Call for Proposals

Proposal Submission Process

• Session Type I: Individual Classroom/Project-Level Interventions

  Presentations and sessions within Session Type I will feature classroom- and/or project-level interventions aimed at improving undergraduate STEM education. Proposals should represent strategies that focus on achieving undergraduate STEM student outcomes or providing professional development for STEM faculty. Proposals offering new and innovative insights into undergraduate STEM reform strategies that lead to the retention of students from historically marginalized groups in STEM are particularly encouraged.

  Proposed sessions must be deeply grounded in the literature and driven by either quantitative or qualitative research approaches. Additionally, Type I sessions must demonstrate capacity for transferability beyond your own institutional context. Proposals that merely present a “show and tell” of outcomes, are devoid of a theoretical basis, or do not address how the successful strategies can be transferred to other contexts will likely not be accepted.

• Session Type II: Institution-Level Interventions

  Presentations and sessions within Session Type II will focus on the implementation of institution-wide efforts to reform STEM higher education, particularly those that are readily transferable to other academic departments and disciplines. These sessions should emphasize broad-based changes, particularly in institutional policies and/or practices, that benefit either STEM students or faculty. Emphasis on institution-wide efforts that differentially impact students and faculty from historically marginalized groups in STEM are particularly encouraged.

  Proposed Type II sessions must be deeply grounded in the literature and driven by either quantitative or qualitative research approaches. Proposals that merely present a “show and tell” of outcomes, are devoid of a theoretical basis, or do not address how the successful undergraduate STEM reform strategies can be transferred across departmental and/or disciplinary divides will likely not be accepted.

• Session Type III: National-Level Interventions

  Presentations and sessions within Session Type III will focus on models for STEM higher education reform that directly impact more than a single institution. These sessions will explore how national alliances and communities of practice—whether formal or informal—can be used to advance and accelerate STEM reform. Proposals that enhance our understanding of STEM culture, as well as the systemic institutional structures and/or barriers that limit the participation of STEM students and/or faculty from historically marginalized groups are particularly encouraged.

  Proposed Type III sessions must be deeply grounded in the literature and driven by either quantitative or qualitative research approaches. Additionally, Type III sessions must demonstrate capacity for impact beyond that which has already been achieved. Proposals that merely present a “show and tell” of outcomes, are devoid of a theoretical basis, or do not address how the successful STEM reform strategies are relevant across all institution types will likely not be accepted.

• Session Type IV: STEM Education Research

  Presentations and sessions within Session Type IV will focus on generation of new knowledge relevant to the empirical exploration and examination of undergraduate STEM student learning, broadening participation, faculty development, leadership, and/or institutional change. Proposals that demonstrate potential to enhance our understanding of reform efforts that differentially impact students and faculty from historically marginalized groups in STEM are particularly encouraged.

  Proposed sessions for Session Type IV must be theory-driven and deeply grounded in quantitative, qualitative, or mixed methodological approaches. Proposals that merely present a “show and tell” of outcomes, are devoid of theoretical basis, promote “one size fits all” approaches, and/or fail to consider the range of various institutional types that surround and influence STEM education programs will likely not be accepted.

Session Formats

• Poster Presentations (60 minutes each)

  Poster presentations are expected to provide presenters with an opportunity to create concise, visual displays of their STEM reform findings and/or outcomes. These presentations should be designed to contribute to open discussion at the conference, as well as advance national STEM reform discourse. Proposed sessions must be deeply grounded in the literature and driven by either quantitative or qualitative research, as appropriate.

• Innovation/Ideation Sessions (30 minutes each; up to 5 presenters)

  These sessions will feature “untested” strategies, emerging research, and new theories or concepts that show promise for advancing our national STEM higher education reform agenda. The presentation should include time for audience questions and feedback.

  Selection of proposals for these sessions is based on a modified level of review, which considers the relative absence of preliminary findings to be a strength. However, the proposal should provide a very detailed description of the idea or innovation to be presented, as well as the context in which it is expected to be successful.

• Regular Sessions (30 minutes each; up to 5 presenters)

  Regular sessions will provide an opportunity for presenters to disseminate findings and/or outcomes from their most recent undergraduate STEM reform initiatives. Presenters should prepare concise presentations to allow ample time for attendee questions and feedback.

  Selection of proposals for these sessions does consider the quality of preliminary findings or outcomes. Proposals for regular sessions should explain the overall context in which findings and/or outcomes occurred in order to determine if sufficient impact has been made. Regular session proposals should be deeply grounded in the literature and driven by either quantitative or qualitative research, as appropriate. Regular session proposals that reflect novel approaches to undergraduate STEM reform are particularly encouraged.

• Facilitated Discussions (60 minutes each; up to 5 presenters)

  Facilitated discussions will provide an opportunity for conference attendees to deeply examine and explore STEM higher education reform topics of current interest. Presenters are expected to guide conference attendees in examining new ways of thinking about STEM higher education reform and the specific strategies that are needed for advancing and accelerating a reform agenda that fully considers the diversity of individual and institutional contexts that will be represented at the conference.

  Proposals for facilitated discussions should explain the overall context surrounding the anticipated discussion and clearly identify the intended audience. Proposed facilitated discussions must be deeply grounded in the literature and driven by either quantitative or qualitative research, as appropriate. Proposals for facilitated discussions should also reflect the capacity to generate new ideas and questions from conference attendees as a means of making the session stimulating and meaningful for all involved.

• Workshops (90 minutes each; up to 4 presenters)

  Workshops will provide a highly interactive environment for presenters and conference attendees to deeply examine, explore, and engage with the relevant theories and implementation strategies that can contribute to advancing STEM higher education reform. Workshops are expected to actively involve conference attendees in reflection and discussion about work related to undergraduate STEM reform models and/or practices.

  Proposed workshops must be deeply grounded in the literature and driven by either quantitative or qualitative research, as appropriate. Workshop proposals must provide details about the scholarship that will inform the workshop topic and its approach to conference attendee engagement. Proposed sessions that are designed to model high-impact practices, such as small-group collaboration and experiential learning, will be given priority for presentation.

• Pre-Conference Workshops (3 hours each; up to 5 presenters)

  Pre-conference workshops are a hallmark of the AAC&U STEM conference. These sessions provide opportunities for conference attendees to vigorously and deeply engage in a broad spectrum of topics that are related to the reform of STEM higher education.

  All pre-conference workshops are expected to be highly interactive, utilizing creative strategies that are grounded in the basic principles of adult learning. For this reason, proposals for pre-conference workshops should provide highly detailed information on the workshop structure, plan for engagement of the target audience, an appropriate balance between content delivery and breaks, and anticipated learning outcomes for attendees. Workshops must also be deeply grounded in the literature and driven by either quantitative or qualitative research, as appropriate.

For your review, a sample proposal is provided below:

• STEM Conference Proposal Sample

  Session Title: A Work in Context: Tracking the Success of Implementing CUREs at an HSI

  Session Type: Workshop

  Background and Significance: Implementation of high impact practices (HIPs) is vital to expanding the pipeline of underrepresented students in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) fields, yet continues to be a challenge for many institutions. Research experiences have been shown to be particularly effective for underprepared and underrepresented groups (Kuh, 2009). However, traditional research experiences may be out of reach for some underrepresented students as they may not satisfy entrance requirements to research programs, may lack acculturation to apply for extracurricular research (Bangera and Brownell, 2014), or may have additional family and financial obligations (Malcolm et al., 2010) that preclude them from maximizing the benefits of apprenticeship experiences. Malcolm and others (2010) suggested increasing accessibility to research opportunities at HSIs and community colleges by integrating research experiences directly into the core curriculum (e.g. CUREs) as a means to increase participation, retention, and success in STEM. In 2014, CUREnet, an NSF-funded Research Coordination Network for Undergraduate Biology Education, defined the key elements of CUREs as 1) use of scientific practices, 2) focus on discovery, 3) focus on broadly relevant or important work, 4) collaboration, and 5) iteration (Auchincloss et al., 2014). In addition to broadening participation, CUREs have been shown to stimulate greater learning and affect gains when compared to non-CURE courses (Lopatto et al., 2008; Wei and Wooden, 2011; Olimpo et al., 2016). Integrating CUREs into existing courses or creating new courses presents unique challenges that call for research into contextualizing CUREs to make implementation accessible to a broad range of academic institutions.

  Evidence of Effectiveness: University X, a Hispanic Serving Institution (HSI), reaches populations of students who have traditionally been underrepresented in STEM fields. To broaden participation in undergraduate research, University X implemented a Design Your Own Experiment (DYOE) pedagogy, a variant of Course-Based Undergraduate Research Experiences or CUREs, in laboratory learning modules of a required sophomore level cell biology course. This course was analyzed for learning, critical thinking, and affective gains over a three-year period. The results suggest that students benefited in all three domains from the DYOE experience. Further analysis of student surveys and faculty interviews highlighted key features of the lab and lecture sections that influence student outcomes. Specifically, the role of lecture style and content on student learning in the lab will be discussed. Recommendations for implementation based on these findings will also be addressed.

  Plan for Engaging Conference Participants/Attendees: This workshop will feature different scenarios for CURE implementation in small groups, especially focusing on scenarios that apply to their institutions. Key variables that may affect implementation include: course topic, instructor pool (e.g. part-time/adjunct, full time, novice, experienced), classroom size, availability of facilities, teaching assistants, and student demographics among others. As a result, participants will learn about assessment outcomes in learning, critical thinking, and affect of students in a DYOE-CURE model, as well as gain a nuanced and contextualized understanding of barriers and strategies for: CURE development, implementation, student buy-in, and student success. Participants will also customize a strategy for their institutional setting, and develop learning outcomes for a CURE of their own choosing and generate ideas for course delivery and assessment through guided discussion. Facilitators of this session will guide participants in creating a collaborative list of practices and strategies for each group to share at the end. This will help participants define learning goals for lab-embedded research and discuss ways to integrate lecture material. Different styles of course instruction, including traditional lecture, active learning, and flipped, will be discussed in context of a CURE. Ideas for assessment of lecture-lab integration will be gathered and shared.