Reviewers Comments on the F2002 CCLI Proposal

Panel Summary #1

PROPOSAL NO.: 0311665

PANEL SUMMARY:
This project proposes to adapt the Duke University?s Connected Curriculum Project (CCP), as modified by two community colleges, to augment the content of and retention in precalculus, calculus and related courses at Central Alabama Community College (CACC) and to develop assessment tools needed to track the progress of students in these courses. The objectives for this project include the utilization of exemplary materials and math laboratory activities, the establishment of a math lab with access to Mathcad and MATLAB software and tutoring stations, a faculty development component, an ongoing assessment plan, and outreach to local schools. The goals are well delineated and laudable, but the implementation plan needs serious reworking and specificity. Much of the proposal is devoted to the need and plan for computer facilities, but this need cannot be the sole basis for funding. More attention and detail have to be devoted to how the CCP materials are going to be adapted to CACC, in what specific courses, for what topics and in what fashion that would change the way the mathematics is presently taught and learned at CACC. Will the inclusion of computer laboratory activities be a sufficient vehicle for change? The success rates cited for precalculus and calculus are quite impressive and should be studied and cherished. The high attrition rates should also be investigated since the factors may be independent of the perceived cure. The input and assistance from the two community colleges with successful adaptations of the CCP material are invaluable and could supply the necessary action plans to justify the technology and software requested.

The panel identified some key items and areas where revisions would greatly augment the proposal. There are references to some tantalizing concepts that are initially mentioned and then never brought up again, such as ?Remove some of the stereotypical aspects from mathematics course? and the desire to ? ?module-arize? our courses.? The reader is left hanging waiting for further details and follow-up. There is no information about or vita for the PI, Mr. Lovett. Letters of commitment from different departments and institutions involved, and from members of the Advisory Committee, would have greatly demonstrated the degree of support and participation in the project. Separate internal and external evaluators are suggested. The assessment plan must be more definitive and explicit. The statement that assessment ? is the heart of the project and is still under development? leaves much desired. The dissemination plan is vague and should include more faculty development workshops among community college faculty with budgets supported by the project. Lacking the specific details in many areas leave a proposal with good promise and much rewriting. The connections with community college colleagues and connections with the local school districts provide a solid basis to start the reform.

Review #2

PROPOSAL NO.: 0311665
INSTITUTION: Central Ala Cmty Coll
NSF PROGRAM: CCLI-ADAPTATION AND IMPLEMENTA
PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR: Lovett, Michael A
TITLE: Central Alabama Community College
RATING:Fair

REVIEW:
What is the intellectual merit of the proposed activity?

The proposers plan to adapt course materials from Duke University's Connected Curriculum Project. However, they give very few details of how they plan to do this adaptation. They write about ë'modular-izing'' courses, but no explanation of this is given. There is some indication that the Duke project directors have been contacted ñ one is the advisory committee. However, there is no letter of support.

Evaluation will be done by an advisory committee, but there is no indication of objectives or of how the evaluation will be carried out.

There is no indication of departmental or institutional support. The whole project description is very sparse-they take only nine pages of the 15 allotted. They spend one page describing ë'What's Next'', but not enough on the plans for this project.

One nice idea is the workshop with regional high schools and community colleges.

What are the broader impacts of the proposed activity?

There is a need for innovative educational projects in community colleges. This proposal, however, is not appropriate.

Summary Statement

There are some good intentions and good ideas within this proposal, but they are not presented well. The PIs should work with Misko and Swinney to find ways to write a better proposal and to make a better case.

Review #3

REVIEW:
What is the intellectual merit of the proposed activity?

This project proposes to adapt the Duke University"s Connected Curriculum Project (CCP) as modified by two community colleges to augment the content of and retention in precalculus, calculus and related courses at Central Alabama Community College and to develop assessment tools needed to track the progress of students in these courses. The objectives for this project include the utilization of exemplary materials and math laboratory activities, the establishment of a math lab with access to Mathcad and MATLAB software and tutoring stations, a faculty development component, an ongoing assessment plan, and outreach to local schools. The goals are lofty but the implementation details are sketchy and not supportive of the objectives. No vita is included for the PI and the Co-PI"s need more experience in grant management. The assessment tools are cited as critical for the project but are 'still under development,' which does not lend confidence in the assessment component of the project. Much of the proposal describes the need and plans for a computer lab, but this need cannot drive the proposal. More attention and details should have been devoted to how the CCP materials were going to be adapted to CACC in what specific courses and for what topics and how these would change the learning and teaching of mathematics at CACC. There are workable models at the other community colleges cited, which could have nicely provided the desired details.
The creation of an Advisory Committee is laudable, but there is still a need for internal and external evaluators to provide the formative and summative project evaluations. The dissemination plan and faculty development sections are also very sketchy.

What are the broader impacts of the proposed activity?

Based on the comments about the proposal, there is much doubt about the actual impact on student learning, until more specific action plans are provided on how the CCP materials will be adapted to CACC. A program of this sort should impact more than the 100 undergraduate students cited. In terms of the 150 pre-college students affected, it is not clear whether the impact will be in mathematics content area at the high school levels or more awareness of the usefulness of mathematics and possible mathematics careers. The assumption is that the message from the workshops given for K-12 teachers will filter down to their students. This is not a given.

Summary Statement

Review #4

REVIEW:
What is the intellectual merit of the proposed activity?

The goal of this project is to improve learning at Central Alabama CC in the calculus and precalculus courses. Step one of their plan is to integrate lab modules which were developed at Duke University into these courses. How successful these modules have been is not mentioned in the proposal, a serious oversight. It is not clear if the modules were first tested on students at Duke, hence why these materials are to be adapted and not merely adopted is not clear. The PI fails to clearly explain how the modules will be implemented into his courses. The success rate of their calculus and precalculus courses is outstanding at 79% and 77% respectively. This makes me wonder why they need the modules. Why change what seems to be working? Maybe the PIs should let others know the techniques they are using. The fact that few students who take cal 1 matriculate to cal 2 may occur because cal 1 is a terminal course for most of these students. One important aspect of the proposal is upgrading the antiquated computer lab. They clearly need the upgrade. Is Lovett the PI or is Nicholson? I ask because Nicholson is listed as the PI on the budget pages and Lovett the organization representative, but on the cover page Lovett is listed as the PI. The evaluation plan is weak. An advisory committee is given, but there are no letters of commitment from any of them. It is also unclear if any members on the advisory committee have assessment experience.

What are the broader impacts of the proposed activity?

If successful, this project could affect several students. The dissemination plan is weak, only talks at professional conferences. Why not publish results in a professional journal? Institutionalization of the project is lacking. The PIs should include letters of commitment from key administrators. To further institutionalize the project the PIs should include faculty development workshops on how to incorporate modules into their courses and provide incentives for faculty to participate.

Summary Statement

Review #5

REVIEW:
What is the intellectual merit of the proposed activity?

This project could enhance teaching and learning through the use of resources, particularly interdisciplinary lab projects embedded in calculus courses. This particular proposal does not present a convincing argument or coherent plan to achieve this goal. The PIs are clearly qualified to undertake an adaptation and implementation project. However, it is unclear from the proposal if this is truly an adaptation and implementation project. The project proposal states that is will 'integrate lab modules from Duke Universites "Connected Currriculum Project."' The statistics of success rates in the present precalculus and calculus series is quite impressive. It is not clear from this project how adding engineering labs to the calculus program will impact student persistance in the program. It is not clear why such a large percentage of students 'change their major after taking Calculus I. understanding this phenomina would be good a good first step in preparation for re-writing this project. The proposal is very well written but some of the decisions critical to focusing the project have yet to be accomplished. This project has the potential for intellectual merit. When the Connected Curriculum Project (CCP) labs are mentioned in the action plan, there is no elaboration of how this project fits or why it might need to be adapted. There is no reference to the applicability of these labs to this endeavor, statement of the success or shortcomings of these labs, or reason why these resources may be key to the improvement of undergraduate calculus education at your institution. The proposal does not define, describe or otherwise inform the reader of the content, value, need for adaptation of the CCP labs. It is possible that this project could have intellectual merit but you would need to state a clearly and comprehensive case. you might consider the folowing if you wish to revisiting this project:
- Include information on why or for what purpose you need to adapt existing labs for use at your institution. Include the success of those materials and a letter of commitment from the PIs that created the labs you hope to adapt.
- Include a faculty development plan beyond the faculty in this project. This will help institutionalize your project. You have an interdisciplinary team. You have some pieces in place to create educational change. How will you achieve this?
- Include letters of support and commitment to inform the reader of your ability to achieve program goals, evaluate its success and disseminate your findings.
There is great potential in this project.

What are the broader impacts of the proposed activity?

This project has the potential for broad impact but a solid case is not made in this proposal.

Summary Statement
This project does not meet the primary guidlines of an adaptation and implementation project. There is no plan for adaptation of existing materials or projects stated in the proposal. This is a critical flaw.

Review #6

REVIEW:
What is the intellectual merit of the proposed activity?

The major goal of this project appears to be the creation of a mathematics lab including a lab coordinator, peer tutors and the creation of laboratory modules to be used in precalculus and calculus. The proposal is very sketchy and is lacking in specific details of the materials to be developed and how they will be used and evaluated. The creation of the lab itself is not sufficient to warrant funding. A lack of detail is evident throughout the proposal. For example, a statement is made that the PIs will buy or develop assessment tools. Much more thought and evaluation is needed here. Another example is the early reference towards removing the stereotypical aspects of mathematics courses, but no follow up or future reference is included. Reference is made towards utilizing the Duke Connected Curriculum Projects, but no specific details of how these would be adapted are stated.

What are the broader impacts of the proposed activity?

If this project developed innovative adaptations of prior work, such as the projects created at Duke, it could have a broad impact for the institution and for other similar institutions. However, as the proposal is written no clear impact can be appreciated, other than the creation of a mathematics laboratory.

Summary Statement

The investigators have clearly identified a need for updated computers and a tutorial resource available by the creation of a mathematics laboratory. However, for consideration for funding the proposal needs to be revised to include specific details of the materials and modules that will be created. It must be clear what adaptations are being made and how these materials can be both implemented and assessed.