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

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 2

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 3

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 4

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 5

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 6

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 7

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 8

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 9

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 10

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 11

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 12

13. Proposal preparation NSF Grant Proposal Guide standard instructionsGrant Proposal Guide no cost sharing Data Management Plan Postdoctoral Researcher Mentoring Plan 13

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? 14

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? 15

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? 16

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? 17

18. Thank You 18

19. additional slides 19

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 20

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 21

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 22

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 23