|
REVIEW:
What is the intellectual merit of the proposed activity?
Strengths:
The proposed activity includes the collaborations among grades 3-12
science students and community college students. The concept is not
novel or original; however, the proposed activity may suggest some
elements of creativity and potentially transformative learning for
elementary school students.
Weaknesses:
The proposal falls short of an in depth review of literature related
to the proposed activity. What do we already know about improving
students' attitudes, interests, and engagement in science at the
elementary and high school levels? In what ways does the proposed
activity go beyond existing efforts and related projects? What makes the
proposed activity unique?
The proposal could be strengthened by including a comprehensive
review of literature related to outreach and/or informal science
education research.
The proposal appears somewhat disorganized, if not, incomplete. The
activities outlined for Years 1-3 are void of specific details. Exactly
how will the activities be facilitated? Also the overall list of
activities does not appear consistent with one another. Grade 3 will
take an add-then-stir approach with only one session of science every
other week; while Grades 4-12 participate in afterschool experience.
The proposal could be strengthened by including a more cohesive list
of strategies that parallel one another and are supported by the
literature. Perhaps emphasis on inquiry practices or scientific thinking
could be a central theme. Using this theme, which activities and
measures would complement this recurring theme across all grade levels?
As is, the mixture of various strategies is inconsistent and does not
enhance the proposal in any way.
The evaluation plan is incomplete. The proposal could be strengthened by including a more comprehensive evaluation plan.
What are the broader impacts of the proposed activity?
Strengths:
The proposed activity demonstrates potential to reach a more diverse group of underrepresented groups of students and teachers.
The proposed activity suggests some level of innovative partnerships among community college students and K12 learners.
Weaknesses:
The proposed activity does not suggest any advancement in the discovery or understanding of teaching, learning, or training.
Missing from the proposed activity is an explanation of how the
proposers will broaden the participation of underrepresented groups.
The proposed activity does not appear to enhance the infrastructure for research and education in science or math.
The dissemination plan is limited to local and state level
organizations. In what ways could results from the proposed activity be
disseminated at a national level? What are the expected outcomes of such
an endeavor and how best can inform a wider audience?
The benefits of the proposed activity are neither compelling nor productive.
Summary Statement
The proposal describes a local level initiative that has shown
limited success within a local context. Missing from the proposal is a
comprehensive review of related literature, a more compelling rationale
or need for this work, and a more organized approach to implementing and
evaluating both the proposed activities and related research.
|
