1. Cookies and Nuggets

2. AGEP 2008 Data Collection Just add 07-08 data, including 07/08 PhD recipients (No other changes). Data due October 30, 2008 (Sorry no exceptions). 2008 Cookie Winners: Northwestern and Purdue.

3. Report Of The Advisory Committee For GPRA Performance Assessment Why AGEP Institutions Should Care: The Advisory Committee for GPRA Performance Assessment (AC/GPA) was established in June 2002 to provide advice and recommendations to the NSF Director regarding the Foundation's performance under the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) of 1993.

4. Report Conclusion “The [NSF] portfolio has many examples of programs aimed at populations of students currently underrepresented in STEM disciplines (Highlight IDs 14876, 15287, 15299, 15304, 15345, 15350, and 15389). However insufficient data are provided to assess fully the outcomes and broader impacts of these initiatives. “

5. Report Conclusion “Regarding broadening participation, the Chair was of the opinion that the initiatives in place were already quite substantial and over time should result in substantial outcomes and improvements.” Report Recommendation “Track Future Outcomes from “People” Trained and Supported by the Foundation.”

6. From Sausages to Skateboards Original included: 1. Student ratings of applications as contributing to their understanding of concepts 2. Student interest 3. Quantitative relationships between 1 and 2. 4. Student ratings of their learning of concepts covered by the applications (with a comparison group) 5. Student grades (with a comparison group).

7. NSF Excerpt From Sausages to Skateboards measured the impact of teaching real-life applications in undergraduate mechanical engineering courses. The research demonstrated that the use of applications had a positive impact on final course grades only when the whole course was applications based. Students in the application-based course had significantly higher final course grades than comparison students matched by instructor and course who did not receive application-based teaching or when only two or three applications were used during a course.

8. Writing A FY 2009 Highlight Why is this outcome notable and/or important: in terms of intellectual merit in terms of broader impacts Does this highlight represent transformative or potentially transformative research? Why? Does this highlight represent Broadening Participation? Why? Are there existing or potential societal benefits of this research? It is important for NSF to be able to provide examples of NSF-supported research that have societal benefits, including benefits to the U.S. economy.

9. Writing A FY 2009 Highlight Have an interesting picture. Have a title that is distinctive and descriptive. Include some academic results. Include comparison results/answer the question “Compared to what?”. Make it one page, including the picture.