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