Note: These are unedited notes from the workshop.
Workshop participants were asked to use the #cclidissem hashtag for the workshop. The following tweets were posted throughout the workshop.
- Thinking more about the meeting there is clear need for longterm supported infrastructure projects. NIH does it, wish NSF could
- Brandon Muramatsu: notes from yesterday’s session for NSF CCLI dissemination of innovation workshop http://bit.ly/clRn7d (repeat)
- Elaine Seymour: Need to explicitly discuss the theories of change in projects: If we do x, we expect y, and test against that
- Elaine Seymour: The flawed theory used is if practices are shown to have value then faculty, depts, and institutions will likely adopt
- Elaine Seymour – Need radicalized senior faculty to support and shelter younger faculty as education innovators.
- Elaine Seymour – STEM ed reform has lacked funder initiated, coherent, sustained, and nationally applied strategies.
- Elaine Seymour – Momentum for STEM ed reform has slowed, even stalled.
- Flora McMartin – Most CCLI PIs use project websites as their primary web-based dissemination >often go away shortly after funding ends
- Flora McMartin – 10% of CCLI thought of putting materials in campus DLs/repositories
- Flora McMartin – NSF-CCLI most often selected mode of dissemination is conference proposals >>unsure impact
- Flora McMartin – CCLI PIs report that they are spending 5-10 yrs on their educational innovation (most grants are <3yrs)
- The new program (old CCLI) will emphasize products that are EFFECTIVE and DISSEMINATABLE
- Russ Pimmel – NSF is changing the name of CCLI grants to highlight the changes in the nature of the program
- Russ Pimmel (NSF) need to get PIs to understand evaluation, they don’t know how to communicate with evaluators
- At a workshop discussing NSF CCLI dissemination of innovation http://bit.ly/clRn7dc