Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Writing More Effective Proposals
Russ Pimmel Abe NisanciU of Alabama NSF .
Share The Future IV
March 17, 2003
Workshop Format “Working” workshop
½ to ¾ of time in team activities Limited time to complete activities
Frequently feel you need more time Purpose is to get you started No “answers” or even the “formulas”
Purpose: identify, consider, & discuss ideas
Workshop Goals Participants should be able to:
List areas where good engineering education proposals can be improved
Generate a list of suggestions for each area
Beyond a Good Idea
Proposals must describe a good idea It must be explained and developed
Workshop will assume a good idea Focus on areas for enhancing a
proposal that contains a good idea
Warning on Generalizations NSF has several programs supporting
undergraduate education Different requirements Different slants
Proposal improvement ideas apply to all -- but in varying degrees
Choose ideas based on Program solicitation Judgment
Scenario – Developing a Proposal Idea
Prof. ____ has taught ENG ___ for several semesters
He has idea for “greatly improving” the course by adding new stuff new stuff = laboratory, web experience,
interactive set of material, workbook , new text He tried some preliminary material Based on this, Prof. ____ decided to prepare
an NSF proposal
Proposal Skeleton Goal: Develop new stuff to enhance student
learning at U of _____ Rationale: Observed shortcomings in educational
experience of the students at U ____ & felt that new stuff would improve the situation
Project Plan: “Details of new stuff “ Evaluation: Conduct course evaluations when
using new stuff Dissemination: Describe new stuff using
conference, journal papers, and web site
What’s Wrong?
TASK: Prepare a list of ideas for improving this
proposal What advice would you give Prof ___
PROCESS: Individually prepare a list Share ideas with neighbor Report neighbor’s best idea
What’s Wrong? -- NSF Project Directors’ Responses – Goals
Indicate the development, evaluation, and assessment are the real goals Not “enhanced learning of students at U
of ____”
What’s Wrong? -- NSF PD’s Responses – Rationale
Describe experience at other schools Reference the educational literature Discuss effects on retention and broader
participation Indicate why approach is new and
innovative
What’s Wrong? -- NSF PD’s Responses – Evaluation
Use external evaluator or assessment expert
Include collaboration with other faculty at same or different school
Include beta test at another site Include measures of student learning in
evaluation process Tie evaluation to goals and objectives Include impact statement
What’s Wrong? – PD’s Responses – Dissemination
Include collaboration with faculty members in other schools
Include an outreach component K-12 or community colleges
Include beta testing at other school Include faculty workshop
What’s Wrong? -- PD’s Responses – General
Include letters of support Form a collaborative effort Include a plan with timeline,
milestones, and responsibilities Make sure to select the appropriate
NSF program
What’s Wrong – Four Concerns
Goals focused on local problem Ignores broader impact
Considers only applicant’s experience Ignores the experience of others Ignores the literature
Limits evaluation to students’ impressions Ignores learning goals and outcomes
Dissemination plan passive Needs to be proactive and aggressive
What’s Wrong – Four Concerns
Goals focused on local problem Ignores broader impact
Considers only applicant’s experience Ignores the experience of others Ignores the literature
Limits evaluation to students’ impressions Ignores learning goals and outcomes
Dissemination plan passive Needs to be proactive and aggressive
Improving Rationale -- Global vs Local Problem
TASK: Generate a list of locations or sources
that will provide a broader view of the problem leading to broader goals
PROCESS: Individually prepare a list Work as a team to build a consensus list Report team’s ideas
Strategies Team Exercises
Be positive, supportive, and cooperative Limit critical or negative comments
Be brief and concise in discussions Avoid lengthy comments, stories Avoid arguments
Stay focused Designate roles
Coordinator, recorder, gatekeeper
NSF PD’s Responses --Global vs Local Problem
Education literature Journals and conference proceeding Education sessions at discipline meetings
Lay scientific press NY Times science section
Panel reports “What’s wrong with Education in _____’
Industry or advisory board input
NSF PD’s Responses --Global vs Local – Part 2
NSF web site Education oriented web sites
Teaching and learning centers at some universities
Education pages at professional society sites
Colleagues at other schools Web sites at other schools
Improving Goals & Objectives Statement
TASK: Generate a list of improvements for the
goals and objectives in Reading # 1 A list of suggestions that will broaden
and clarify the goals and objectives PROCESS:
Individually prepare a list Work as a team to build a consensus list Report team’s ideas
PD’s Responses – Improving Goals & Objectives
Relate goals to student learning objectives
Use more specific, goal-oriented verbs “Enhance “ and “acquaint” are vague
Don’t describe measurable actions Be more specific
Eliminate the “apple pie” goals
PD’s Responses – Improving Goals & Objectives – Part 2
Use broader goals Don’t just focus on effects on student's in
PI’s course Make the goals to develop, evaluate, and
disseminate material Be careful about the distinction between
goals and objectives Goals – higher-level, broad-reaching Objectives – specific, measurable
outcomes
What’s Wrong – Four Concerns
Goals focused on local problem Ignores broader impact
Considers only applicant’s experience Ignores the experience of others Ignores the literature
Limits evaluation to students’ impressions Ignores learning goals and outcomes
Dissemination plan passive Needs to be proactive and aggressive
Build on Experiences of Others
TASK: Generate a list of locations or sources
that describe prior work by others PROCESS:
Individually prepare a list Work as a team to build a consensus list Report team’s ideas
NSF PD’s Responses -- Others’ Experiences
Same as earlier list These sources
Justify a broader need Summarize others’ experiences
Improving Rationale TASK:
Generate a list of improvements for the rationale statement in Reading # 2
A list of suggestions that will provide a broader view
PROCESS: Individually prepare a list Work as a team to build a consensus list Report team’s ideas
PD’s Responses – Improving Rationale
Discuss shortcomings or problems in programs described by others
Discuss the general need for the new material -- the need at other schools
Indicate student interests (current & projected) – include references
Indicate demand for graduates (current & projected) – include references
Discuss how the new material will fit in the existing curriculum
What’s Wrong – Four Concerns
Goals focused on local problem Ignores broader impact
Considers only applicant’s experience Ignores the experience of others Ignores the literature
Limits evaluation to students’ impressions Ignores learning goals and outcomes
Dissemination plan passive Needs to be proactive and aggressive
Evaluate Goals, Implementation, Outcomes
TASK: Generate a list of aspects that can be
evaluated in a projects PROCESS:
Individually prepare a list Work as a team to build a consensus
list Report team’s ideas
NSF PD’s Responses –Evaluation Aspects
Measure gains in student learning Pre and post tests Experimental and control groups
Use formative and summative evaluations Formative to guide development Summative to verify & document success
Include diverse audiences Universities & community colleges Majors and non majors
NSF PD’s Responses –Evaluation Aspects – Part 2
Evaluate at several levels Appropriateness of learning objectives
What is being taught/learned Attitude of students
How is it being taught Learning outcomes
How successful was the instruction Examine effects on retention and diversity Consider beta testing
Evaluate Goals, Implementation, Outcomes
TASK: Generate a list of improvements for
the evaluation plan in Reading # 3 PROCESS:
Individually prepare a list Work as a team to build a consensus
list Report team’s ideas
PD’s Responses – Improving Evaluation
Add more formative evaluation Monitor students’ attitude and learning
during course Measure student learning
Need learning objectives Include copy of evaluation tool or sample
questions e. g., student survey form
Develop specific criteria for evaluation by other faculty in subsequent courses
What’s Wrong – Four Concerns
Goals focused on local problem Ignores broader impact
Considers only applicant’s experience Ignores the experience of others Ignores the literature
Limits evaluation to students’ impressions Ignores learning goals and outcomes
Dissemination plan passive Needs to be proactive and aggressive
Use Active, Aggressive Dissemination
TASK: Generate a list of approaches for
disseminating results of project PROCESS:
Individually prepare a list Work as a team to build a consensus
list Report team’s ideas
NSF PD’s Responses – Dissemination Approaches
Educational journals & meetings Don’t neglect regional meetings
Faculty workshops Personal or course web sites Professional group or subspecialty
web sites Professional group or subspecialty
newsletters
NSF PD’s Responses – Dissemination – Part 2
Textbooks, manuals, instructor guides Agreements with other faculty
members to critique or evaluate material
Mailing to colleagues General or targeted
Include Active, Aggressive Dissemination
TASK: Generate a list of improvements for
the dissemination plan in Reading # 4 PROCESS:
Individually prepare a list Work as a team to build a consensus
list Report team’s ideas
PD’s Responses – Improving Dissemination
Any or all items on previous list
Practical Aspects of Review Process
Reviewers have ten or so proposals from several areas
Reviewers have limited time for your proposal
Reviewers may be experienced or inexperienced in review process
Reviewers may be an expert or a novice in proposal area
Dealing With Practical Aspects of Review Process
TASK: Generate a list of approaches that an
applicant should consider in dealing with these practical aspects
PROCESS: Individually prepare a list Share ideas with neighbor Report team’s ideas
NSF PD’s Responses –Practical Aspects of Review
Use good style Be concise, specific, but complete Write simply but professionally Avoid jargon Use spell and grammar checkers
NSF PD’s Responses –Practical Aspects – Part 2
Follow guidelines Double space, use correct font size
Use readable structure Use sections, headings, bullets
Follow the order given in solicitation Use appendices sparingly
NSF PD’s Responses –Practical Aspects -- Part 3
Emphasize results when writing about prior funding
Reinforce your ideas Summarize Highlight them (e. g., use bullets)
Pay attention to the rationale, goals and objectives, evaluation, and dissemination
Have expert and non-expert read draft version
Warning on Generalizations
NSF has several educational programs Different requirements & slants
Proposal improvement ideas apply to all -- but in varying degrees Read the solicitation carefully
Beyond a Good Idea To enhance a good proposal
Describe broader impact in rationale & goals
Consider and build on others’ experiences Cite the literature
Evaluate learning goals, students’ impressions, outcomes, etc.
Include proactive & aggressive dissemination
Use Judgment When writing proposals, you will wonder
“Should I include ____?” “Should I do _____?” “How should I do _____?”
The answer is “It depends.” There is no magic formula.
Read the solicitation Use your judgment Don’t include a half-bake section because someone
told you that it’s you needed
Final Comment
If you have a good idea, thinking about it in terms of How you could broaden the objective How you could relate it to the literature How you could evaluate it How you could interest others in it
will sharpen the idea
Questions
