1. What We Are About! Ain Shams Univ., Cairo University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign UW - Madison Gillette College Purdue University Tufts University Lawrence University University of New Hampshire Unity College University of Dubuque College of Idaho Madison Area Technical College Augustana College Pacific University of Oregon Pacific Northwest National Laboratory University of Maryland Eastern Shore Grand Valley State University University of Louisville University of Wisconsin- Rock County

2. CIRTL Network Meeting Fall 2012 College Park, MD

3. The CIRTL mission is to enhance excellence in undergraduate education through the development of a national faculty committed to implementing and advancing effective teaching practices for diverse learners as part of successful and varied professional careers. CIRTL Mission

4. Mission To Advance STEM Undergraduate Learning The Core Ideas Teaching-as-Research Learning Community Learning-through-Diversity Strategy Preparing Future Faculty What Makes Us CIRTL?

5. The CIRTL Network - 2012 26% of nation’s PhD production

6. The CIRTL Network - 2012 Local Learning Communities New Hires Activities LocalLeadershipTeams

7. The CIRTL Network - 2012 Leadership Team (weekly meetings starting 2/12) Network Meetings (monthly starting 4/12) Focus on the CIRTL Core Ideas Communication and Web Infrastructure Curriculum Operations Group underway IT Needs Assessment underway Research and Evaluation Ops Group underway PUI Initiative planning underway Operations and Initiatives

8. The CIRTL Network - 2012 Graduate courses - 5 57 participants from 13 institutions Coffee Hours - 11 60 participants each (average) 60 participants each (average) TAR Seminar and Poster Session 33 participants CIRTL Exchanges 5 TAR interns among 5 universities Cross-Network Learning Community

9. NSF Proposal Status – 10/10/2012 February 1 – Submission with start date of August 1, 2012 August 14 – Reviews: Excellent, Excellent, Very Good, Very Good Good, Fair, Fair, Fair Good, Fair, Fair, Fair Sept. 11 – Response to Reviews: Requested by Program Officer Requested by Program Officer Received positively Received positively October – Contacts with NSF by “Friends of CIRTL” to Expedite Decision

10. NSF Proposal Status – 10/10/2012 Current Situation: Program Officer Presents Proposal to EHR Action Review Board Tuesday, October 16 (tentative) Proposal Under Discussion in Office of Integrative Activities Potential for (co-)funding via EPSCoR Potential for funding via supplements to co-located STCs and ERCs Monday, October 15

11. Timelines “Today” – October-November 2012 Must have NSF decision Not to decide is to decide for alternative path for Network If NSF positive … Short – Spring 2013 Establish subcontracts First Initiatives at each campus Cross-Network Learning Community “light” Development of additional external funding Intermediate – Fall 2013 – Spring 2014 Full launch of plan of work in the proposal Development of additional external funding

12. Timelines “Today” – October-November 2012 Must have NSF decision Not to decide is to decide for alternative path for Network If NSF delayed or negative… Very Short – December 2012 Exhaust current grant funding CIRTL Central Must have alternative path in place, even if interim Short – Spring 2013 First Initiatives at each campus ? Cross-Network Learning Community “light” ? Develop alternative external funding

13. Timelines Intermediate – Fall 2013 – Spring 2014 Alternative path in full operation Launch additional components of proposal plan as external funding permits Long – Post-Spring 2014 Launch additional components of proposal plan as external funding permits

14. Plan of this Meeting Goals Move forward toward expanding opportunities for future faculty Sharing, Learning, and Developing Roadmaps for the Network in alternative funding scenarios Initial discussions of external funding sources beyond NSF

15. Thursday morning Move forward toward expanding opportunities for future faculty Sharing: Begin by helping each other develop plans for First Initiatives Learning: Breakouts facilitated to provide knowledge on requested topics Developing: Opportunity to work face-to-face on Network initiatives Plan of this Meeting

16. Thursday afternoon Roadmaps for the Network in alternative funding scenarios Focus on determining what is and is not possible in alternative funding scenarios Thursday evening homework What are institutional thoughts/inclinations about scenarios? What does institution seek to receive from Network membership; what does institution wish to provide? What are our mutual expectations for each other?

17. Plan of this Meeting Friday morning Institutional inclinations with respect to scenarios How can we proceed in advance of external funding? Which of the scenarios, or combinations, are viable? Friday afternoon Initial discussions of external funding sources beyond NSF

18. Let’s Get Started! Thursday morning Move forward toward expanding opportunities for future faculty Sharing: Begin by helping each other develop plans for First Initiatives What are your ideas? What is in place (that others can draw on)? What challenges are you running into? Can partners help? CHARGE: Are the CIRTL core ideas deeply woven into each F I ? (Accurately ?) (Accurately ?)

19. Let’s Get Started! Table 1 - Development of new CIRTL courses, some with emphasis on diversity Iowa State University University of Colorado University of Georgia University of Missouri University of California, San Diego Table 2 – Development of new courses or adapting courses to integrate CIRTL core ideas Boston University Johns Hopkins University University of Massachusetts University of Rochester University of Texas - Arlington University of Wisconsin Table 3 – Development of TAR projects, some integrated within certificate programs Howard University University of Houston University of Pittsburgh Washington University in St. Louis

20. Let’s Get Started! Table 4 - Mentor Training Cornell University University of Maryland Table 5 – Future Faculty Learning Communities Iowa State University University of Maryland University of Michigan Northwestern University Texas A&M University Vanderbilt University Table 6 – Integration of CIRTL into Teaching Assistant training Michigan State University University of California, San Diego University of Georgia

21. Let’s Get Started! Thursday morning Learning: Breakouts facilitated to provide knowledge on requested topics Developing: Opportunity to work face-to-face on Network initiatives

22. Let’s Get Started! Thursday morning Learning: Breakouts facilitated to provide knowledge on requested topics Table 1 – On-Line Network Courses (Gillian-Daniel, Simon/Newbury) Table 2 - Resources Already Available (Barnicle, Greenler) Table 3 - Building CIRTL Leadership Teams (Campa, Mathieu) Table 4 – Creating Teaching-as-Research Opportunities (Alley, Border, Urban-Lorraine)

23. Let’s Get Started! Thursday morning Developing: Opportunity to work face-to-face on Network initiatives Table 5 – Cross-Network Curriculum Operations Group – Policies (Justice) (Justice) Table 6 - Cross-Network Information Technology Development (Bender, Peer) (Bender, Peer)

25. What We Are About! Ain Shams Univ., Cairo University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign UW - Madison Gillette College Purdue University Tufts University Lawrence University University of New Hampshire Unity College University of Dubuque College of Idaho Madison Area Technical College Augustana College Pacific University of Oregon Pacific Northwest National Laboratory University of Maryland Eastern Shore Grand Valley State University University of Louisville University of Wisconsin- Rock County

26. Scenario Planning Prioritization of Activities

27. Scenario Planning Goal: An initial report-out to the group on what the CIRTL Network can accomplish, in this scenario, toward achieving our goal of a future STEM faculty well prepared to teach.

28. Scenario Planning Scenarios: Scenario 1: Partial NSF Funding ($12M) Scenario 2: No NSF, “Rapid Institutionalization” Scenario 3: No NSF, Current Funding/In-Kind

29. Scenario Planning Resources: Local Institutional Leader Administrative co-Leader Local CIRTL Leadership Team Faculty, staff, graduate and undergraduate students Faculty, staff, graduate and undergraduate students Institutional infrastructure and resources as available

30. Scenario Planning Scenario 1: Partial NSF Funding ($12M) Resources: Local and Network

31. Scenario Planning Scenario 3: No NSF, Current Funding/In-Kind Resources: Network

32. Scenario Planning Scenario 2: No NSF, “Rapid Institutionalization” Resources: Network

33. Scenario Planning Process: -Think and work at a high level. There isn’t time here to work out the details. “We can have a cross-Network curriculum with 0.5 FTE staff support” “IT support will have to be distributed via in-kind contributions” “Research can be independently funded” -You will have to make hard choices to cut.

34. Scenario Planning Process: - Use our mutual prioritizations The plan has to align with our mission and needs

35. Scenario Planning Process: - Rough cost estimates are provided based on NSF proposal and for varieties of staff of CIRTL Central These are to help guide you - don’t get caught up in “budget development”! In most cases they are not “all or nothing”.

36. Scenario Planning Process: Don’t fear to be creative! Don’t fear to be creative!

37. Table 1: Scenario 1: Partial NSF Funding ($12M) Table 2: Scenario 2: No NSF, “Rapid Institutionalization” Table 3: Scenario 3: No NSF, Current Funding/In-Kind Let’s Get Started!

38. Cross-Network Learning Community “Give one, receive 24” for the future faculty on each of our campuses

39. In-Kind Contributions Growth Plan

40. In-Kind Contributions NSF Proposal

41. In-Kind Contributions NSF Proposal

42. In-KindContributions July 2012

43. In-Kind Contributions Diversity of Possibilities

44. In-Kind Contributions Blend of Cross-Network activities, evolving to suit need and demand Blend of Cross-Network activities, evolving to suit need and demand Contributions as laid out in July 2012 plan Contributions as laid out in July 2012 plan High-engagement = extended involvement of future faculty High-engagement = extended involvement of future faculty “0.25 FTE” = Substantial (e.g., 10-hr/week) contribution “0.25 FTE” = Substantial (e.g., 10-hr/week) contribution Provided by faculty, instructors or staff appropriate to the specific activity Provided by faculty, instructors or staff appropriate to the specific activity An *institutional* responsibility An *institutional* responsibility (Curriculum Operations Group => Cross-Network LC Ops Group)

45. Scenario Planning: What will institutions give and gain? Institutional Contributions – Local programming for doctoral students – Program contributions to Network – Dues Institutional Benefits – Expanded program opportunities for doctoral students – CIRTL “branding” of programs for future faculty – Coordination from CIRTL Central – Collegial connections and idea exchange – Participation in planning for future funding

46. Small Group Discussion What are your thoughts and reactions concerning your institution’s perspectives about this scenario?