Samples of Successful TIFF Proposals
Brenda Wilson
Project Title: Changing the Introduction CSIS Course by Using a New Approach
Abstract: For many years, there has been concern in the CSIS (Computer Science & Information Systems) education community that the traditional "programming-oriented" introduction to CSIS gives students a limited view of the discipline.[1] This is, after all, an ever-expanding field that includes many activities beyond programming. To provide that more holistic view of the discipline, we, in the CSIS department, are proposing a brand new course. This course will be designed to appeal to non-majors as well as majors as it will be a "breadth-first" approach to the discipline. This course will give students exposure to a range of important topics while providing various, interesting hands-on activities including problem solving techniques and applications to important real-world issues such as computing security. Topics for this course will target several of the MSU graduate characteristics such as critical, independent thinking, active learning methodologies, problem solving, and promotes use of computer technology.
Overview: This is a request for funds to develop a brand new course and approach to the world of "problem solving using computers". Throughout the history of the discipline, most introductory CSIS courses have focused primarily on writing programs in a particular programming language. Our CSIS department, as well as many others across the nation, has a computing curriculum that begins with a programming language and other courses build upon that knowledge. Students (majors and non-majors) do not have the opportunity to see the overall picture of what the CSIS field includes. Based on recent research showing alarming attrition rates in the freshmen year of CSIS [1] [2][3],we believe, as many CSIS educators are now discovering, a course that provides a "breadth-first" approach to CSIS discipline is sorely needed both for recruitment/retention in this important field of study and for an introduction for non-majors.[4] This is an innovative course which will be taught by several faculty members who are specialists in the different topic areas to be addressed. It is to be a course full of interesting activities including cooperative and collaborative work that involves real-world application, hands-on practice, use of the latest technologies (where funds allow) and futuristic views of the computer world of tomorrow. It is hoped to have enough rigor to discourage those who do not want to engage in critical problem solving from entering the major as well as to give the student who successfully completes the course a knowledge of the different programming paradigms. This will be accomplished by having the student complete fairly simple and view sophisticated programs written in all three programming paradigms (procedural, object-oriented and event-driven/visual programming languages.) The course is to also introduce the student to security, networking and ethical issues as well as comparisons between the disciplines of computer science and computer information systems. Also included in the topics will be algorithm development (logical reasoning) techniques for solving problems. Much time will be involved in developing this course to provide not only interesting ways to present the topics but to develop hands-on activities to accomplish that purpose. It is estimated a minimum of 45 hours will be involved in completing this task. It would be used to provide hours of interviewing the various specialists in the fields as well as interviewing some of our seniors in what they wish they had known before entering the major, researching other "breadth-first" courses being offered at other universities, and writing modules of teaching materials for some of the topics. We realize this will be a work in progress but the summer effort would at least get a course ready for service to students in the fall term.
Expected Outcomes: There are several expected outcomes. First, by the end of the course the students will have an overall picture of the CSIS field, including what topics will be part of the major as well as a view of the many diverse specialty areas available in CSIS careers. By assessing the students' perceptions on CSIS as the course begins and then assessing the same students at the end of course, we should get an idea if we are accomplishing this objective. Second, we hope that more females will enter the field. Typically we have less than 16% females in the major! The real-world application and having female mentors has proven to be an important component of interest for females to want to study CSIS[5] [6] [7] [8]. We plan to have at least one female faculty member teaching parts of this course. The numbers of females that continue in the major will be tabulated over several semesters to see if an increase is evident. A third expected outcome is that non-majors will have a good understanding for solving problems with computers and know the fundamentals of algorithm development without being overwhelmed with the syntax of a particular language. Again, an attitudinal survey as well as exams will be used to access this objective. A fourth expected outcome is active learning with much enthusiastic participation by students during the class periods. For example, one computer programming tool that will be used is ALICE, a 3-D animation programming language developed by Carnegie Melon for introducing programming to novices. It has already shown to increase interest not only in the topic but in the major with a significant decrease in attrition rates not only in the first CSIS course but in continuation in other courses.[9] This outcome will be assessed by subjective observations by faculty.
All in all, this course is to have a positive impact on students' understanding of daily problems that are solved by computer professionals. We feel it will help both majors and non-majors to obtain an overall view of the many aspects of computing. It is to be interesting and innovating enough that word of mouth will bring more students into the course. The course could even be a potential candidate for University Studies Electives because it will target several of the Murray State Graduate Characteristics.
Dissemination Plan: The results of developing this course and assessing the expected outcomes will be communicated to my colleagues in the department on an ongoing basis. Already I have been the chair of a committee that decided on some major topics to be covered in the course. I have kept the other members of the department informed as our talks have developed. This process will continue not only by e-mail correspondence but also by periodic departmental meetings so that suggestions/criticisms can be noted and applied. I also would be most willing to present our work in a college or university seminar. Many departments may need to revisit their first course which introduces their major to involve a wider conceptual picture of what the major involves. I also plan to disseminate this information to the CSIS community by submitting proposals for presentations at the regional and national conferences such as the Ken-Tenn annual conference, ACM MidSouth and MidSoutheast Conferences, SIGCSE annual international conference, and, hopefully, in a peer-reviewed CSIS journal. This is such a needed course and many CSIS departments in other universities need to consider revising their curriculum to include an introductory course that is more than just programming. I also plan to disseminate my findings to various colleagues in other countries. I was a part of an international panel discussing the "typical introduction computer course" with professors from Israel, New Zealand and the United Kingdom. They will be excited to see what we are doing also. Telling about this new course and showing some of the activities would be a great way of showing high school students an interesting course to take when they get to Murray State. I plan to take pictures of the cooperative/collaborative and hands-on activities going on in class to use in my recruitment presentation used in Roads Scholar activities as well as personal visits to middle schools and high schools. An abbreviated version can also be developed for use in summer camps for high school and/or middle school students.
Summer Stipend: 4000
Summer Justification: It is estimated at least 45 hours of work (the equivalent of one 3 sem hour course) will be needed to develop this course.
Travel: 0
Travel Justification: No travel will be required. I have already gone to a 3 day workshop last summer to learn the Alice programming language as discussed below.
Supplies: 0
Supplies Justification: At this time, no funds are requested for supplies.
References:
[1] ACM Computing Curriculum 2001. http://acm.org/education/curric_vols/cc2001.pdf
[2] Division of Research, Evaluation and Communication, Directorate for Education and Human Resources. (1996) The Learning Curve: What We Are Discovering about U.S. Science and Mathematics Education. L. E. Suter (ed). Washington, DC:National Science Foundation,(NSF 96-53).
[3] Davy, J.D., Audin, K., Barkham, M. and Joyner, C. (2000) Student well-being in a computing department. Proceedings of the 5th Annual Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education, Helsinki, Finland, 136-139.
[4] Vandenberg, S. and Wollowski, M. Introducing Computer Science Using a Breadth-First Approach and Functional Programming. In Proceedings of the Thirtieth-first SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education(March 2000), ACM Press, 180-184.
[5] Margolis, J. & Fisher, A. (2002). Unlocking the clubhouse: Women in computing. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
[6] Randall, C., Price, B. & Reichgelt, H. (2003) Women in Computing Programs: Does the Incredible Shrinking Pipeline Apply to All Computing Programs? ACM SIGCSE Bulletin inroads 35( 40, 55-59).
[7] Wilson, B. (2004) A study of learning environments associated with computer courses: Can we teach them better? Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges 20(2), 267-273.
[8] Wilson, B. (2007) Gender Differences in Types of Assignments Preferred: Implications for Computer Science Instruction, Journal of Educational Computing Research 34(3), 245-255. (not available until early 2007)
[9] Cooper, S., Dann, W., & Pausch, R. (2000) Alice: A 3-D tool for introductory programming concepts. In Proceedings of the 5th Annual CCSC Northeastern Conference 2000, Ramapo, NJ, April, 28-29, 2000.
Marcie Johnson
Project Title: Asking the Right Questions: Humanities 211 for Active Learners
Abstract: Responding both to University Studies changes and, in particular, to students needs for a dynamic, intriguing experience of the literary and philosophical tradition, the Humanities Program proposes a revision of Humanities 211 to engage students in active inquiry and learning. Using readings selected to illustrate how a significant question has been addressed by authors from the ancient world to the present, a curriculum committee will design a semester experience in which students learn to participate in an ongoing conversation about an issue through practice in reading critically, writing thesis-driven essays, and synthesizing ideas from multiple sources in response to a major question. Products of this project will include three model curriculum designs, addressing common objectives, each incorporating active learning strategies, multimedia resources, and recommended assessment techniques.
Overview: The University Studies Program decision in 2004 to remove Humanities 212 from the general education experience of students pursuing the BS means that Murray State undergraduates are assured only one opportunity to experience and examine the literary and philosophical tradition--key to achieving one of the MSU Characteristics. The proposed amendments to the University Studies Program will, in fact, extend this, removing HUM 212 from the requirements for BA students, too. Given only one semester in which to develop students' familiarity with the literature and philosophy of the past, what should Humanities 211 provide?
For several reasons, it no longer makes sense to limit this course to a chronological survey of texts published before the 19th century. In addition to the imperative that has arisen from University Studies changes, we recognize that 21st century students need (a) incentives, instruction, and technological tools for reading unfamiliar texts from the past, (b) direction in writing about literary and philosophical ideas, (c) encouragement and assistance in analyzing and synthesizing material from disparate sources.
To respond to these needs, we propose to revise the Humanities 211 curriculum to allow students to choose--and therefore to take ownership of--the questions and themes they will pursue for a semester; focus student attention on major ideas and questions as those have engaged writers across cultural and temporal boundaries; incorporate reading and writing assignments that actively engage students in critical thinking about key ideas and questions; develop sets of visual and audio materials that provide students attractive and encouraging insights into the written texts they are exploring.
Expected Outcomes: During 2007, selected members of the Humanities Program faculty, coordinated by Marcie Johnson, will design new curriculum models for Humanities 211, relying on similar designs already implemented, for example, at the University of California-Irvine (Brook, 1994). Having begun to address needs this semester, a committee is already reformulating course objectives. This proposal asks funding to support the work of a team of at least three faculty who will continue working through the next year, with intensive work during Summer 2007.
We propose to design Humanities 211 as a growing array of classes, each engaging a particular question (or set of related questions) that concerned humans in the past and continue to concern us--and our students--today (e.g., "What is the nature of evil?" or "What is the ideal society?" or "How do we love?" or "What is a worthy cause?"). For each we will identify relevant literary and philosophical texts, from the ancient world to the present--allowing students to consider how ideas and values have changed or remained consistent over time and culture. Students will practice ways to read these texts as an ongoing conversation in which they themselves will become active, thoughtful participants (Barr, 1995; Bean, 1996).
Initially, we plan to offer three such questions each semester, allowing faculty to choose the issues they are most interested in teaching and--even more significant--allowing students to choose the inquiry they are most interested in pursuing. In the process of investigating the questions, students will examine texts for both the ways they confront the questions and the answers they propose; with this unifying theme and motivation, they will think critically, write critically, and synthesize sources to formulate their own answers.
By Spring 2008, we hope to pilot at least three models. To prepare, we expect to spend the 2007 accomplishing these objectives:
- Refinement of course and program objectives
- Selection of readings for each question
- Selection of published anthologies and/or creation of custom texts
- Identification of active learning strategies (Torosyan, 2001; Aparajita, 2001; Daniel, 2001; Barr, 1995; Bean, 1996)
- Development of examination designs, essay and project assignments, with exercises that develop skills and prepare students to understand and accomplish complex tasks (Brook, 1994; Bloom, 1956; Barr, 1995; Bean, 1996)
- Determination of program assessment procedures (Brook)
- Identification of visual and audio resources
Having already collected assessment for the "old" HUM 211 curriculum, we will be able to set up comparisons with data collected from the piloted curriculum models, correcting as necessary.
As one of the University Studies requirements, and as the only University Studies course that directly addresses the Murray State University Characteristic of demonstrating "familiarity with the world's literary and philosophical traditions," Humanities 211 is crucial to the university's achievement of desired student outcomes. Some 1300-1400 students enroll in Humanities 211 every year. They deserve an experience that makes sense to them--that helps them to consider important questions, evaluate proposed answers, synthesize ideas, and participate confidently and actively in seeking solutions--learning in the process how to continue pursuing such questions themselves.
Dissemination Plan: The Humanities Program conducts three Teaching Exchanges each semester, gathering program faculty into discussions of issues and demonstrations of best practices affecting our teaching. This forum will provide, first, an excellent opportunity to acquaint all department instructors with the models under consideration, to prepare them to teach, and to invite their ongoing formative assessment. We will be delighted to present our results to the College in one of its regularly scheduled professional development workshops and to feature our work in the annual CTLT Teaching and Technology Forum as well as the late-spring CPE conferences. While we are not pioneering this design, we expect that our work and experience will lead to publications (e.g., College English) and presentations at both statewide and national conferences on teaching the humanities.
Summer Stipend: 3900
Summer Justification: Three team members devoting considerable time in intensive work to accomplish objectives, particularly the design of active learning materials and assessments x $1300/team member.
Travel: 0
Travel Justification: We expect to work on campus.
Supplies: 100
Supplies Justification: While the humanities program has a copy budget, and while at least one of our College teaching circles is in the process of developing materials for a CD of accompanying audio and visual resources, we ask $100 to purchase DVDs of films relevant to the questions and issues.
References:
Barr, R.B., & Tagg, J. (1995). From teaching to learning: A new paradigm for undergraduate education. Change 27(6), 12-25.
Bean, J.C. (1996). Engaging ideas: A professors guide to integrating writing, critical thinking, and active learning in the classroom. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass.
Bloom B.S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives, handbook I: The cognitive domain. New York: David McKay Co.
Brook, T. (1994). Teaching the conflicts in the humanities core course at the University of California, Irvine. College Literature, 21 (3), 120-136.
Daniel, J.O. (2001)Twentieth-century literature in the new century: A symposium. College English 64 (1), 19-20.
Sagar, Aparajita (2001). Twentieth-century literature in the new century: A symposium. College English 64 (1), 25-28.
Torosyan, R. (2001. Motivating students: Evoking transformative learning and growth. Etc 58 (3), 311-328.