Transcript Funding Opportunities - FSU

Developing a Competitive
Educational Research Proposal for
the National Science Foundation’s
Division of Research on Learning
Gavin Fulmer, Janice Earle, Kusum Singh, and Celeste Pea
Division of Research on Learning in Formal and Informal Settings,
National Science Foundation
AERA Conference Workshop, April 9, 2011
Workshop Goals
Goals
• Familiarize with NSF educational research programs
• Consider common issues of competitive NSF proposals
• Discuss your proposal ideas
• Prepare you to write a competitive proposal
9 APR 2011
2
Workshop Agenda
Time
Format
1:00-1:45
Plenary
1:45-3:15
Small Group
3:15-3:30
Break
3:30-4:15
Small Group
• Participants discuss proposal ideas
4:15-5:00
Plenary
• Summarize small-group discussion
• Other proposal-writing tips
9 APR 2011
Activity
• Introduction to NSF/EHR educational
research programs
• Merit review process and criteria
• Read excerpts from funded proposals
• Discussion of strengths and weaknesses
3
INTRODUCTION TO NSF AND EHR
EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH PROGRAMS
9 APR 2011
4
NSF Strategic Goals
• Transform the Frontiers
– Invest in challenging potentially transformative research
– Sharpen the merit review to better identify such research;
– Emphasize interdisciplinary and system-oriented approaches that often lead to
transformational concepts.
• Innovate for Society
– Make investments that lead to results and resources that are useful to society
– Build the capacity of the nation’s citizenry for addressing societal challenges through
science and engineering
– Support the development of innovative learning systems
• Perform as a model organization
– Achieve management excellence through leadership, accountability, and personal
responsibility
– Infuse learning as an essential element of the NSF culture with emphasis on professional
development and personal growth
9 APR 2011
5
NSF Organizational Structure
National Science
Board & Office of the
Director
Biological Sciences
Education and Human
Resources
Computer & Information
Science & Engineering
Social, Behavioral and
Economic Sciences
Mathematical and
Physical Sciences
Geosciences
Engineering
9 APR 2011
6
EHR’s Mission
To enable excellence in U.S. STEM education
at all levels and in all settings in order to
support the development of a diverse and
well-prepared workforce of scientists,
technicians, engineers, mathematicians, and
educators.
9 APR 2011
7
EHR’s Structure
•
•
•
•
DGE—Division of Graduate Education
DUE—Division of Undergraduate Education
HRD—Human Resources Development
DRL—Division of Research on Learning in
Formal and Informal Settings
9 APR 2011
8
EHR Organization
Directorate
Divisions
Funding
Programs*
DR K-12
DRL
REESE
EHR
HRD
RDE
DUE
S-STEM
DGE
IGERT
* Not all programs are listed.
9 APR 2011
9
DRL Cycle of Innovation
evaluate
and
generalize
implement,
study, and
improve
design,
develop,
and test
9 APR 2011
synthesize and
theorize
explore,
hypothesize,
and clarify
10
Standards of Evidence
• Explore: Triangulation, consideration/elimination of
rival explanations
• Design: Systematic monitoring and data collection of
subjects’ responses to an innovation
• Implement: Tests the intervention under conditions
consistent with theory of action in several sites
9 APR 2011
11
Standards of Evidence, cont.
• Scale-up: Designs include experimental, quasiexperimental (and possibly non-experimental)
approaches that allow causal inference and
document impact at progressively larger scale and
more varied contexts
• Synthesize: meta-analytic techniques that include
criteria for “what’s in” and “what’s out”
9 APR 2011
12
QUESTIONS
9 APR 2011
13
DESCRIPTION OF DRL EDUCATIONAL
RESEARCH PROGRAMS
9 APR 2011
14
DRL’s Core Programs
• Research and Evaluation on Education in Science and
Engineering (REESE)
• Discovery Research K-12 (DRK-12)
• Faculty Early Career Development Program (CAREER)
• Information Technology Experiences for Students
and Teachers (ITEST)
• Informal Science Education (ISE)
9 APR 2011
15
Research and Evaluation in Education
in Science and Engineering (REESE)
Program Solicitation 10-586
 Supports research and evaluation that enhances STEM
education and learning
 Seven research strands
 Four award types
9 APR 2011
16
REESE Research Strands
1. National STEM education policies
2. Research on implementation
3. STEM learning in formal and informal settings
4. Cyberlearning and learning technologies
5. Methods, models, and measurement for research and
evaluation
6. Cognitive underpinnings of STEM learning
7. Neural bases of STEM learning
9 APR 2011
17
REESE Award Information
Proposal Types
Award Limit and Duration
Synthesis
$250,000
2 years
Pathways
$250,000
2 years
Empirical
$1,500,000
3 years
Large Empirical
$2,500,000
5 years
Note. These are the expected FY 2011 numbers.
9 APR 2011
18
New REESE Strand: FIRE
• FIRE (Fostering Interdisciplinary Research in
Education)
– Program Solicitation 11-526
– Proposal due date: April 29, 2011
• Purpose: Provide opportunity (up to 2 years and for
$400,000) for scholars to cross disciplinary
boundaries to acquire the skills and knowledge
needed to conduct rigorous research on STEM
learning and education.
– (1) development of innovative theoretical, methodological
and analytic approaches to understanding complex STEM
education issues
9 APR 2011
19
FIRE
– (2) to broaden and deepen the pool of those engaged in
STEM education research
• Investigators must identify a mentor in a to-belearned field of interest
• Proposals must contain both a research and an
education component
• Examples: A cognitive scientist who wants to deepen
their understanding of some STEM content; an
economist who wants to learn more about education
research; a biologist who wants to understand how
to use HLM
9 APR 2011
20
Discovery Research K-12 (DRK-12)
Program Solicitation 10-610
 Proposals were due January, 2011
 Enables advances in PK-12 student and teacher learning of the
STEM disciplines through the development, implementation,
and study of resources, models, and technologies
 Five program challenges
 Four award types
9 APR 2011
21
DR K-12 Program Information
• Challenges
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
How can improved assessment of student knowledge and skills advance
preK-12 STEM teaching and learning?
How can all students be assured the opportunity to learn significant
STEM content?
How can we enhance the ability of teachers to provide high quality
STEM education for all students?
How are effective innovations successfully implemented, scaled, and
sustained in schools and districts in a cost effective manner?
How can next-generation, cyber-enabled learning materials radically
transform students’ STEM learning experiences and enhance their
abilities and interests in STEM fields?
• Must be at the preK-12 level
9 APR 2011
22
DR K-12 Award Information
Proposal Types
Award Limit and Duration
Synthesis
$250,000
2 years
Exploratory
$450,000
3 years
Research & Development
$3,500,000
5 years
Scale-up Projects
$5,000,000
5 years
9 APR 2011
23
CAREER
Program Solicitation 11-690
 Proposals due July 25, 2011
 Minimum of $400,000 over 5 years
 Describes both
– Research project
– Educational activities
 Provide letters of support from Chair and any
collaborators
9 APR 2011
24
CAREER
For DRL CAREER proposals
• Align your project to one of the other programs (e.g.,
REESE or DR K-12).
• Educational activities may be part of the proposed
research project
– Research in K-12 schools or on students’ thinking
– Development of courses and curriculum modules, etc.
9 APR 2011
25
PRIME
• Program solicitation 10-615
• Development, demonstration and validation of
innovative new methodologies and approaches to
the evaluation of STEM education programs
– New ways of determining the usefulness and impact of
evaluation of STEM education projects
– New theoretical foundations that expand perspectives on
evaluating STEM
– Developing the capacity and infrastructure that increases
the number of researchers and evaluators that produce
sound and appropriate evaluations of STEM projects
9 APR 2011
26
PRIME
Proposal Types
Award Limit and Duration
Exploratory
$250,000
2 years
Full-scale
$800,000
3 years
Workshops and Conferences
$100,000
9 APR 2011
9 APR 2011
27
27
QUESTIONS
9 APR 2011
28
MERIT REVIEW PROCESS AND
CRITERIA
9 APR 2011
29
Proposal Review Process and
Timeline
DGA
Organization
submits
via
FastLane
Ad hoc
NSF
Program
Advise
Program
Division
Officers Recommend
Director
Concur
Award
Panel
Decline
Organization
Proposal Receipt
at NSF
DD Concur
6 Months
9 APR 2011
DGA
Award
30 Days
30
Who reviews?
• DRL Panels and Reviewers
– Experts in the fields of STEM education, STEM
content, methodology, cognitive science,
psychology, sociology, anthropology; school-based
experts; etc.
– Panelists read up to 11 proposals at time
– Ad hoc reviewers
9 APR 2011
31
The Proposer Receives…
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
4201 Wilson Boulevard
Arlington, Virginia 22230
Dear Dr. Doe,
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
4201 Wilson Boulevard
Arlington, Virginia 22230
The National Science Foundation hereby
awards a grant of...
Dear Dr. Doe,
$
Reviews
Panel Summary
(if applicable)
&
I regret to inform you that the National
Science Foundation is unable to support your
proposal referenced above...
Context statement
&
Award/Declination letter
32
NSF Merit Review Criteria
Intellectual merit
• Important to advancing knowledge and understanding
• Proposers’ qualifications
• Sufficient access to resources
•
•
•
•
•
9 APR 2011
Proposed activity well-conceived and organized
Creative, original, and/or potentially transformative
Data management plan
Post-doc mentoring plan, if applicable
Evaluation
33
NSF Merit Review Criteria
Broader impacts
• Promote teaching, training, and learning?
• Broaden the participation of underrepresented groups?
• Enhance the infrastructure for research and education?
• Disseminate results broadly?
• Benefit society?
9 APR 2011
34
QUESTIONS
9 APR 2011
35
10-Minute Break
9 APR 2011
36
DISCUSSING EXCERPTS FROM
FUNDED PROPOSALS
9 APR 2011
37
Small Group Agenda
•
•
•
•
Listen to brief description of each proposal
Break into groups
Read excerpts
Discuss excerpts following prompts
• Elect a scribe and speaker to (1) note of your
group’s comments and (2) share with whole
group, respectively
9 APR 2011
38
Descriptions of Each Proposal
PI Name
David Grissmer
David Bressoud
Peter Kloosterman
Sian Beilock
Kathy Metz
Bob Slavin
Betsy Davis
9 APR 2011
Award#
Title
0815787 Math and Science Achievement Gaps for Minority and Disadvantaged
Students: Developmental and Environmental Influences from Nine
Months to 8th Grade
0910240 Characteristics of Successful Programs in College Calculus
1008438 What Mathematics Do Students Know? Implications from NAEP for
Curriculum and Policy
1042955 Applying Embodied Learning to Physics Education
0814821 Developing the Conceptual Underpinnings of Evolution in Second and
Third Grade
1019306 Effective Programs for Elementary Science: A Best-Evidence Synthesis
1007753 Investigating Teachers’ Learning, Practice, and Efficacy Using Educative
Curriculum Materials
39
Achievement Gaps, 9mos-8th grade
[Grissmer, REESE]
• Study of possible causes of observed
achievement gaps in mathematics
• Uses ECLS-K to study individual, family, and
social predictors with
– Longitudinal growth modeling,
– econometric modeling, and
– twin “quasi-causal” studies.
9 APR 2011
40
College Calculus
[Bressoud, REESE]
• Explores what works in college calculus
• Looks at
– Demographics of enrollees;
– Impact of various instructional characteristics;
– Case studies of exemplary programs;
• Develop theoretical basis for studying calculus
student success
• Disseminate through math professional societies
to influence field across USA and abroad
9 APR 2011
41
College Calculus
[Bressoud, REESE]
• National investigation of Calculus 1
– Identify factors that contribute to success;
– See how these factors are leveraged within highly
successful programs.
• Methods are large-scale survey (both
instructors and students) with explanatory
case studies
9 APR 2011
42
NAEP Mathematics
[Kloosterman, REESE]
• PIs have secure access to Main and long-term
trend NAEP items and responses
• Clustering items by content to explore trends
in Main NAEP performance over the past 20
years
• Comparing performance with Common Core
of Data to look for differences based on school
curriculum selection and other variables
9 APR 2011
43
Embodied Physics Cognition
[Beilock, FIRE]
• Testing whether different regions of brain are
activated under varied instruction
– Using a wheel to study angular momentum
– Watching another student
– Reading a passage
• Long presumed, but not demonstrated
• Students complete questions about the concept
while in fMRI machine
– Also tests confounding of language vs. visuo-motor
regions during these sessions
9 APR 2011
44
Evolution in Grades 2-3
[Metz, REESE]
• Applies the learning progression perspective to
the conceptual understanding of evolution
• Studies curriculum enactment and student
learning in (1) a project-run summer enrichment
program where research team has control, and
(2) inner-city public school classrooms
• Includes instructionally embedded assessments,
assessments to measure students’ conceptual
understanding and embedded case studies
9 APR 2011
45
Elementary Science synthesis
[Slavin, DR K-12]
• Conducting a synthesis of curriculum
interventions in elementary science
• Includes quantitative meta-analysis and
narrative review of the literature
• Purpose is to understand best practices within
or across curriculum materials
9 APR 2011
46
Teachers & Educative Curriculum
[Davis, REESE]
• Educative curriculum materials support
student and teacher learning
• Explores teachers’ learning & practices and
students’ learning when using such materials
• Includes design-research framework
– Interviews about needs for educative support,
– Developing and piloting materials,
– Efficacy study using random assignment.
9 APR 2011
47
Questions for Discussion
• How do they demonstrate importance of the
project?
• How do they communicate the methods?
• What strengths and weaknesses do you
notice about the proposed project?
– Are there commonalities or differences?
• What are lessons learned from reading these
excerpts?
9 APR 2011
48
Wrap-Up
• Discuss main ideas & insights from this small
group discussion
– Prepare 2-3 major points summarizing “lessons
learned”
9 APR 2011
49
10-Minute Break
9 APR 2011
50
DISCUSSING YOUR PROJECT IDEAS
9 APR 2011
51
Your turn
• Share your ideas for a project
• Apply the “lessons learned” from previous
discussion to your ideas
9 APR 2011
52
QUESTIONS
9 APR 2011
53
OUR TIPS FOR PREPARING A
COMPETITIVE PROPOSAL
9 APR 2011
54
Preparing to Write a Competitive Proposal
• Do your homework
– Familiarize yourself with the NSF website
– Print and read the Grant Proposal Guide (GPG)
– Read the solicitation carefully multiple times
– Check the NSF Awards Search Page
• Resource Networks for the relevant program
– Read sample proposals; ask funded PIs politely
• Talk to NSF Program Officers about your
ideas
9 APR 2011
55
9 APR 2011
arc.uchicago.edu/reese
9 APR 2011
cse.edc.org/dr-k12
9 APR 2011
Follow the Rules
•
•
•
•
Margins, font size, 15-page limit
Project Summary & Project Description
Budgetary limitations
Allowances for letters of collaboration and
other supporting documents
• Data management plan
• Post-doc mentoring plan
• Always check the GPG
– http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/policydocs/pappguide/nsf10_1/gpg_index.jsp
9 APR 2011
59
Preparing a competitive proposal – 1
• Start with a really good idea
• Communicate clearly
–
–
–
–
Address the two merit review criteria
State research objectives and questions
Have plans for carrying out the proposed work
Ground the proposed project in relevant and appropriate
literature (perhaps outside of STEM education!)
• Ask colleagues (in and out of your field) to read and
critique your proposal
• Get appropriate expertise on board
• Consider how to evaluate the project
9 APR 2011
60
Preparing a competitive proposal – 2
• Strong arguments for importance of the
problem
• STEM content clearly articulated (include
examples!)
• Research design and methodology
appropriate and sufficiently discussed
• Sensible chain of reasoning links literature
review, research questions, data, and analyses
• Impacts of the research addressed
9 APR 2011
61
Common reasons for proposals rated noncompetitive
Importance
• Proposed problem not nationally important
• Weak, vague, or no connection to STEM content
• Relevant literatures not cited
Methods
• Inadequate or inappropriate research design
• Vague or inappropriate data collection & analyses
• Too much data being collected
• Appropriate expertise not represented
• Cost at small scale prohibitive when scaled up
9 APR 2011
62
Summing Up
• Start EARLY
• Get acquainted with FastLane (www.FastLane.nsf.gov)
• Read the Program Solicitation
• Follow the guidelines!
• Contact a program officer to discuss your idea
• Provides useful information and may help you refine your idea
• May also prevent you from applying to the wrong program (e-mail is
best).
• Become an NSF reviewer.
• Subscribe to Custom News Services at NSF
http://www.nsf.gov/mynsf/
9 APR 2011
63
QUESTIONS
9 APR 2011
64
• Reviewers
– Needed for all programs on panel and as ad hoc
– Contact any Program Officer
• Program Officers
– Ask search committee members: Celeste Pea
([email protected]) or Pat Wilson ([email protected])
9 APR 2011
65
Contact Information
James Dietz
Janice Earle
Gavin Fulmer
Celeste Pea
Kusum Singh
Gregg Solomon
9 APR 2011
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
66
Thank You!
9 APR 2011
67