experimental program to stimulate competitive research
DESCRIPTION
Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research. RII Track-3: Building Diverse Communities. Jeanne Small & Uma Venkateswaran. May 21, 2013. RII Track-3 in a nutshell. Solicitation 13-553 Proposals due July 10, 2013 Up to $750,000 for up to 5 years - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
1
Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research
RII Track-3: Building Diverse Communities
May 21, 2013
Jeanne Small & Uma Venkateswaran
2
RII Track-3 in a nutshell
• Solicitation 13-553• Proposals due July 10, 2013• Up to $750,000 for up to 5 years• Estimated # of awards in FY 2013: 5*
*pending availability of funds and quality of proposals
3
EligibilityProposals will be accepted from
these jurisdictions:
Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Delaware, Guam, Hawaii, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Puerto Rico, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Vermont, the U.S. Virgin Islands, West Virginia, and Wyoming
4
Eligibility (+)
• PIs must be affiliated with academic institutions, agencies, or organizations within the participant jurisdiction• Proposals need not be submitted
through jurisdictional EPSCoR offices
5
Non-eligible states?
•What if your state is not on the eligibility list?–You may collaborate with an
eligible jurisdiction, but may not receive RII Track-3 funds
6
EPSCoR as a testbedProjects are expected to
• deliver sustainable learning activities
–complement existing NSF investments in broadening participation
• demonstrate novel and effective strategic approaches for inclusiveness
–can be adapted and replicated nationally
7
EPSCoR present, NSF future
The proposal must: • engage the diversity of the
jurisdiction in the project• model strategies for the nation for
future inclusivity in research and innovation
8
EPSCoR present, NSF future (+)
The proposal must present a detailed strategy and implementation plan:• realistic metrics• achievable milestones• subsequent, sustained non-EPSCoR
funding from federal, jurisdictional, or private sector sources
9
Building diverse communities for STEM learning and innovation
RII Track-3 seeks to broaden the participation of groups underrepresented in STEM• underrepresented minorities • women and girls• persons with disabilities• those in underserved rural regions of the
country
10
Recruit, train, mentor, and retain diverse populations
The research agenda of these projects should: • advance cross-cultural team science • address diversity of opportunities and
educational paths– middle school to career advancement levels
• engage different types of institutions and other organizations
11
RII Track-3 examples
• evidence-based use of new and improved virtual learning venues
• employing innovative concepts for community engagement that include higher education/K-12/community partnerships
12
RII Track-3 examples (+)• producing and using curricular and
pedagogical materials, learning technologies, and institutional models for preparing and engaging diverse STEM communities
– these products should be models that can be broadly adaptable/adoptable, and lead to publications on outcomes that inform others of promising approaches
13
Proposal preparation• NSF Grant Proposal Guide standard
instructions
• no cost sharing
• Data Management Plan
• Postdoctoral Researcher Mentoring Plan
14
RII Track-3 review criteria• Does the intellectual framework promote
transformative research experiences for underrepresented groups?
• Will the project produce exemplary methods, processes, interventions or models that enhance STEM learning and innovation success?
• Can these products be adapted easily by other sites?
15
RII Track-3 review criteria (+)• Does the project build on existing knowledge about
issues affecting the differential participation and success rates of students from underrepresented groups in STEM?
• Is the project customized to the demographic landscape of the proposer's EPSCoR jurisdiction and are mechanisms for broader national adoption described?
• Are appropriate expected measurable outcomes explicitly stated and are they integrated into an evaluation plan?
16
RII Track-3 review criteria (++)• Is the evaluation effort likely to produce useful
information?
• Are the plans for institutionalizing the approach appropriate?
• Does the project involve a significant effort to facilitate adaptation at other sites, both in EPSCoR and non-EPSCoR jurisdictions?
• Will the project help contribute to interventions to broaden participation in STEM education and research?
17
RII Track-3 review criteria (+++)
• Does the project have the potential to contribute to a paradigm shift in how underrepresented minorities are engaged to participate and succeed in STEM?
• Does the project describe approaches or mechanisms that will result in increased engagement of diverse communities for STEM learning and innovation?
18
Thank You
19
additional slides
20
Proposals must:• describe cohesive frameworks that
contribute to broadening participation and adaptable exemplary practices within and beyond EPSCoR jurisdictions
• lead to adoptable models to prepare institutions for successful broadening participation in STEM
21
Proposals should:• consider new evidence-based
strategies and practices
• yield evaluation results sufficiently conclusive and descriptive so that successful strategies and interventions can be adopted and distributed nationally
22
Proposals should (+):• have a clear relation to student
learning
• engage underrepresented groups in frontier research
–specify the innovative STEM opportunity/experience afforded to students and scholars
23
Proposals should (++):• address long-term sustainability
• have an external evaluator
• have goals that lead to a set of expected measurable outcomes
–quantitative or qualitative approaches, or both