You develop a plan for testing the prototype for a new learning strategy in your class or across institutions. How can you ensure that your plan is clearly understood by reviewers and the managing NSF program officer? What goes through the reviewer's mind once a proposal is submitted? What prompts one proposal to be recommended for funding but another declined? Close examination of the panel review process can inform proposal writing and ensure that reviewers will understand an idea, identify its merit, and value a PI's vision of how the work will broaden participation in STEM education. This workshop steps through the NSF proposal review process from submission of proposal to award or decline, touching on NSF intellectual merit and broader impact criteria, mapping the project pipeline to appropriate evaluation. Participants gain insight into writing a good review and improving one's own proposal writing. For further information and travel support see: https://people.cs.clemson.edu/~etkraem/UPCSEd/. Laptops recommended.
more »
« less
Understanding the Essence of Successful Computing Education Projects through Analyzing NSF Proposals: (Abstract Only)
You develop the prototype for a new learning strategy, and want to test it in class or across institutions. You identify an NSF program that supports proposals for the idea, and then what? What goes through the minds of reviewers once a proposal is submitted? What prompts one proposal to be recommended for funding while another is declined? Close examination of the panel review process can inform proposal writing and ensure that reviewers will understand a PI’s idea, identify its merit, and value a PI’s vision of how the work will broaden participation in STEM education. This workshop steps through the NSF proposal review process from submission of a proposal to award or decline, touching on elements of a good review, NSF intellectual merit and broader impact criteria, elements of a good proposal, and volunteering to review proposals. Participants gain insight into writing a good review and improving one’s own proposal writing. The interactive workshop leads participants through each topic by introducing related issues, engaging participants in group exercises designed to explore and share their understanding of the issues, and providing “expert” opinion on these issues. Examples include funded and non-funded projects and a Top Ten List of Do’s and Don’ts. One night of lodging and workshop registration fees will be covered by an NSF grant for the first 25 participants who submit their own one-page proposal summary to the organizers one month prior to the workshop and participate fully in the workshop. For further information see - https://people.cs.clemson.edu/~etkraem/UPCSEd/
more »
« less
- Award ID(s):
- 1646691
- NSF-PAR ID:
- 10065986
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- SIGCSE '18 Proceedings of the 49th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education
- Page Range / eLocation ID:
- 1059 to 1059
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
The Scholarships in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (S-STEM) program, managed by the U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF), provides grants to institutions of higher education to disburse scholarships for low-income, high-achieving domestic students enrolled in a STEM major. Despite the crucial role that two-year colleges (2YCs) epitomize in providing open-access affordable education to a diverse student population, the majority of NSF S-STEM scholarships are awarded to four-year institutions, which tend to have specialized personnel working on the preparation and submission of proposals. In this paper, we report a summary of the activities and evaluation of a "Capacity Building Workshops for Competitive S-STEM Proposals from Two-Year Colleges in the Western U.S.", funded by the NSF S-STEM program, aiming to facilitate submissions to the NSF S-STEM program from two-year colleges (2YCs). The workshop was offered in 2019 (in person) and in 2020 and 2021 (virtual), initially to support 2YCs in the Western region of the US and was expanded nationwide in 2020. During participation in the two-day workshop, several aspects of proposal submission were reviewed, in particular, the two NSF Merit Review Criteria of Intellectual Merit and Broader Impacts. Pre- and post- workshop support was also available via virtual office hours and webinars that addressed specific elements required to be included in S-STEM proposals. The evaluation of the workshop has been performed via post-workshop survey administered through Qualtrics™. A journal paper reporting on the evaluation of all three offerings of the workshop has been submitted and currently in review. In this paper, we intend to reflect on the successful features of this workshop series and the lessons learned throughout the three offerings. Over three years, 2019, 2020 and 2021, the program supported 103 participants on 51 teams from 2YCs. The program assisted at least 31 2YCs submit their S-STEM proposals to NSF, and 12 of these 2YCs received S-STEM grants. An additional 2YC proposal was first recommended for an award, but the proposal was subsequently declined for reasons unconnected to the content of proposal itself. The 3-year funding rate is 39%; if the above-mentioned proposal that received an award recommendation but was then declined is taken into account, the award rate is 42%.more » « less
-
This research paper study was situated within a peer review mentoring program in which novice reviewers were paired with mentors who are former National Science Foundation (NSF) program directors with experience running discipline-based education research (DBER) panels. Whether it be a manuscript or grant proposal, the outcome of peer review can greatly influence academic careers and the impact of research on a field. Yet the criteria upon which reviewers base their recommendations and the processes they follow as they review are poorly understood. Mentees reviewed three previously submitted proposals to the NSF and drafted pre-panel reviews regarding the proposals’ intellectual merit and broader impacts, strengths, and weaknesses relative to solicitation-specific criteria. After participation in one mock review panel, mentees could then revise their pre-review evaluations based on the panel discussion. Using a lens of transformative learning theory, this study sought to answer the following research questions: 1) What are the tacit criteria used to inform recommendations for grant proposal reviews among scholars new to the review process? 2) To what extent are there changes in these tacit criteria and subsequent recommendations for grant proposal reviews after participation in a mock panel review? Using a single case study approach to explore one mock review panel, we conducted document analyses of six mentees’ reviews completed before and after their participation in the mock review panel. Findings from this study suggest that reviewers primarily focus on the positive broader impacts proposed by a study and the level of detail within a submitted proposal. Although mentees made few changes to their reviews after the mock panel discussion, changes which were present illustrate that reviewers more deeply considered the broader impacts of the proposed studies. These results can inform review panel practices as well as approaches to training to support new reviewers in DBER fields.more » « less
-
Cameron, Carrie (Ed.)Grant writing is an essential skill to develop for academic and other career success but providing individual feedback to large numbers of trainees is challenging. In 2014, we launched the Stanford Biosciences Grant Writing Academy to support graduate students and postdocs in writing research proposals. Its core program is a multi-week Proposal Bootcamp designed to increase the feedback writers receive as they develop and refine their proposals. The Proposal Bootcamp consisted of two-hour weekly meetings that included mini lectures and peer review. Bootcamp participants also attended faculty review workshops to obtain faculty feedback. Postdoctoral trainees were trained and hired as course teaching assistants and facilitated weekly meetings and review workshops. Over the last six years, the annual Bootcamp has provided 525 doctoral students and postdocs with multi-level feedback (peer and faculty). Proposals from Bootcamp participants were almost twice as likely to be funded than proposals from non-Bootcamp trainees. Overall, this structured program provided opportunities for feedback from multiple peer and faculty reviewers, increased the participants’ confidence in developing and submitting research proposals, while accommodating a large number of participants.more » « less
-
null (Ed.)This research paper describes a preliminary analysis of panel summaries of proposals submitted to the National Science Foundation’s (NSF’s) Scholarships for Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (S-STEM) program. S-STEM provides awards to institutions to fund scholarships and to implement evidence-based strategies to recruit, retain, and graduate students from low-income backgrounds who have the academic potential to succeed in eligible STEM disciplines. The ultimate goal of the program is to build the US STEM workforce. In 2017, Rice University received funding from NSF to support teams of principal investigators and their co- investigators, who were experts in educational or related research areas, to attend a two-day workshop that was developed to help them prepare more competitive proposals to the S-STEM program. The emphasis was on investigators from predominantly undergraduate institutions, primarily those located in Established Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR) jurisdictions and/or designated as Minority-Serving Institutions. One of the workshop’s aims was to investigate factors that impact the success (or lack thereof) of proposals to the S-STEM program. We began with examining the feedback participants received from review panels on their proposal submissions. In this case study, we compare panel summaries for five S-STEM proposals submitted from five different institutions, exploring the similarities and differences in the overall reviews, as well as the strengths and weaknesses cited for both awarded and declined proposals that were awarded and declined in the context of their alignment with NSF’s merit review criteria. This is submitted for consideration as a traditional paper presentation.more » « less
- Free Publicly Accessible Full Text
-
Accepted Manuscript1.0
- Conference Paper:
- https://doi.org/10.1145/3159450.3162359
