Archive: results of prior support

Conference: Advanced Technological Education (ATE) Principal Investigators Conference 2015

Posted on June 7, 2016 by  in Conferences

Washington, DC
October 21-23, 2015

PRECONFERENCE WORKSHOPS
Mid-Life Project Evaluation: Setting the Stage for Continued Funding

Wednesday, October 21, 2015 | 1:00 – 4:00 p.m.

If you intend to seek funding to continue your ATE project or center in the next one to two years, this session is for you. Anyone with prior NSF funding seeking a subsequent grant needs to be able to demonstrate their results with regard to both intellectual merit and broader impact. This means going beyond describing what a project did, to what difference it made. Participants will learn how to (1) Identify gaps in evaluation data that need to be addressed in order to make a strong case for continued support; (2) Fill those gaps with low-cost, high-impact evidence; and (3) Craft a persuasive Results of Prior NSF Support section for renewal proposals. This session is designed for both ATE PIs and evaluators.

Resources:
Slides
Worksheet
Checklist: Results of Prior Support

Getting Started
Wednesday, October 21, 2015 | 1:00 – 5:00 p.m.

This workshop is recommended for all principal investigators, co-principal investigators, and other team members involved in newly awarded projects and centers in FY15. Others who may find the workshop useful include new awardees in FY14 and other project personnel from prior years who have recently become involved in ATE projects and centers. The workshop will be divided into three parts: (1) ATE Program Issues. Topics to be covered include reporting requirements such as annual and final reports, working with NSF program officers, changes in project personnel or scope, data collection, FastLane and other reporting systems, use of Advisory Boards and National Visiting Committees, preparing project highlights for NSF and others, Institutional Review Boards (IRBs), and many other relevant topics. (2) Financial Management and Grant Management Issues. This section will focus on financial accounting issues and discuss in detail problems often seen in monitoring visits such as participant support, time and effort accounting, subawardees, record keeping, changes in scope, overload, and use of consultants. (3) Evaluation. This segment will address building in evaluation from the start of your project or center. The ATE program has an annual survey of all projects and centers that have been active for more than one year. Additional evaluation topics to be addressed include, but are not limited to, evaluation design, methods and instrumentation, resources for learning about productive evaluation, the roles of internal and external evaluators, and evaluation challenges.

Resources:
Checklist: Getting Started
Checklist: Mentor Connect Evaluation 101

PANEL SESSION
Mid-Life Project Evaluation: Setting the Stage for Continued Funding
Thursday, October 22, 2015 | 4:00 – 5:15 p.m.

A panel session should involve two, but no more than three presenters and a facilitator. (Though we are allowing four presenters for this session). Preference will be given to sessions that involve presenters that represent different projects and centers. Session proposals that focus solely on a general report out of a project’s or center’s activities will not be accepted. Panels should include an experienced facilitator who will post 2-3 thought-provoking questions to the panelists. The session proposal should address how the panelists will coordinate their presentations and the general topic of the panel. The submitter is responsible for coordinating the presentations in advance. The session must allow for audience participation and interaction through questions and discussion, and share promising strategies and lessons learned in accordance with the session criteria.

BREAKFAST ROUNDTABLE
Advanced Evaluation Professional Development | Table 11
Thursday, October 22, 2015 | 7:45 – 8:45 a.m.

Breakfast roundtables provide a forum for informal discussion of a topic among a small group. Attendance is first-come, first-served and limited to a maximum of 10 people including the moderator seated around one round table.

SHOWCASE SESSIONS
Booth 3

Wednesday, October 21, 2015 | 7:30 – 9:45 p.m.
Thursday, October 22, 2015 | 12:00 – 2:15 p.m.
Friday, October 23, 2015 | 10:00 a.m. – 12:15 p.m.

To learn more or register: bit.ly/conf-atepi.

Blog: Getting Ready to Reapply – Highlighting Results of Prior Support

Posted on December 2, 2015 by  in Blog ()

Founder and President, EvalWorks, LLC

Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Hello. My name is Amy A. Germuth and I own EvalWorks, LLC, an education evaluation firm in Durham, NC, which has a strong focus on evaluating STEM projects. Having conducted evaluations of ATE and multiple other NSF STEM projects since the early 2000s, I have worked with PIs to help them better respond to NSF solicitations.

For every ATE solicitation, NSF has required that proposers identify the “Results of Prior Support.” NSF requests that proposers provide the following information:

  1. The NSF award number, amount and period of support
  2. The title of the project
  3. A summary of the results of the completed work
  4. A list of publications resulting from the NSF award
  5. A brief description of available data, samples, physical collections, and other related research products not described elsewhere
  6. If the proposal is for renewal of a grant, a description of the relation of the completed work to the proposed work

This is an excellent opportunity for proposers who have been funded previously by NSF to highlight how their prior funds were used to support a positive change among the targeted group or individuals. For point 3, rather than simply stating the number of persons served, proposers should do the following:

  • State briefly the main goal(s) of the project.
  • Identify who was served, how many were served, and in what capacity.
  • Explain the impact on these persons that resulted from their participation in this project.
  • Provide what evidence was used to make the above inference.

An example may read something like this:

“As part of this project, our goal was to increase the number of women who successfully earned an associate’s degree in welding. To this end, we began a targeted recruiting campaign focusing on women who were about to complete or had recently completed other related programs such as pipefitting and construction and developed a brochure for new students that included positive images of women in welding. We used funding to develop the Women in Welding program and support team building and outreach efforts by them. Institutional data reveal that since this project was started, the number of women in the welding program has almost tripled from 12 (2006 – 2010), of which only 8 graduated to 34 (2011 – 2016), of which 17 have already graduated and 5 have only one semester left. Even if the remaining 17 were not to graduate, the 17 who already have is double the number of female students who graduated from the program between 2006 – 2010.”

To summarize, if you have received prior support from NSF, use this opportunity to show how the funding supported project activities that made a difference and how they inform your current proposal (if applicable). Reviewers look to this section as a way to ascertain the degree to which you have been a good steward of the funding that you received and what impacts it had. Attention to this section will provide one more measure by which reviewers will judge the ability of your proposed project to be successful.

Newsletter: Tips for Writing the Results of Prior Support Section for NSF Proposals

Posted on July 1, 2014 by  in Newsletter - ()

Where are the hidden opportunities to positively influence proposal reviewers?  Surprisingly, this is often the Results from Prior Support section. Many proposers do not go beyond simply recounting what they did in prior grants. They miss the chance to “wow” the reader with impact examples, such as Nano-Link’s Nano-Infusion Project that has resulted in the integration and inclusion of nanoscale modules into multiple grade levels of K-14 across the nation. Teachers are empowered with tools to effectively teach nanoscale concepts as evidenced by their survey feedback. New leaders are emerging and enthusiasm for science can be seen on the videos available on the website. Because of NSF funding, additional synergistic projects allowed for scaling activities and growing a national presence.

Any PI having received NSF support in the past 5 years must include a summary of the results (up to 5 pages) and how those results support the current proposal. Because pages in this subsection count toward the total 15 pages, many people worry that they are using too much space to describe what has been done. These pages, however, can provide a punch and energy to the proposal with metrics, outcomes, and stories. This is the time to quote the evaluator’s comments and tie the results to the evaluation plan. The external view provides valuable decision-making information to the reviewers. This discussion of prior support helps reviewers evaluate the proposal, allows them to make comments, and provides evidence that the new activities will add value.According to the NSF Grant Proposal Guide, updated in 2013, the subsection must include: Award #, amount, period of support; title of the project; summary of results described under the distinct separate headings of Intellectual Merit, and Broader Impact; publications acknowledging NSF support; evidence of research products and their availability; and relation of completed work to proposed work.

The bottom line is that the beginning of the project description sets the stage for the entire proposal. Data and examples that demonstrate intellectual merit and broader impact clearly define what has been done thus leaving room for a clear description of new directions that will require funding.