Frequently Asked Questions

January 23, 2025, at 3 pm ET. Please complete this online form for a zoom invitation. 

Awards will be made to colleges, not individuals.

We anticipate that awards will be announced by the end of April 2025.

We will have eight RMP virtual faculty development sessions. At the moment, we have dates for the first four.

• September 19, 2025, 10 am-12:30 pm

• November 7, 2025, 10 am-12:30 pm

• January 30, 2026, 10 am-12:30 pm

• March 27, 2026. We may likely have this meeting in-person, instead. More information will be provided in the coming months.

Teaching Squares (TS) is a faculty learning community of four instructors (each represents a square) from different disciplinary areas in a college or university who observe each other’s classes and then together reflect on what they have observed and how they can improve their teaching. The peer observation is not to evaluate their colleague’s instruction. Rather, it is an opportunity for the observer to learn from their peers, and consequently, gather ideas to improve or enhance their own teaching.

Our modified TS approach for RMP will not be interdisciplinary but inter-institutional among mathematics instructors. That is, each TS team will comprise of two colleges: as such, a team of four fellows. Project personnel will facilitate site visits for peer observations. Each member of a TS will be observed at least once.

We will use the active learning framework from the NSF-Funded AMATYC Teaching for PROWESS project. Under this framework the notion of active learning is premised on four guiding principles promoted by Laursen and Rasmussen (2019) and AMATYC IMPACT’s four pillars of PROWESS (PRoficiency, OWnership, Engagement, and Student Success): 

• Students’ deep engagement in mathematical thinking (PRoficiency)

• Instructors’ interest in and use of student thinking (OWnership)

• Student-to-student interaction (Engagement)

• Instructors’ attention to equitable and inclusive practices (Student Success)

Reference

Laursen, S. L., Rasmussen, C. (2019). I on the prize: Inquiry approaches in undergraduate mathematics. International Journal of Research in Undergraduate Mathematics Education, (5), 1-18. 

These courses are typically first credit-bearing introductory college classes that equip students with skills needed to succeed in their majors and fields of study. In this project we are focusing on courses affected by the MI Reconnect program. Each college team will define and explain the nature and extent of the impact of the MI Reconnect program on their chosen gateway course. For example, at Kellogg Community College, as a result of MI Reconnect program, stand-alone developmental mathematics courses are no longer offered, and the lower-level mathematics courses now include co-requisite support. This is a significant shift from previous curriculum practices; consequently, a course such as Math 125, College Algebra, qualifies as a gateway course impacted by MI Reconnect program. 

College teams should consist of at least two faculty members (full-time or adjunct mathematics faculty). We recognize that at some institutions, non-mathematics STEM faculty may teach mathematics courses. Such instructors are welcome to be part of the college team. For colleges with a small number of mathematics faculty it may be challenging to find a colleague within the department to partner with. Thus, we encourage including faculty from additional departments.

We emphasize having teams of at least two people because research shows that departments or disciplines are more successful at driving instructional change when they work collaboratively, rather than through individual efforts. This project explores ways for team members to collaborate and act as change agents for the targeted course within their departments and institutions.  

While college teams may have additional faculty assisting with projects, due to resource limitations, support from RMP will be provided for only two people, the primary leaders of the project.

Reviewers will be selected from across the country to assist RMP leadership in selecting six colleges. The review criteria are as follows:

In keeping with the goals and requirements of the NSF Innovation in Two-Year College STEM Education(STEM Education):

1. Projects must outline clear goals, provide specific descriptions of planned activities, and include a strategy to document the outcomes of these activities.

2. Projects should align with RMP objectives and have the potential to advance or enhance the knowledge base in mathematics or STEM education at the two-year college level.

3. Projects should aim to address broader societal goals, particularly within the context of the proposing institution's local community.

4. Projects should include a meaningful evaluation process to assess its impact.

The following elements will be considered in the review:

• Intellectual Merit: What is the potential for the proposed activity to advance knowledge and understanding within the field of two-year college mathematics education or across different STEM fields within the proposing institution or locality?

• Broader Impact: What is the potential for the proposed activity to bring about systemic change, benefit society, or advance desired societal outcomes within the proposing institution or locality?

• Is the plan for implementing the proposed project activities and evaluating their impact well-reasoned, well-organized, and supported by a good rationale? Does the plan include a mechanism to assess its success?

• Are there adequate resources and institutional support available to college teams to carry out the proposed activities?

Reviewers will be asked to rate each proposal as follows:

• Excellent: An outstanding proposal; deserves highest priority for support

• Very Good: A high-quality proposal in nearly all respects; should be supported if at all possible

• Good: A quality proposal, worthy of support

• Fair: Proposal lacking in one or more critical aspects

• Poor: Proposal has serious deficiencies 

We recognize that sometimes projects need to be revised. This may likely be the case after the Active Learning Summer Workshop. Reasonable adjustments, in consultation with RMP leadership, may be acceptable. 

Keeping in mind the four principles of active learning, your chosen gateway course, and the important goal that your project will lead to increase in student success in the chosen gateway course, here are a few suggested activities to consider. These examples are meant to highlight possible approaches.

• Offer to instructors who teach the course faculty development on active learning that aligns with course curriculum and assessments.

• Create a learning community of instructors who teach the course to engage in frequent discussions on teaching and learning about the course and ways to implement and sustain active learning in the course.

• Redesign or adapt learning environments to better support active learning in the course.

• Implement co-curricular activities grounded in active learning to enhance student motivation and persistence in the course.

• Develop, implement, and sustain a culture of active learning in the areas of curriculum and instruction in the course, as well as enhance and sustain a robust course coordination and placement process.

• Design (revise, gather, or curate), implement, and assess curricular and assessment materials that are informed by active learning. This may include, for example, alternative assessment approaches.

Teacher self-efficacy refers to "a teacher’s belief in their ability to organize and execute actions required to successfully accomplish a specific teaching task in a particular context" (Tschannen-Moran, Woolfolk, & Hoy, 1998, p. 233). For example, an instructor may feel highly confident in explaining quadratic functions through a lecture-based approach but less confident when using active learning techniques. The key focus is on an individual’s belief in their capability, rather than their actual skills or performance. RMP will explore the relationship between instructors' self-efficacy for active learning and its implementation in mathematics courses.

Reference

Tschannen-Moran, M., Woolfolk, H. A., & Hoy, W. K. (1998). Teacher efficacy: Its meaning and measure. Review of Educational Research, 68(2), 202-248. 

Funds awarded to colleges can be used for various expenses related to the project. These may include course release or buyout, stipends, hourly pay, and other grant-related work such as curriculum development or collaboration with department members or other institutions. Additionally, funds can cover travel and lodging for summer and fall workshops, memberships in MichMATYC (required for 3 years) and AMATYC (required for 2 years), conference attendance, and site visits to other colleges.

Participation in the summer and fall workshops, as well as site visits (at least one site visit per college team), is required. Furthermore, we anticipate one or two of the virtual meetings will be offered in-person, instead. These costs may be included in the college budget.

Below are key items to consider:

• Active Learning Summer Workshop, June 11-14, 2025 at Kellogg CC: 3-night stay, including ground transportation and meals, with per diem rates based on www.gsa.gov.

• Site visit for Teaching Squares: 1-2 night stay, including ground transportation and meals, with per diem rates based on www.gsa.gov.

• 2026 and 2027 MichMATYC Conferences (and workshop for 2027): 1-night stay each, including ground transportation and meals, with per diem rates based on www.gsa.gov.

Here’s a sample budget and budget justification. We note that each college budget may be different. Nonetheless, awardee budget may be negotiated and revised to keep with NSF policies and requirements.  

Yes, beginning with the Active Learning Summer Workshop, June, 2025. We will also have a follow-up workshop in 2027.

Overall, the workshop will focus on approaches to implement active learning in gateway courses. The notion of active learning is promoted by Laursen and Rasmussen (2019) and AMATYC IMPACT’s four pillars of PROWESS (PRoficiency, OWnership, Engagement, and Student Success). We will explore the following active learning guiding principles from the NSF-Funded AMATYC Teaching for PROWESS project: 

• Students’ deep engagement in mathematical thinking (PRoficiency)

• Instructors’ interest in and use of student thinking (OWnership)

• Student-to-student interaction (Engagement)

• Instructors’ attention to equitable and inclusive practices (Student Success)

How to help students make sense of mathematical ideas and cultivate a mindset for productive mathematics learning is paramount in any mathematics course. As such, the workshops will involve 

• 1. Experiencing active learning from a student perspective, then reflecting on the learning from an instructor’s perspective using the OPAL: Observation Protocol for Active Learning framework (which leverages the research from Building Thinking Classrooms and other research);

  2. Reflecting on lesson design and implementation so that participants can create their own lessons in the future focused on rich mathematical tasks;

  3. Facilitating these tasks using meaningful mathematics discourse, paying particular attention to communication (teacher-to-student and student-to-student) and critiquing the reasoning of other students; and

  4. Supporting all students with diverse backgrounds and mathematical preparation through equitable and inclusive teaching practices. 

This work will hinge on the works of:

• Building Thinking Classrooms, by Peter Liljedahl,

• The 5 Practices for Orchestrating Productive Mathematics Discussions, by Smith and Stein, and

• The Observation Protocol for Active Learning, by April Strom and Scott Adamson.
  
  

Since active learning by itself is not enough to improve instructional practice, the workshop will also explore how to engage levers for change to modernize the mathematics curriculum.

Reference

Laursen, S. L., Rasmussen, C. (2019). I on the prize: Inquiry approaches in undergraduate mathematics. International Journal of Research in Undergraduate Mathematics Education, (5), 1-18. 

This may depend on what your college’s project is about. At the same time here is a snapshot timeline for the RMP project:

June-Dec 2025 

• • Active Learning Summer Workshop in June

  • College team continues to plan and work out details of team's project

  • Two Virtual PDs

  • Mentoring

  • College team fall report
    
    

Jan-May 2026

• • Implementation of college project begins with winter semester

  • Two Virtual PDs 

  • College team end-of-year report (June 2025-May 2026)
    
    

June 2026-Dec 2026

• • Ongoing implementation of college project 

  • Two Virtual PDs 

  • Mentoring

  • Site-visits begin fall

  • 2026 MichMATYC Conference + Workshop

    • College team may present at conference

  • Attend AMATYC Conference 

    • College team may present at conference

  • College team fall report
    
    

Jan-May 2027

• • Ongoing implementation of college project 

  • Two Virtual PDs 

  • Mentoring

  • Site-visits if needed

  • College team may disseminate their work

  • College team end-of-year report (June 2026-May 2027)
    
    

June-Dec 2027

• • Ongoing implementation of college project 

  • Two Virtual PDs 

  • Mentoring

  • College team may disseminate their work

  • 2027 MichMATYC Conference + Workshop

    • College team may present at conference if needed

  • Attend AMATYC Conference if needed

    • College team may present at conference if needed

  • College team fall/final report