Spelman College will conduct a 2.5 day regional technical assistance and information conference/workshop for Minority Serving Institutions (MSI) to broaden their participation in programs of NSF's Division of Research on Learning in Formal and Informal Settings (DRL). Spelman College will invite faculty and administrators at accredited MSIs who have not submitted proposals and/or have been unsuccessful in DRL proposal competition to participate in the workshop/conference. The participants will be 50 two-person institutional teams, each consisting of a faculty member from an education specialty relevant to DRL programmatic activities and a faculty member in a science, technology, engineering, or mathematics (STEM) field supported by NSF. The goal is to have participants develop research or program ideas and to become more skillful in the preparation and development of competitive proposals.
The conference/workshop will take place on the campus of Spelman College, a Historically Black College. A variety of techncial assistance sessions will be used during the workshop to facilitate information sharing and dialogue, including discussion of DRL programs, discussion on proposal development and proposal submission requirements, small group presentations and discussion sessions, and large group hands-on review and evaluation of a proposal feedback session. The major goal of the conference/workshop is not only to increase the numbers of DRL-targeted proposals submitted by faculty from MSIs but the numbers of competitive proposals resulting in awards. The conference/workshop also proposes to enhance awareness of DRL program activities and requirements by providing awareness opportunities for MSI faculty to increase their understanding of DRL programs that foster the integration of research and learning. By exposing MSI faculty to pertinent information and intense mentoring, more independent researchers will have strong proposal development skills.
Goals and Approach: The primary goal of the Workshops was to not only broaden participation of southeast regional minority-serving colleges and universities in DRL Programs, but also to increase the numbers of DRL-targeted competitive proposals submitted by faculty from MSIs that result in awards. Goals and Objectives (September 1, 2009-August 31, 2011): 1). Enhance awareness of DRL program activities and requirements; 2). Provide technical assistance in the mechanics of proposal preparation; 3) Provide a case study presentation of the competitive and uncompetitive proposals to focus on best practices, and 4). Provide awareness opportunities for MSI faculty to enhance their understanding of DRL program that foster the integration of research and learning. Goals and Objectives (September 1, 2012- August 31, 2013): During the year of 2012-2013, no-cost extension period, selected consultants assisted workshop participants from institutions that were seriously planning submissions or resubmissions of competitive proposals. Two institutions, Benedict College and Fisk University indicated they would submit or resubmit and they requested consultant assistance. They prepared competitive proposals, but only one institution submitted a proposal for review, Fisk University. Fisk University was recommended to receive funding. Summary of Recommendations from Consultants to the Targeted Institutions: Dialogue with proposed partner schools is very important. A general letter of support from the School District is not evidence of a real partnership. Develop partnerships and collaborations that did not exist prior to initiating the proposed project; increase communications across departments on campus where the science education department and disciplinary departments have common goals and objectives. Mutually agree upon the PI team leader, the lead institution, partner institutions, and the role/responsibilities of each. Know of the curriculum used by a prospective K-12 partner and familiarity with the district is definitely needed. In building partnerships, include K-12, and informal science organizations where appropriate such as museums, afterschool programs; also professional societies and industry are excellent partners. Choose an external evaluator early on; and allow evaluator to provide feedback on program design. Develop a draft project summary; share it with project team, collaborators, evaluators for modification and refinement. Make contact with program officer. Establish contact with institution's Office of Sponsored Programs; inform the office of the proposal deadline. Review Sponsored Programs guidelines and process for the submission. Meet with the institutions finance office to initiate arrangements for support to prepare the budget. Review previously funded similar projects. Enroll in NSF email notification. Identify a strong writer/scribe. Develop a timeline. Resubmission is another indicator of likely success and increases chances of being funded. Conclusions: Based on the feedback and responses of the institutional teams and consultants, the years 2011-2013 were dedicated to providing further technical assistance to those teams that had submitted proposals to DRL during 2009-2011 but were not s in being funded. The project Co-PIs in consultation with the project consultants mutually agreed in lieu of a third workshop, the third year of funding would concentrate on assisting those institutions who had demonstrated strong efforts and interests in preparing competitive proposals, and who had institutional support to meet the 2011-2012 and 2012-2013 NSF submission deadlines. Two-person consultant teams were assigned to designated institutions and site visits for technical assistance as well as off-campus reviews by consultants were funded by the project. A follow-up conference call meeting of project co-PIs and consultants was held on March 23, 2012. Based on data from surveys and observations, the workshop participants came to the workshop with a clear, keen sense of what they expected from the workshop and what the workshop expected from them. Participants did whatever they could—including working through breaks—to maximize their benefits from the workshop. Systematic observations by the evaluator revealed a high level of engagement with their institutional team. All of the workshop participants were most attentive to the speakers and the ability to communicate directly with NSF personnel. Based on the participants’ high levels of interest and enthusiasm, the evaluator concluded that it is highly probable that not only will they remain in contact with the consultants but also continue to develop and submit a competitive proposal to one or more programs in DRL. All teams felt that the most valuable aspect of the workshops was having individualized assistance from one or more of the consultants. One workshop participant received an NSF Career Award and they described the workshop (and their assigned consultant) as valuable in assisting them in developing a competitive proposal. Dissemination: Spelman College disseminated post workshop materials regarding funding opportunities, including deadlines and opportunities for technical assistance. Participants were also provided e-copies of workshop presentations.
