Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research

1. Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research RII Track-3: Building Diverse Communities Jeanne Small & Uma Venkateswaran May 21, 2013

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. Eligibility Proposals 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 testbed Projects 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