Loading presentation...

Present Remotely

Send the link below via email or IM

Copy

Present to your audience

Start remote presentation

  • Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
  • People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
  • This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
  • A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
  • Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article

Do you really want to delete this prezi?

Neither you, nor the coeditors you shared it with will be able to recover it again.

DeleteCancel

Demystifying the Federal Review Grant Process: Focus on NSF

OSU EHE presentation
by

Kimberly Lightle

on 18 May 2010

Comments (0)

Please log in to add your comment.

Report abuse

Transcript of Demystifying the Federal Review Grant Process: Focus on NSF

Demystifying the Federal Grant Review Process A Focus on NSF Directorate for Education and Human Resources (EHR) Division of Graduate Education (DGE) Division of Research on Learning in Formal and Informal Settings (DRL) Division of Undergradute Education (DUE) Division of Human Resource Development (HRD) NSF.gov Find funding Writing guidelines Review process Introductions
NSF website
Appropriate programs
Review process
Look at IM and BI examples
Best practices Directorates, Divisions, and Programs Robert Noyce - due March 10, 2010
ATE – optional prelim due yesterday (4/22)
CCEP-I – letter of intent – due today (required)
MSP – due July 8, 2010
NSDL – due May 24, 2010
CCLI is now TUES – due January 14, 2011
GK-12 - due June 3, 2010 REESE – due November 12, 2009
ITEST – due January 19, 2010
DR K-12 – due January 7, 2010
FIRE – new strand of REESE Program – due May 20, 2010
ISE – prelims due June 24, 2010
Review Process 2 BIG Questions Intellectual Merit Broader Impacts How important is the proposed activity to advancing knowledge and understanding within its own field or across different fields?
How well qualified is the proposer (individual or team) to conduct the project? (If appropriate, the reviewer will comment on the quality of prior work.)
To what extent does the proposed activity suggest and explore creative, original, or potentially transformative concepts?
How well conceived and organized is the proposed activity?
Is there sufficient access to resources?
How well does the activity advance discovery and understanding while promoting teaching, training, and learning?
How well does the proposed activity broaden the participation of underrepresented groups (e.g., gender, ethnicity, disability, geographic, etc.)?
To what extent will it enhance the infrastructure for research and education, such as facilities, instrumentation, networks, and partnerships?
Will the results be disseminated broadly to enhance scientific and technological understanding?
What may be the benefits of the proposed activity to society?
Different Programs in EHR
have different foci Example: Reviewing REESE Proposals Research and Evaluation on Education in Science and Engineering
Program seeks to provide foundational knowledge needed to improve STEM teaching and learning
Catalyze discovery and innovation in STEM learning, education, and evaluation
Stimulate production of research results through development of theory, methods, and resources.
Coordinate and transform advances
This leads me to look for: Activities that are guided by research questions firmly grounded in theory
Activities that will generate findings to move the field forward (advance knowledge base and theory), while also achieving specific goals for participants.
Explicit research design and data analysis plans, including measures and instruments to be used to collect data.
Be Mindful of Published Criteria Intellectual Merit
Broader Impacts
Solicitation-specific criteria
Attention to Core NSF Strategies:
Integration of research and education
Integrating diversity into programs, projects and activities These criteria lead me to look for: Evidence of familiarity with the relevant literature and research base, increasing the likelihood that the project will extend what we already know (knowledge base and theory) (i.e. there must be a theoretical framework)
Collaboration of research team members representing all relevant areas of expertise in the science and education specialties involved
Explicit plans for inclusion where relevant
A robust dissemination plan that reflects a familiarity with the relevant discourse communities and modes of engagement
A robust evaluation plan (formative & summative components) with an external review process Features that impress reviewers: Well-structured and coherent narrative that communicates to reviewers who may be unfamiliar with the specific context or setting of the proposed activity
Headings or emphases that highlight how merit review criteria are being addressed
Explicit presentation of research questions, why they are important based on literature, and how data will be used to answer the questions
Having a way of documenting every claim, predicted outcome, or expectation Kiss of Death Not following directions laid out in RFP
Not including Intellectual Merit and Broader Impacts in Summary Best Practices Read the RFP very carefully – narrative should reflect outlined sections
Read abstracts of projects that were funded in previous years
Build a relationship with program officer
Have no more than 3-4 goals
Build a team that reflects goals
Capture attention immediately
Be specific on how you will meet goals
Resubmit the next year if not funded
Request to be a reviewer
Read the Cyberinfrastructure Report
Be transformative
Questions? Comments? GSE - letter of intent due September 7, 2010
RDE - due February 2, 2011
Full transcript