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

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).

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 • Improve assessment • Improve how and what children learn • Improve and enhance the ability of pre-service and in-service teachers • Implement, scale, and sustain innovations cost-effectively

7. 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

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 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

11. 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

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! • 1/6th 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 • Nocost sharing • Budgets will be negotiated

29. 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

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.gov • Contact a DR K-12 Program Director

39. Questions