An official website of the United States government
Measuring the level of institutional capacity for grantsmanship within higher education informs administrators about the needs of their organization and where resources and institutional supports can be implemented to support faculty and staff. Receiving grant funding can lead to implementing cutting-edge programming and research support, which could improve the quality of education provided and, ultimately, student retention. While conducting an institutional capacity needs assessment is crucial for making data-informed decisions, there is a significant gap in institutional capacity research; specifically, there is no valid and reliable assessment tool designed to measure institutional capacity for grantsmanship. The present study aims to develop an assessment tool for higher education institutions to evaluate support systems and identify the needs of their faculty and administrators for grant writing efforts. The current study used a mixed-method approach over three phases to understand the indicators behind measuring institutional capacity for grantsmanship. We developed six reliable scales—promoting grant proposal writing, proposal writing (for faculty), proposal writing (for administrators), proposal writing (all respondents), submitting grant proposals, implementing grant activities, and managing awards. This study contributes to our understanding of institutional capacity and produced a reliable assessment tool to support grantsmanship.
more »
« less
Building an Effective Advisory Board for Grant Submissions
This Special Session will engage engineering and computing education professionals in an interactive discussion of how to find and use the expertise of an advisory board when writing and executing funded projects. Our recent research of effective practices for supporting early career faculty in engineering education has shown that grant administration is an area that many faculty feel unprepared to manage. Beyond writing an excellent grant proposal, the skills required to carry out the planned grant activities are different from those addressed in existing professional development opportunities and are essential the success of a grant. This session will provide an interactive discussion and development of tools on one specific aspect of grant proposal writing and management—advisory boards. Advisory boards are an essential part of leveraging the expertise in the wider engineering education community, but there are various ways of strategically building and engaging advisory boards in grant work. The outcomes of this session will be a set of tools for faculty to use in building and leveraging the expertise of an advisory board in grant submissions.
more »
« less
- Award ID(s):
- 1837808
- PAR ID:
- 10225859
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE)
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
null (Ed.)HSI ATE Hub is a three-year collaborative research project funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF) that joins two successful programs. Mentor-Connect mentors 2-year college faculty to develop competitive proposals for the NSF Advanced Technological Education (ATE) Program, and KickStarter facilitates strategic STEM assessment and planning to drive competitive STEM proposal development at 2-year Hispanic Serving Institutions (HSIs). The goal of HSI ATE Hub is to build capacity and leadership at 2-year HSIs for developing competitive ATE proposals to elevate 2-year HSIs as drivers of their community’s economic success via technician education. Data sets from three annual HSI ATE Hub Cohorts, four prior KickStarter Cohorts, and nine Mentor-Connect Cohorts have been aggregated to assess the following research questions about 2-year HSIs: Are there unique opportunities/barriers/challenges related to STEM program development and grant-writing endeavors for advanced technological education? How do we build capacity to pursue the opportunities and address the barriers/challenges? How do mentoring efforts/styles related to STEM program development and grant-writing need to differ for HSI faculty? What types of resources are relevant to the HSI ATE Community? This third paper in a series will report new data and incremental results from Year 3 of the HSI ATE Hub and a summary of results from the prior two years [1] [2]. These results include interactions with the HSI ATE community through intentional, expanded engagement to enhance learning from Latinx Advisory Council members and training webinars to develop educators’ acumen of culturally responsive instruction and high impact practices. Feedback from interviews and surveys with faculty at 2-year HSIs in HSI ATE Hub Cohorts 1-3 will be discussed to address research questions 1, 2, and 3. Evolved staging of resources relevant to the HSI ATE Community and related research directions for extending the project will address research question 4.more » « less
-
null (Ed.)HSI ATE Hub is a three-year collaborative research project funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF) that joins two successful programs. Mentor-Connect mentors 2-year college faculty to develop competitive proposals for the NSF Advanced Technological Education (ATE) Program, and KickStarter facilitates strategic STEM assessment and planning to drive competitive STEM proposal development at 2-year Hispanic Serving Institutions (HSIs). The goal of HSI ATE Hub is to build capacity and leadership at 2-year HSIs for developing competitive ATE proposals to elevate 2-year HSIs as drivers of their community’s economic success via technician education. Data sets from three annual HSI ATE Hub Cohorts, four prior KickStarter Cohorts, and nine Mentor-Connect Cohorts have been aggregated to assess the following research questions about 2-year HSIs: Are there unique opportunities/barriers/challenges related to STEM program development and grant-writing endeavors for advanced technological education? How do we build capacity to pursue the opportunities and address the barriers/challenges? How do mentoring efforts/styles related to STEM program development and grant-writing need to differ for HSI faculty? What types of resources are relevant to the HSI ATE Community? This third paper in a series will report new data and incremental results from Year 3 of the HSI ATE Hub and a summary of results from the prior two years [1] [2]. These results include interactions with the HSI ATE community through intentional, expanded engagement to enhance learning from Latinx Advisory Council members and training webinars to develop educators’ acumen of culturally responsive instruction and high impact practices. Feedback from interviews and surveys with faculty at 2-year HSIs in HSI ATE Hub Cohorts 1-3 will be discussed to address research questions 1, 2, and 3. Evolved staging of resources relevant to the HSI ATE Community and related research directions for extending the project will address research question 4.more » « less
-
This Birds-of-a-Feather session is for anyone interested in the NSF Scholarships in STEM (S-STEM) program, including current and former Principal Investigators (PIs) and those planning to apply. The S-STEM program funds scholarships and activities to support low-income, academically talented students in STEM. Any institution of higher education may apply, and the program supports a variety of projects. Designing and implementing a successful S-STEM project is challenging. The goal of this session is to catalyze a community of practice for S-STEM PIs. It will provide an opportunity to discuss lessons learned and best practices for proposal writing, project implementation, and providing student support. Specific topics to be discussed include the following: (1) Understanding the solicitation requirements and common proposal mistakes; (2) Scholar recruitment and data-driven approaches for selection; (3) Cohort building including activities for students from different majors or class years and integration of new students into existing cohorts; and (4) Remediation strategies including proactive interventions and peer support. Session leaders will introduce each topic; participants will then join a breakout group discussion of one topic. Lastly, participants will be invited to join a Slack workspace dedicated to S-STEM best practices and lessons.more » « less
-
This theory paper describes the development and use of a framework for supporting early career faculty development, especially in competitive National Science Foundation (NSF) CAREER proposals. Engineering Education Research (EER) has developed into a field of expertise and a career pathway over the past three decades. In response to numerous reports in the 1990s and early 2000s, multiple EER graduate programs were established in the mid-2000s and a growing number continue to emerge to educate and train the next generation of EER faculty and policy makers. Historically, many came to EER as individuals trained in other disciplines, but with an interest in improving teaching and learning. This approach created an interdisciplinary space where many could learn the norms, practices, and language of EER, as they became scholars. This history combined with the emergence of EER as a discipline with academic recognition; specific knowledge, frameworks, methodologies, and ways of conducting research; and particular emphasis and goals, creates a tension for building capacity to continue to develop EER and also include engineering education researchers who have not completed PhDs in an engineering education program. If EER is to continue to develop and emerge as a strong and robust discipline with high quality engineering education research, support mechanisms must be developed to both recognize outstanding EER scholars and develop the next generation of researchers in the field. The Five I’s framework comes from a larger project on supporting early career EER faculty in developing NSF CAREER proposals. Arguably, a NSF CAREER award is significant external recognition of EER that signals central membership in the community. The Five I’s were developed using collaborative inquiry, a tool and process to inform practice, with 19 EER CAREER awardees during a retreat in March 2019. The Five I’s include: Ideas, Integration, Impact, Identity, and Infrastructure. Ideas is researchers’ innovative and potentially transformative ideas that can make a significant contribution to EER. All NSF proposals are evaluated using the criteria of intellectual merit and broader impacts, and ideas aligned with these goals are essential for funding success. The integration of research and education is a specific additional consideration of CAREER proposals. Both education and research must inform one another in the proposal process. Demonstrating the impact of research is essential to convey why research should be funded. This impact is essential to address as it directly relates to the NSF criteria of broader impacts as well as why an individual is positioned to carry out that impact. This positioning is tied to identity or the particular research expertise from which a faculty member will be a leader in the field. Finally, infrastructure includes the people and physical resources from which a faculty member must draw to be successful. This framework has proven useful in helping early career faculty evaluate their readiness to apply for an NSF CAREER award or highlight the particular areas of their development that could be improved for future success.more » « less
- Free Publicly Accessible Full Text
-
Accepted Manuscript1.0
- Conference Paper:
- https://doi.org/10.1109/fie43999.2019.9028430
