1. Discovery Research K-12 (DR K-12) Program Welcome! We will begin shortly. Dial-in:  Phone: 1-888-450-5996  Passcode: 712897 All lines will be muted upon joining the conference call. Having trouble? Type a question into the Q&A window on the left. Note: This webinar will be recorded. The recording and slides will be made available on the CADRE website (http://cadrek12.org).http://cadrek12.org

2. Discovery Research K-12 (DR K-12) Program Division of Research on Learning in Formal and Informal Settings Program Solicitation: NSF 11-588

3. Important Dates Letter of Intent (required) November 17, 2011 Full Proposals January 10, 2012

4. Goal of the DR K-12 Program Develop, implement, and study resources, models, and tools that enhance the learning and teaching of STEM by preK-12 students, teachers, administrators, and parents by:  Addressing immediate challenges in STEM  Challenging existing assumptions about STEM teaching and learning in formal learning settings  Envisioning the future needs of learners and teachers

5. Changes in this Solicitation Adjustments to the award amount and duration of Full Research and Development proposals Four Strand areas instead of five “Challenge areas” and incorporation of “highly innovative materials” into Strand 2 Conference and Workshop proposals now due at the same time as all other DRK-12 proposals

6. DR K-12 Program Strands 1.Improve assessment 2.Improve how and what children learn 3.Improve and enhance the ability of pre-service and in-service teachers 4.Implement, scale, and sustain innovations cost-effectively

7. Strand One The Assessment Strand: Projects that develop and study valid and reliable assessments of student and teacher knowledge, skills, and practice Summative assessment of student content knowledge, and affective practices, beliefs, motivation, aptitudes, creativity, and other STEM education objectives Formative assessment of student progress in learning STEM concepts, skills and practices Valid and reliable assessments of STEM teacher content and pedagogical content knowledge, effective teaching practices, confidence, interest and motivation

8. Strand Two (1) The Learning Strand : Projects that develop and study resources, models and tools to support all students’ STEM learning; enhance their knowledge and abilities, and build their interest in STEM fields Prepare students to understand increasingly sophisticated content in STEM subjects Engage students in meaningful scientific data collection, analysis, visualization, modeling and interpretation Develop important cross-cutting concepts and ideas needed to understand interdisciplinary subjects (e.g. environmental sustainability, climate change, renewable and non-renewable energy sources)

9. Strand Two (2) The Learning Strand: Projects that develop and study resources, models and tools to support all students’ STEM learning; enhance their knowledge and abilities, and build their interest in STEM fields Help students learn STEM practices, modes of inquiry, scientific investigations, and engineering design through hands-on activities, real and virtual laboratories, field experiences and collaborations with STEM professionals and peers enabled by cyberinfrastructure Provide substantive STEM learning activities that effectively engage and serve the diversity of learners found in contemporary classrooms

10. Strand Three The Teaching Strand: Projects that develop and study resources, models and tools to help pre- and in-service teachers provide high-quality STEM education for all students Innovative models to recruit, certify, induct, and retain STEM teachers Develop/study resources for helping pre- and in-service teachers develop content and pedagogical knowledge and skills Develop/study for sharing teaching expertise within schools and districts and across the broader national teacher community

11. Strand Four The Scale-up and Sustainability Strand: Projects that develop and study the factors that contribute to successful implementation, scale-up, and sustainability of proven, high-quality innovations in schools and districts in a cost- effective manner Projects that propose to significantly expand the range and/or scope of a STEM teaching or learning innovation  Scale-up Projects must already have a solid base of evidence for effectiveness at a moderate scale Projects can also focus on studies of organization and scale  Examine how and why a specific new resource, model or tool is implemented, institutionalized and sustained

12. Proposal Types Exploratory Projects: clarify constructs, assemble theoretical or conceptual foundations, and/or perform initial development or adaptation work for an innovative resource, model or tool Full Research and Development Projects: build on promising Exploratory projects or other non-NSF funded projects. Effectiveness has already been demonstrated in small sets of classrooms, schools, and other learning settings Conference and Workshop Proposals: related to the mission of the DR K-12 program

13. Number of Awards (2012) Anticipated number of awards: 35 to 45 Anticipated funds: $40,000,000 for new awards Exploratory projects – (15-20 awards)  up to $450,000, max 3 years Full R&D projects (15-20 awards)  A) Full R & D normally up to $3,000,000, max 4 years  B) Full R & D with proven STEM innovations to scale normally up to $4,000,000, max 4 years Conferences and Workshops – (5-7 awards)  up to $100,000, max 2 years (5 awards)

14. Proposal Preparation DR K-12 Solicitation: NSF 11-588 (Section V. Proposal Preparation and Submission Instructions) Proposals must be prepared in accordance with the NSF Grant Proposal Guide (GPG 11-1)

15. DR K-12 Proposal Essentials Goals and Purposes Why is this project important? How will the project improve STEM education and advance knowledge? What are the anticipated outcomes and/or products of this project? How might these products or findings be useful on a broader scale?

16. What Do You Want To Do? Show how the research and development efforts align with the goals and objectives of the project Show how the project could improve STEM education for students and/or teachers? How does the project advance knowledge?

17. What Have You and Others Done? Describe the theoretical and research basis on which the project is based. Discuss how the proposed work builds on previous work but is innovative and different from similar research and development projects. If you have been funded by NSF, provide evidence about the effectiveness and impact of that work.

18. How Are You Going To Do It? State clear research questions or hypotheses that the project will test. Describe the plan for developing, adapting or scaling-up the proposed innovative resource, model, or tool. Describe the research methods, including data analysis plans, sampling plan, and assessments. Briefly describe the work plan and timeline.

19. Who Will do The Work? Describe the expertise of the persons included on the proposal and why they are needed:  Educational researchers and evaluators  Teachers  STEM content experts Include bios of all senior personnel

20. Ensuring Quality The proposal must describe the mechanisms for independent review and evaluation of the project activities and impact. The type and extent of evaluation will vary by scope and type of project: Advisory committees may be fine for exploratory projects or research-intensive projects. Large, developmentally intensive projects need more formal external evaluations. The evaluation should include both formative and summative aspects.

21. Formative Evaluation  Answers questions about how to improve and refine the project  Often focuses on how the project is being implemented and challenges encountered  Helps the project team understand the factors that may be influencing outcomes  Helps the team identify challenges and opportunities

22. Summative Evaluation  Substantiates how well the project achieved its goals.  Evaluates the appropriateness of the research and developmental methods.  Describes the limits and strengths of the contributions that the project made.  Makes recommendations for future work.  Includes expert review of the content and pedagogy of the project’s activities and deliverables.

23. Research vs. Evaluation Evaluation generally refers to the quality and quantity of the work. It is done by persons external to the project Research focuses on why, to what extent, how or under what circumstances an intervention leads to outcomes. It is done by personnel internal to the project.

24. Project Summary First Sentence Type of Proposal – exploratory, full R&D, conference/workshops Main strand addressed Second Sentence STEM Discipline(s) Grade or Age level (s) addressed Intellectual Merit and Broader Impacts Must include separate statements on each of these two NSB criteria

25. How Will Others Learn About The Project? Plan and specific strategies for Dissemination of products and/or findings to researchers, policy makers, and practitioners Requirement to share design, findings, and products with the DR K-12 Resource Network, (CADRE)

26. Allowable Supplementary Documents Brief letters of commitment or cooperation* List of personnel on the proposal Data Management Plan Post Doc Mentoring Plan * be careful not to include attachments to the letters

27. Reasons for Return Without Review Violation of formatting rules of the Grant Proposal Guide (e.g. font, page length etc) Failure to address specifically intellectual merit and broader impact in the project summary Inclusion of information in an appendix or supplementary document section not authorized by the solicitation No post doc plan if post docs are included No data management plan No letter of intent

28. Budget Should be consistent with level of work – you do not have to request the maximum! 1/6 th rule: In general, no more than two months of salary for senior personnel with academic positions More may be requested if justified Indirect cost rates This is set by the institution and auditors and is non- negotiable Direct costs Not allowed for secretary No cost sharing Budgets will be negotiated

29. Content of Letter of Intent Due November 17, 2011 Strand addressed Project Title PIs and Organizations Stem Discipline(s) Grade level(s) Fewer than 350 words Must be submitted through Fastlane.gov (not grants.gov) Not reviewed

30. Proposal Review Process Proposals are reviewed in panels with a range of external experts (e.g. educational researchers, content experts, teachers, developers) Each proposal will have about 4 reviews Each reviewer rates each proposal as Excellent, Very Good, Good, Fair or Poor

31. Proposal Review Process Proposals with an average score of Good or better are discussed in a panel. The panel writes a summary of the reviews and ranks the proposal as highly competitive, competitive or non- competitive. This is advisory to NSF

32. Review Criteria Intellectual Merit Broader Impact

33. Program Directors (PD) The emails and phone numbers of DR K-12 PDs are listed in the announcement. Please write to one at a time. The following list will help you select which PD might be most related to your topic or area of interest. A PD might refer you to someone else after talking with you.

34. Content Expertise Mathematics Education: Patricia Wilson, Bob Reys Science Education – Physical, Chemical: Joe Reed, Gerhard Salinger, Bob Gibbs, Julia Clark, Ed Geary Science Education – Biology: Julia Clark, Edith Gummer, Jim Hamos, David Campbell, Julio Lopez- Ferrao Social Science Education: Elizabeth VanderPutten Engineering and Technology Education: Darryl Williams, Gerhard Salinger, Janet Kolodner, Sharon Tettegah, Michael Haney Environmental/Climate: Dave Campbell, Ed Geary Assessment & Evaluation: Julio Lopez-Ferrao, Edith Gummer

35. Strands Strand 1: (assessment) Julio Lopez-Ferrao, Elizabeth VanderPutten, Edith Gummer, Robert Reys Strand 2 : (learning), Julio Lopez-Ferrao, Gerhard Salinger, Joe Reed, Bob Gibbs, Pat Wilson, Sharon Tettegah, Julia Clark, Michael Haney, Ed Geary Strand 3: (teaching) Pat Wilson, Julia Clark, Bob Gibbs, Nafeesa Owens, Elizabeth VanderPutten, Sharon Tettegah, Edith Gummer Strand 4: (scale) Jim Hamos, Elizabeth VanderPutten, Edith Gummer

36. 2011 Proposals Proposals to panels: 515 Funded: 52 Returned without review: 15

37. For Information About Current Awards See Community for Advancing Discovery Research in Education www.CADREK12.org The Community for Advancing Discovery Research in Education (CADRE) is the NSF- supported learning resource network to support DR K ‑ 12 grantees.

38. For Further Information Call 703-292-8620 Email: DRLDRK12@nsf.govDRLDRK12@nsf.gov Contact a DR K-12 Program Director

39. Questions