Discovery Research K-12 (DR K-Discovery Research K-12 (DR K-12) Program12) 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).

Discovery Research K-12 (DR K-Discovery Research K-12 (DR K-12) Program12) Program

Division of Research on Learning in Formal and

Informal Settings

Program Solicitation: NSF 11-588

Important Dates

Letter of Intent (required)November 17, 2011

Full ProposalsJanuary 10, 2012

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

Changes in this SolicitationChanges 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

DR K-12 Program Strands

1. Improve assessment2. Improve how and what children

learn3. Improve and enhance the ability

of pre-service and in-service teachers

4. Implement, scale, and sustain innovations cost-effectively

Strand OneThe 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

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)

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

Strand ThreeThe 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

Strand FourThe 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

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

Number of Awards (2012)

Anticipated number of awards: 35 to 45Anticipated 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)

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)

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?

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?

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.

How Are You Going To Do It?

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

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.

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

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.

Research vs. EvaluationResearch 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.

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

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)

Allowable Supplementary Allowable Supplementary DocumentsDocuments

• 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

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

Budget• Should be consistent with level of work

– you do not have to request the maximum!

• 1/6th 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

Content of Letter of IntentDue 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

Proposal Review ProcessProposal 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

Proposal Review ProcessProposal 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

Review CriteriaReview Criteria

• Intellectual Merit

• Broader Impact

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.

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

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

2011 Proposals2011 Proposals

• Proposals to panels: 515• Funded: 52  • Returned without review: 15

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.

For Further Information

• Call 703-292-8620• Email: DRLDRK12@nsf.gov• Contact a DR K-12 Program

Director

QuestionsQuestions