Proposal Review Process Mock Review Webinar Louis Everett, Scott Grissom & Don Millard Don Division of Undergraduate Education National Science Foundation

Caution Most of the information presented in this session represents the presenter’s opinion and is not an official NSF position

Webinar Agenda Introduction (5min) Overview of the review process (5min) Instructions on producing a panel review (5min) Organization of participants into teams and designation of panel chairs (5min) Local teams discuss strengths and weaknesses (20min) Teams locally report/discuss results (10min) Reporting to virtual group with ratings – note: facilitators will be asked to select an individual to report (10min) BREAK (15min) Individuals consider ways to improve the proposal (5min) Local teams discuss suggestions for improvement (10min) Teams locally report/discuss results (5min) Report back to virtual group - note: facilitator picks an individual to report (5min) PD commentary on responses (10min)   Think  – What have I learned today that I will use in preparing my next proposal? (5min) Share your thoughts with local participants (5min) Facilitator reports results back to virtual group (5min) Wrap-up Q&A (10min)

Webinar Goals - Expected Outcomes Help participants to: Become more familiar with the proposal review process Better understand the TUES-specific criteria Better understand the use of intellectual merit/broader impact criteria in reviewing proposals Develop more competitive proposals that effectively meet the expectations of the TUES program Please note: A number of the following slides are provided for informational purposes – we will not be going through all of them

TUES Program

TUES vs. CCLI Title changed to emphasize the special interest in projects that have the potential to transform undergraduate STEM education  Review criteria was modified to emphasize the desire for projects that: Propose materials, processes, or models that have the potential to Enhance student learning Be adapted easily by other sites Involve a significant effort to facilitate adaptation at other sites Institutionalize the approach at the investigator's college or university as appropriate (e.g., for the Type) Have the potential to contribute to a cultural shift in undergraduate STEM education

TUES Program Vision: Excellent STEM education for all undergraduate students Reflects national concerns about producing: Skilled STEM professionals (including K-12 teachers) Citizens knowledgeable about STEM and how it relates to their lives Seeks to build a community of faculty committed to improving undergraduate STEM education Encourages projects with potential to advance and transform undergraduate STEM education

TUES Project Components Creating Learning Materials and Strategies Guided by research on teaching and learning Incorporate and be inspired by advances within the discipline Implementing New Instructional Strategies Contribute to understanding on how existing strategies: Can be widely adopted Are transferred to diverse settings Impact student learning in diverse settings Developing Faculty Expertise Enable faculty to acquire new knowledge and skills in order to revise their curricula and teaching practices Involve a diverse group of faculty

TUES Project Components (cont) Assessing and Evaluating Student Achievement: Develop and disseminate valid and reliable tests of STEM knowledge Collect, synthesize, and interpret information about student understanding, reasoning, practical skills, interests, attitudes or other valued outcomes Conducting Research on Undergraduate STEM Education: Explore how: Effective teaching strategies and curricula enhance learning and attitudes Widespread practices have diffused through the community Faculty and programs implement changes in their curriculum

Instructional Materials and Methods Projects Projects developing instructional materials and methods should: Be based on how students learn Consider transferability and dissemination throughout the project's lifetime Involve efforts to facilitate adaptation at other sites in more advanced projects

Type 1 Projects Expect to award approximately 10% Total budget: up to $200,000 for 2 to 3 years $250,000 when 4-year and 2-year schools collaborate Typically involve a single institution & one program component – but there are exceptions Contribute to the understanding of undergraduate STEM education Informative evaluation effort based on the project's specific expected outcomes Institutionalized at the participating colleges and universities Deadlines: May 26, 2011 (A-M) May 27, 2011 (N-W)

Type 2, 3, and CRP Projects Type 2 Projects Type 3 Projects 20 to 25 awards expected Total budget: up to $600K for 2 to 4 years Type 3 Projects 3 to 5 awards expected Budget negotiable, but not to exceed $5M over 5 years Tues Central Resource Projects 1 to 3 awards expected Budget negotiable, depending on the scope and scale of the activity Small focused workshop projects -- 1 to 2 years & up to $100K Large scale projects -- 3 to 5 years & $300K to $3M Deadline: January 13, 2012

Review Process Ning

NSF Peer Review Process Reviewers are solicited by program directors For example - A Typical TUES Type 1 Panel Review: 4 panels/program director (60-70 proposals/PD) 6-8 reviewers/panel 17 proposals/panel – not all read by every panelist Approximately 130 engineering reviewers Reviewers assign individual ratings and prepare written comments on Intellectual Merit & Broader Impacts prior to coming to the panel meeting Panel meeting is held in DC area – over a 1.5 day period

Panel Review Meeting Panel Chair establishes order of proposal review process Proposals are discussed individually A “scribe” is designated to capture all of the points brought up in discussion and produce a summary review – called the “Panel Summary” All reviewers return on day 2 to approve all the Panel Summaries

Audience for Reviews NSF program directors Applicants Informs recommendations relative to funding Guides pre-award negotiations Applicants If proposal is funded: Provides suggestions for improving project If proposal is not funded: Provides information to guide a revision of the proposal

NSF Review Criteria Intellectual merit Broader impacts All proposals are evaluated using the NSB-approved review criterion Intellectual merit Broader impacts The TUES Solicitation provides two sets of suggested questions to help define these criteria Standard NSF set TUES specific set

Caution Regarding Suggested Questions Suggested questions are only a guide for considering intellectual merit and broader impacts Suggested questions are NOT: A complete list of “requirements” Applicable to every proposal An official checklist

NSF Suggested Questions for Intellectual Merit Will the project: Include activities important in advancing knowledge? Involve qualified proposer(s)? Contain creative and original concepts? Have a well conceived and organized plan? Include sufficient access to resources?

NSF Suggested Questions for Broader Impacts Will the project: Advance discovery - promote teaching & learning? Broaden participation of underrepresented groups? Enhance the infrastructure? Include broad dissemination? Benefit society?

TUES Suggested Questions for Intellectual Merit Will the project: Produce one or more of the following: Exemplary materials, processes, or models that enhance student learning and can be adopted by other sites Important findings related to student learning? Build on existing knowledge about STEM education? Have explicit and appropriate expected measurable outcomes integrated into an evaluation plan? Include an evaluation effort that is likely to produce useful information? Institutionalize the approach at the investigator's college or university (as appropriate for the Type)

TUES Suggested Questions for Broader Impacts Will the project: Involve a significant effort to facilitate adaptation at other sites? Contribute to the understanding of STEM education? Help build and diversify the STEM education community? Have a broad impact on STEM education in an area of recognized need or opportunity? Have the potential to contribute to a significant advancement and cultural shift in undergraduate STEM education?

Writing the Review

Review Material The Entire Proposal is Used to Inform Reviewers Project Summary Project Description Biographical Sketches Budget Supplementary Documentation During talk need to give the appropriate directive relative to the need to read or use Supplementary Documentation 24

Overview Rating and text should be consistent A review should indicate an opinion on the merit of the project The rating should indicate an overall evaluation of the proposal’s merit Excellent, Very Good, Good, Fair, and Poor Describe positive aspects Not just list them -- Provide details Identify concerns (or weaknesses) Offer suggestions for improvement Rating and text should be consistent

Characteristics of Informative Reviews and Panel Summaries Uses appropriate style Contains adequate details Contains understandable, specific, and complete statements Relates strengths and weakness to review criteria Indicates why an item is a strength or weakness Justifies the proposal rating in the written critique A reader should be able to guess the rating from the written text

Specific and Complete Comments Identify a strength or weaknesses “The evaluation plan is a strength.” Identify a strength or weaknesses and indicate why it is one “The evaluation plan includes a competent, independent evaluator...” “The background discussion is well referenced, shows a good understanding of the prior work, supports the proposed work...”

Specific and Complete Comments (cont.) Identify a strength or weaknesses and indicate why it is one and why it is important “The evaluation plan includes a competent, independent evaluator, … and it will guide the investigators as the project evolves and provide a measure of its effectiveness at the end.” Identify a strength, indicate why it is one, why it is important, and how it could be improved “The evaluation plan is a strength because it includes a competent, independent evaluator, … and this will guide the investigators as the project evolves and provide a measure of its effectiveness at the end. It could be improved by adding …”

Other Important Ideas Try to be constructive in your written comments Provide suggestions to help applicants improve their proposals Do not be overly critical in your ratings Most fundable proposals have some weaknesses Some are correctable through negotiations

Strengths & Weakness Don

Team Activity Process Local teams discuss the strengths and weaknesses identified in the individual reviews Team “scribe” takes notes during discussion Teams locally report/discuss results with facilitator’s guidance Facilitators guide discussion and selection of an individual to report to the full virtual group Participating organizations will be called upon by webinar moderator – PLEASE BE READY TO REPORT BACK Program Directors will offer comments on reports

Reporting Redundancy is OK – indicative of common perception Responses will be solicited as follows: Intellectual Merit Strengths Weaknesses Broader Impacts Overall Perception Is this a proposal worthy of funding?

ONE MINUTE Until Reporting Begins

Reporting Redundancy is OK – indicative of common perception Responses will be solicited as follows: Intellectual Merit Strengths Weaknesses Broader Impacts Overall Perception Is this a proposal worthy of funding?

Questions?

BREAK (15 min)

ONE MINUTE Until Next Session

Suggestions for Improvement Ning

Improvements Activity Process Individuals consider ways that the proposal could be improved – create a list Local teams discuss the suggestions for improvement Team “scribe” takes notes during discussion Teams locally report/discuss results with facilitator’s guidance Facilitators guide discussion and selection of an individual to report to the full virtual group Participating organizations will be called upon by webinar moderator – PLEASE BE READY TO REPORT BACK Program Directors will offer comments on reports

Reporting Try to minimize redundant responses Identify approaches for: Building on strengths Overcoming weaknesses Responses should include potential improvements to: Idea Project infrastructure Project implementation plan Evaluation plan Dissemination plan Proposal participation/involvement

ONE MINUTE Until Reporting Begins

Reporting - Reminder Try to minimize redundant responses Identify approaches for: Building on strengths Overcoming weaknesses Responses should include potential improvements to: Idea Project infrastructure Project implementation plan Evaluation plan Dissemination plan Proposal participation/involvement

Sample Proposal Review Comments Regarding the Proposal’s Intellectual Merit, Broader Impacts and Weaknesses Don

Sample Proposal Review Comments The following comments reflect a combination of the proposal’s panel review, individual reviewers and inputs provided by NSF program officers

Intellectual Merit (1) The proposal is the evolution of the successful studio pedagogy to a mobile studio pedagogy. The proposal builds on a instructional methodology that is accepted in the STEM literature. The proposal is student-focused and grounded in the STEM knowledge base. A primary innovation is the development of a low cost virtual instrument board that, when coupled with a computer/laptop, provides students with a portable experimental platform

Intellectual Merit (2) This experimental platform serves as a low cost replacement for the laboratory equipment found in the original studio classrooms and provides the students with an "anywhere, anytime" experimental platform. The PIs are well qualified to carry out the work. The proposal was responsive to the cyclic model of knowledge creation contained in the TUES/CCLI request for proposals. The panel felt the proposal would be strengthened by a more detailed evaluation plan with clearly stated, measurable outcomes.

Broader Impacts The inclusion of an historically black college or university and a community college should magnify the impact of the proposed pedagogy. The broader impacts of the proposed work include the potential to significantly impact a large number of under- served students by providing a low cost, portable experimental platform. The partnership was made concrete through an instructor exchange program between the institutions.

Weaknesses (1) While the evaluation team appears to have worked together with the PIs for several years, some basic information about the qualifications of those individuals should have been included in the proposal. The proposal could be strengthened with more definition of the role of each partner. It is not clear that it will positively impact student learning; just because a student has the means to perform an experiment 24/7, does not mean that they will.

Weaknesses (2) The proposal could benefit from clarifying or identifying the role of laboratory experiences where actual industrial-quality laboratory equipment is utilized. Too much reliance on the proposed pedagogy might also leave the student with limited experience in the use of the real industrial grade and scale laboratory equipment. Moving from the original studio to the mobile studio essentially means that the new work is now based on an untested model. The proposal could be strengthened by addressing this issue.

Weaknesses (3) It has not been demonstrated that the mobile studio is as effective as the original studio with its significant faculty involvement and structure. This proposal would have been much stronger if some preliminary data on efficacy was included. The proposal mentions a pilot test that was done at Howard University but no details are provided. The proposal fails to explicitly address how it will focus on components of the cyclic model for innovation in STEM education.

Practical Aspects of Review Process Ning

Practical Aspects of Review Process Reviewers have: Many proposals Ten or more from several areas Limited time for your proposal 20 minutes for first read Different experiences in review process Veterans to novices Different levels of knowledge in proposal area Experts to outsiders Discussions of proposals’ merits at panel meeting Share expertise and experience

Practical Aspects of Review Process Write down a list of suggestions (guidelines) that you would suggest that a colleague should follow - to deal with practical aspects of the Review Process 2 minutes

ONE MINUTE

Considering the Practical Aspects of the Review Process The following comments reflect perspectives provided by NSF program officers

Proposal Writing Guidelines Use good style (clarity, organization, etc.) Be concise, but complete Write simply but professionally Avoid jargon and acronyms Check grammar and spelling Use sections, headings, short paragraphs & bullets (Avoid dense, compact text) Reinforce your ideas Summarize; Highlight (bolding, italics) Give examples

Proposal Writing Guidelines Use tables, figures – where it makes sense Reinforce your ideas Summarize; Highlight (bolding, italics) Give examples

Proposal Writing Guidelines Provide appropriate level of detail Pay special attention to Project Summary Summarize goals, rationale, methods, and evaluation and dissemination plans Address intellectual merit and broader impacts Explicitly and independently Three paragraphs with headings: “Summary” “Intellectual Merit” “Broader Impacts”

Proposal Writing Guidelines Follow the solicitation and GPG Adhere to page, font size, and margin limitations Use allotted space but don’t pad the proposal Follow suggested (or implied) organization Use appendices sparingly (check solicitation to see if allowed) Include letters showing commitments from others “Support letters” are not allowed Avoid form letters

Proposal Writing Guidelines Prepare credible budget Consistent with the scope of project Clearly explain and justify each item Address prior funding when appropriate Emphasize results Sell your ideas but don’t over promote Proofread the proposal “Tell a story” and turn a good idea into a competitive proposal

A Successful Proposal Good idea + need Right people + infrastructure Assessment of outcomes that measure effect on student learning (with goals/objectives linked to evaluation) Active dissemination plan Efforts to broaden participation of underrepresented groups

Reflection Don

Reflection Activity Individuals consider: What have I learned today that I will be able to used in preparing my next proposal? Create a list (5min) Share your list with local participants (5min) Facilitators report back to virtual group (5min) Participating organizations will be called upon by webinar moderators – PLEASE BE READY TO REPORT BACK

Closing Comments

Toward Transformation… Model good practices that increase/improve learning Facilitate direct experience with the methods and processes of inquiry/experimentation Empower the student Enhance ability to produce and evaluate innovative results Products Solutions to problems Metrics on outcomes Establish a community that will help inform, disseminate and sustain engineering education efforts

A Successful TUES Proposal… Good idea + need Right people + infrastructure Can be readily adopted at other sites Assessment of outcomes that measure effect on student learning (with goals/outcomes linked to evaluation) Active dissemination plan Shows promise for institutionalization Efforts to broaden participation of underrepresented groups

Questions?

Thanks for participating Thanks for participating! Please respond to the survey located at: http://www.step.eng.lsu.edu/nsf/participants Louis Everett – leverett@nsf.gov Scott Grissom – sgrissom@nsf.gov Don Millard – dmillard@nsf.gov