|
REVIEW:
What is the intellectual merit of the proposed activity?
This proposal does not represent a significant advancement in
pre-K-12 student or teacher learning. There are very few details
provided, no clear school-level support, and the project suggests a
nebulous scope. The project is not grounded in any existing theory or
research. The design, participants, measures, procedures, and outcomes
are not developed. The PI would benefit from reaching out for
collaborators with experience with similar large-scale projects.
What are the broader impacts of the proposed activity?
The project does not advance discovery or understanding. The project
needs to be developed more fully prior to any potential broader
impacts.
Summary Statement
Review of 1119604
This proposed three-year project focuses on Challenge 2 and
addresses 3-12 STEM education. The proposal suggests some interesting
ideas. However, as described the proposed project lacks significant
depth and scope to be commensurate with the proposals funded by NSF.
There are many ways in which the researcher might strengthen a future
project that draws upon the initial ideas presented in this proposal.
The proposal presents hypotheses related to students' interest in
science through hands-on activities, laboratory experiences, and out of
class cooperative activities and asserts that college students can
support younger learners interest through said activities.
The proposal briefly outlines activities for students in the three
years of the project. Some suggested evaluation activities are
mentioned. Outcome measures for this Challenge 2 focused project appear
to include attitudes, knowledge and proficiency, and retention of
students. No significant information regarding design, method, or
measures is provided. Discussion of participants is not included.
Further, constructs are not operationalized. The forwarded hypotheses
are not adequately connected to the activities, outcomes, or evaluation
measures. As one example, the first hypothesis addresses student
interest, but interest is not an outcome noted in the brief and bulleted
evaluation section. The proposal lacks any discussion of measures of
student knowledge or proficiency, although they both are mentioned
constructs of interest.
The proposal is significantly underdeveloped. No theoretical or
empirical grounding is provided. For example, existing research that
supports why the proposed activities should benefit learners' knowledge,
interest, and retention should be noted. Review of previous projects
that employ similar approaches should also be provided. Further, there
are no references provided as to how this project is situated within the
larger national and international STEM trends. The proposal does not
provide evidence of strong understanding of curriculum, learning,
teaching, or assessment.
Dissemination activities are presented to include sharing
information with national physics teachers and Alabama State Board of
Education. Additional dissemination will include feedback to
participating schools and webpage access to the project through the home
institution's site. The researcher might consider additional
dissemination activities should he continue to develop this project.
How might others' benefit from this project, or use this project in
other settings?
Should the researcher consider additional proposal development he
might reach out to others, such as researchers knowledgeable about
student learning, 3-12 curriculum, and educational research and
assessment practices, in order to fully design and develop a project
around these central ideas. Despite ideas that warrant interest and
attention, this project is not yet designed or developed enough for
consideration.
|
