Preliminary results from Report on Disseminating CCLI Educational Innovations including recommendations and interpretations of the results. This project surveyed ~2,500 CCLI project Principal Investigators (from 1999-2009) to understand their opinions of dissemination of educational innovations. The survey was followed by a workshop in which invited participants discussed the survey results and provided recommendations to improve the dissemination of science, technology, engineering and mathematics projects like those in the U.S. National Science Foundation's Transforming Undergraduate Education in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (TUES) program. Cite as: Muramatsu, B. (2011). Perspectives for Dissemination and Adoption of Educational Innovations in STEM. August 30, 2011.

1. Perspectives on Dissemination and Adoption of Educational Innovations in STEM by Brandon Muramatsu, MIT OEIT This presentation based on: McMartin, F., Muramatsu, B. and Tront, J.G. (2010). Report on Disseminating CCLI Educational Innovations. Manuscript in Progress. Brandon Muramatsu mura@mit.edu 1 Citation: Muramatsu, B., (2011). Perspectives for Dissemination and Adoption of Educational Innovations in STEM. August 30, 2011. Unless otherwise specified, this work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 United States License.

2. Dissemination & Adoption of Educational Innovations: Overview Summary from U.S. NSF-funded project reviewing dissemination of CCLI (TUES) grantees High-level results Dissemination not leading to desired outcomes Adoption of innovation is driver for dissemination, but mechanisms used (papers, workshops, websites) aren’t particularly effective. Disconnect between Principal Investigators (PIs) and NSF Project Directors (PDs) on what constitutes “successful dissemination” 2 Interpretation: What’s typically disseminated is the content and a project’s history, and not the “why” or “how”.

3. Mechanism: Papers (Conference and Journal) Papers PIs surveyed thought conference papers more effective than journal papers But workshop participants observed that the most “successful” dissemination activities reflected the reward system for faculty members Most workshop participants did what they “know”—they were less knowledgeable about other potentially “effective” or successful mechanisms 3 Survey of ~2500 Principal Investigators (1999-2009), 55% response rate, n=1285

4. Mechanism: Workshops Workshops About of 50% PIs surveyed thought workshops were successful dissemination methods, to encourage adoption (top box score) But NSF PDs surveyed thought workshops were always (100%) successful dissemination methods 4 Question to ask: What makes a successful workshop experience to encourage adoption? Survey of ~2500 Principal Investigators (1999-2009), 55% response rate, n=1285 Survey of 28 Project Directors, 50% response rate, n=14

5. Mechanisms: Websites and Social Media Websites About 50% of PIs surveyed thought that websites are effective means of dissemination Few PIs (in the 10% range) thought that contributing to digital collections, NSDL, etc. were effective means of dissemination Social Media Almost no use of Social Media for dissemination by PIs surveyed 5 Interpretation: Static websites do not necessarily match the goal of “adoption of innovation.” Survey of ~2500 Principal Investigators (1999-2009), 55% response rate, n=1285

6. Dissemination & Adoption of Educational Innovations:Three Recommendations Tell the story of the innovation Interpretation: What’s often missing is the “how” and “why” certain choices were made in the design and development, more important than “project background” –or– the “organization” Clearly define “dissemination” (from Granting Agency perspective); show many effective models of dissemination so grantees have methods to emulate (or not) Interpretation: Understand what’s meant by “dissemination” Build dissemination in from the start Interpretation: Dissemination of educational innovations is more than presenting on the project at a conference, it’s about guides and support materials to help others use the materials. 6 Recommendation Share the process of creating the innovation publicly. Keep a “diary” or blog.

7. Some Guiding Questions Regarding Dissemination and Adoption of Educational Innovation Ask the following questions: Would another professor be interested in implementing my work? What would I want or need to help me use this innovation if it was developed by another faculty member? More than just content, what else? Are we making specific design decisions that unnecessarily complicate adoption or adaptation of this innovation elsewhere? 7 Recommendations

8. Perspectives on Dissemination and Adoption of Educational Innovations in STEM by Brandon Muramatsu, MIT OEIT This presentation based on: McMartin, F., Muramatsu, B. and Tront, J.G. (2010). Report on Disseminating CCLI Educational Innovations. Manuscript in Progress. Brandon Muramatsu mura@mit.edu 8 Citation: Muramatsu, B., (2011). Perspectives for Dissemination and Adoption of Educational Innovations in STEM. August 30, 2011. Unless otherwise specified, this work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 United States License.