Technology Council’s Federal Coordination in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics Education Task Force. Prior to coming to NSF, she was a University Distinguished Professor of Mathematics Education at Michigan State University. Dr. Ferrini-Mundy holds a Ph.D. in mathematics education from the University of New Hampshire. She was elected a fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (2011), and a member of the Executive Committee of the Association of Women in Mathematics (2013). She began her career as a high school mathematics teacher. Her research interests are in calculus learning, mathematics teacher knowledge, and K-12 STEM education policy.______________________________

Kara Hall is Director of the Science of Team Science (SciTS) Team, and Co-Director of the Theories Project in the Science of Research and Technology Branch (SRTB) of the Behavioral Research Program (BRP), National Cancer Institute (NCI). Dr. Hall helped launch the SciTS field by co-chairing the 2006 conference “The Science of Team Science: Assessing the Value of Transdisciplinary Research” and co-editing the 2008 American Journal of Preventive Medicine Supplement on the Science of Team Science, which has been the most cited and downloaded AJPM supplement to date. Kara has focused on advancing the SciTS field by developing new metrics, measures, and models for understanding and evaluating transdisciplinary research, collaboration, and training. She aims to facilitate team science programs and projects by advancing organizational supports (e.g., tenure and promotion policies), using innovative grant mechanisms, and developing tools to support scientists engaging in and studying team science. Examples of her supportive work include the Team Science Toolkit and the development of initiatives that enhance collaborative interdisciplinary teams. While at NCI, Kara has also focused on advancing dissemination and implementation research; promoting the use, testing, and development of health behavior theory; and championing systems science approaches, research methods, and intervention development. ______________________________

Lisa Hendricks is Regional Lead for the Africa and Middle East Fulbright U.S. Scholar Programs at the Institute of International Education (IIE). Lisa has worked at IIE since May 2012 in a variety of capacities. She began at IIE as a Program Officer for the USAID Training for Pakistan program, where she managed a $5 million contract supporting Pakistani PhD students and administering short-term training programs globally. She then transitioned to the Fulbright Scholar Program and became the Regional Lead for the U.S. Scholar Program to Europe/Eurasia. Prior to her work at IIE, Lisa served as the Program Manager at the Center for International Development and Conflict Management at the University of Maryland, at Chemonics International providing support for USAID-funded projects, as well as at Population Services International, where she worked in recruitment and as an international program fellow in South Sudan. Lisa holds a Master of Public Affairs from Indiana University and a Bachelor of Arts from the University of Missouri in International Affairs.

n 35


Debra Humphreys received her BA from Williams College and her PhD in English from Rutgers University. Dr. Humphreys is currently the Senior Vice President for Academic Planning and Public Engagement at the Association of American Colleges and Universities—a position she assumed in early 2016 after serving for three years as VP of Communications, Policy, and Public Engagement, and eleven years as VP for Communications and Public Affairs. Prior to 2001, she served as Director of Programs in the Office of Diversity, Equity and Global Initiatives at AAC&U where she directed programs on diversity, equity, and women’s issues in higher education. Humphreys currently oversees AAC&U’s projects and continuing programs that build capacity across higher education to provide engaged, public-spirited liberal education to all students. She also leads AAC&U’s national and state-level advocacy and policy efforts related to issues of student success and the quality of student learning in higher education. As part of AAC&U’s campaign, Liberal Education and America’s Promise (LEAP), she works to create opportunities for higher education institutions of all sorts to improve guided curricular pathways and educational environments through which all students gain the essential learning outcomes so important for long-term success and flourishing in a knowledge-economy and global society. Humphreys also leads AAC&U’s work to advance communications capacity on the part of college and university leaders and faculty members and to educate various stakeholder groups about the imperative for increased college attainment and learning outcomes to prepare for the changing global economy. As of October 24th, Humphreys will leave her position at AAC&U and become Vice President for Strategic Engagement at Lumina Foundation. As of October 24th, Humphreys will leave her position at AAC&U and become Vice President for Strategic Engagement at Lumina Foundation.______________________________

Susan A. Musante joined HHMI in January 2015 as a Science Education Fellow. She earned her B.S. in biology from Hofstra University and began her science education career as an instructor and naturalist at residential environmental and science education centers in the southeast. She returned to school to earn an M.A.Ed. in science education from Wake Forest University and became a middle school science teacher in northern Virginia. She shifted her career focus in the late 1990’s to work with undergraduate faculty to improve biology education through professional societies. She worked in education and outreach for the Ecological Society of America and then advanced faculty and curriculum programs for the American Society for Microbiology, managing a new microbiology education journal, a digital library of peer-reviewed curriculum resources, Microbe Library, and the annual conference for undergraduate educators, ASMCUE. Prior to joining the HHMI Undergraduate and Graduate Programs team, she served as the education director at the American Institute of Biological Sciences where she supported leaders of undergraduate education reform efforts and explored the role of societies and academic leadership in change. At HHMI, she is primarily responsible for managing the newest undergraduate science education grants competition for colleges and universities: Inclusive Excellence. Susan is primarily responsible for the Inclusive Excellence undergraduate science education grants competition for four-year colleges and universities. She earned her B.S. in biology from Hofstra University and her M.A.Ed. in science education from Wake Forest University. Susan began her career as an instructor and naturalist at residential environmental and science education centers and as a middle school science teacher in northern Virginia. She shifted her career focus in 1998 to work with undergraduate faculty to improve biology education through professional societies. She worked in education and outreach for the Ecological Society of America and then faculty and curriculum programs for the American Society for Microbiology. Just prior to coming to HHMI, she served as the education director at the American Institute of Biological Sciences where she supported leaders of undergraduate education reform efforts and explored the role of societies and academic leadership in change.______________________________


36 n

Randy Phelps is a Staff Associate in the Office of International and Integrative Activities (OIIA) at the National Science Foundation. His major responsibilities include co-coordination of the Foundation-wide Major Research Instrumentation (MRI) program and the Science and the Science and Technology Center (STC) programs. He recently co-chaired the Integrated NSF Support Promoting Interdisciplinary Research and Education (INSPIRE) Working Group and remains involved with that initiative. He was previously the Program Director for Galactic Astronomy and for Education and Special Programs in the Division of Astronomical Sciences while on leave from the California State University, Sacramento where he served as a Full Professor in the Department of Physics and Astronomy. He also held an Adjunct Associate Professor position at the University of California, Davis. Dr. Phelps has also held a National Research Council Associateship at Phillips Laboratory, a postdoctoral position at the Observatories of the Carnegie Institution of Washington, and a Visiting Assistant Professor position at Oberlin College. Dr. Phelps is an internationally recognized expert on star cluster research, and has authored or co-authored over 60 papers, including more than 50 in refereed journals. Additionally, his commitment to education was recognized by an appointment to the Astronomy Education Board of the American Astronomical Society.______________________________

Beth Strausser is currently the Senior Grants Policy Specialist in the Policy Office at the National Science Foundation (NSF). She is responsible for policy formulation and implementation and also conducts various outreach meetings for public and private sector research and grants administration officials. Prior to her tenure in the Policy Office, Ms. Strausser was a Grants Officer in the NSF Division of Grants and Agreements. She negotiated, evaluated and managed high-profile, complex grants and cooperative agreements. Beth has been a member of the Policy Office team for almost 20 years and has worked at NSF for 25 years. Ms. Strausser has a Masters of Public Administration from American University, an A.B. in Political Science from Bryn Mawr College and has also completed coursework at the University of Surrey in England. She is a past Board member of the National Grants Management Association and has received NSF Director’s Awards for Program Management Excellence, Administrative Excellence, and Collaborative Integration and an Excellence in Customer Service award. When not toiling away as a policy wonk for the Federal Government, Beth enjoys singing, practicing yoga and traveling to exotic locales such as Iceland and India. ______________________________

Lee Zia is the Deputy Division Director for DUE. He served as the Lead Program Director for the NSF National Science, Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology Education Digital Library (NSDL) Program from its inception in FY 2000 to its sunsetting in FY 2010. He served as a “rotator” in the NSF Division of Undergraduate Education during calendar years 1995 and 1996 while on leave from the Department of Mathematics at the University of New Hampshire. Zia rejoined the NSF as a permanent staff member in the fall of 1999. From November 2008 to December 2009, he served as a Commerce Science and Technology Fellow in the Office of Senator John D. Rockefeller IV. Most recently he served as the Lead Program Director for the STEM Talent Expansion Program (STEP). Zia holds degrees in mathematics from the University of North Carolina (B.S.) and the University of Michigan (M.S.), and applied mathematics from Brown University (Ph.D.).______________________________

n 37


Participant List

n

David J. Asai nSenior Director, Undergraduate and Graduate

Science Education ProgramsHoward Hughes Medical [email protected]

Jinlei Persimmon Augst nSenior Program Officer, Division of Education Programs National Endowment for the [email protected]

Ann E. Austin nProgram Officer National Science FoundationDepartment of Educational Administration University of [email protected]

Diana BrautigamDirector, Foundation & Corporate RelationsAllegheny [email protected]

Kathryn J. CoxDirector of Government and Foundation RelationsBeloit [email protected]

Jessie A. DeAro nProgram Officer, ADVANCENational Science [email protected]

Elizabeth DemskiDirector of Sponsored ResearchWellesley [email protected]

Sheryle Denise Dixon Director of Grants and Sponsored ProgramsAlma [email protected]

Anne Dueweke Director of Faculty Grants & Institutional ResearchKalamazoo [email protected]

Nancy Y. DufauDirector, Research & Sponsored ProgramsLoyola University [email protected]

Joan Ferrini-Mundy nAssistant Director, Education

and Human Resources (EHR) National Science [email protected]

Heather M. Fitz GibbonProfessor of SociologyThe College of [email protected]

Dick FolseDirector of Grants and Foundation RelationsIllinois Wesleyan [email protected]

Brenna GrahamAssistant Director of Government and Foundation RelationsBeloit [email protected]

Heather GrubbsAssociate Director, Foundation & Corporate RelationsAllegheny [email protected]

Kara Hall nDivision of Cancer Control and Population SciencesNational Institutes of [email protected]


38 n

Lisa Hendricks nRegional Lead, Sub-Saharan Africa /

Middle East and North AfricaFulbright U.S. Scholar ProgramCouncil for International Exchange of Scholars (CIES)Institute of International Education (IIE)[email protected]

Debra Humphreys nSenior Vice President, Academic Planning

and Public EngagementAssociation of American Colleges & UniversitiesIncoming Vice President of Strategic EngagementLumina [email protected]

Catherine Allison Jarmin Miller Director of Foundation and Corporate RelationsLinfield [email protected]

Kathryn M.S. JohnsonAssociate Professor of BiologyBeloit [email protected]

Tania JohnsonDirector of Sponsored ProgramsSwarthmore [email protected]

Amy KesterDirector of Corporate, Foundation,

& Sponsored Research SupportLawrence [email protected]

Heather KurtzDirector, Foundation and Corporate RelationsCollege of the Holy [email protected]

Mary LangDirector of Foundation and Corporate RelationsOberlin [email protected]

Ali LombardoDirector of Sponsored Research and Foundation RelationsThe College of [email protected]

Nicole MarshallDirector of Sponsored Programs & Institutional GrantsUnion [email protected]

Susan Musante nScience Education Fellow, Undergraduate

and Graduate ProgramsHoward Hughes Medical [email protected]

Karen OssenDirector, Corporate and Foundation RelationsWellesley [email protected]

Randy Phelps nStaff AssociateNational Science [email protected]

Blair RaymondSenior Director of Foundation, Corporate

& Government RelationsUnion [email protected]

Ina RemusAssociate Director of Corporate

& Foundation RelationsColorado [email protected]

Stacy A. RisemanDirector, Sponsored ResearchCollege of the Holy [email protected]

Beth Strausser nSenior Policy SpecialistNational Science [email protected]

William D. TomlinsonDirector, Office of Sponsored ResearchSkidmore [email protected]

Jillain Kaye Veil-EhnertDirector of Foundation Relations & Research GrantsConcordia [email protected]

n 39


Corinne Audra WagnerDirector of Sponsored Research and Institutional GrantsDePauw [email protected]

Michelle WamsleyAssistant Vice PresidentUniversity of [email protected]

Helen B. WarrenDirector of Government, Foundation

and Corporate RelationsSt. Olaf [email protected]

Lee Zia nDivision Director (Acting), DUE National Science [email protected]

n Presenter/Facilitator

Independent Colleges Office

Jeanne L. NarumDirector

Jennifer LuebbertExecutive Officer


40 n

n 41


Best Ideas

n

2016 ICO LIAISON MEETING

please noTe your iDeas To carry ForWarD From each session. reTurn To ico sTaFF on FriDay.

NAme: _________________________________________________________

WednesdayluNch—

pleNAry sessioN i—

pleNAry sessioN ii—

pleNAry sessioN iii—

ico coNversAtioN i—

Thursdayico coNversAtioN ii—


42 n

pleNAry sessioN iv—

pleNAry sessioN v—

pleNAry sessioN vi—

pleNAry sessioN vii—

pleNAry sessioN viii—

Fridayico coNversAtioN iii—

pleNAry sessioN ix—

pleNAry sessioN x—

whAt sessioN did you FiNd oF most vAlue ANd why?

The Independent Colleges Office1030 15th Street NW #190

Washington, DC 20005Phone: 202-232-1300Email: [email protected]://www.ico-dc.com

Name: ________________________________________________

the independent colleges office - ico-dc.com 2016 ico liaison meeting the independent colleges...

Documents