IES Grant Writing Workshop Institute of Education Sciences U.S. Department of Education April 2011.

IES Grant Writing Workshop Institute of Education Sciences U.S. Department of Education April 2011

Agenda Introduction to IES Overview of IES Grant Programs Education Research Grants (84.305A) and Special Education Research Grants (84.324A) –Grant Topics –Grant Research Goals

Agenda (continued) Four Sections of the Research Narrative –Significance –Research Plan –Personnel –Resources Other IES Grant Programs Application Submission and Review

A bit about IES

IES Structure Office of the Director National Board for Education Sciences National Center for Education Research National Center for Education Evaluation National Center for Education Statistics National Center for Special Ed Research Office of Standards & Review

Overall Research Objectives Develop or identify education interventions (practices, programs, policies, and approaches) that enhance academic achievement and that can be widely deployed Identify what does not work and thereby encourage innovation and further research Understand the processes that underlie the effectiveness of education interventions and the variation in their effectiveness

Final Outcomes of Interest are for Students Preschool School readiness Developmental outcomes for infants and toddlers with disabilities Kindergarten through Grade 12 Academic outcomes in reading, writing, math, and science Behaviors, interactions, and social skills that support learning in school and successful transitions to post-school opportunities High school graduation Functional outcomes that improve educational results, transitions to employment, independent living, and postsecondary education for students with disabilities

Final Outcomes of Interest (continued) Postsecondary Access, persistence, completion Achievement in gateway math and science courses Achievement in introductory composition courses Adult Education Reading, writing, and math for basic and secondary education and English Language Learners

Agenda Introduction to IES Overview of IES Grant Programs Education Research Grants (84.305A) and Special Education Research Grants (84.324A) Four Sections of the Research Narrative Other IES Grant Programs Application Submission and Review

Research and Research Training Grant Programs Education Research Grant Programs (84.305A) Special Education Research Grant Programs (84.324A) Postdoctoral Research Training Grant Programs (84.305B and 84.324B) National Research and Development Centers (84.305C and 84.324C) Statistical and Research Methodology in Education (84.305D) Evaluation of State and Local Education Programs and Policies (84.305E)

Key Dates Application Deadline Letter of Intent iesreview.ed.gov Application Package www.grants.gov Start Dates 6/23/114/21/11 3/1/12 to 9/1/12 9/22/117/21/11 7/1/12 to 9/1/12

Information for Applying  Requests for Applications  Letter of Intent  IES Grants.gov Application Submission Guide  Application Package

Requests for Applications (RFA) A separate RFA for each grant program Describes the requirements for an application Requests for Applications are available on: http://ies.ed.gov/funding http://ies.ed.gov/funding To be informed about the release of future RFAs, sign up for the IES Newsflash: http://ies.ed.gov/newsflash/ http://ies.ed.gov/newsflash/

Letter of Intent (LOI) A short description of your intended application –PI, institution, collaborators –Budget – rough estimate –Up to 1 page abstract describing the work Not used in the review process – superseded by your application Submitted on http://iesreview.ed.govhttp://iesreview.ed.gov

IES Grants.gov Application Submission Guide Instructions for completing and submitting the application package Available on http://ies.ed.gov/funding about May 1, 2011http://ies.ed.gov/funding

Application Packages for FY 2012 Available at www.grants.govwww.grants.gov –Help: support@grants.gov or 1-800-518-4726support@grants.gov For the June 23, 2011 deadline, packages will be available starting April 21, 2011 For the September 22, 2011 deadline, packages will be available starting July 21, 2011 Packages are specific for grant program and deadline

Eligibility to Apply Applicants that have the ability and capacity to conduct scientifically valid research Include, but are not limited to, nonprofit and for-profit organizations and public and private agencies and institutions, such as colleges, universities, and school districts

Identify the Appropriate Grant Program Read the appropriate Request for Applications –http://ies.ed.gov/fundinghttp://ies.ed.gov/funding Look at the abstracts of projects funded –http://ies.ed.gov/ncer/projects/http://ies.ed.gov/ncer/projects/ –http://ies.ed.gov/ncser/projects/http://ies.ed.gov/ncser/projects/ Talk to the appropriate Program Officer

Grant Topics All applications to 84.305A and 84.324A must be directed to a specific topic –Note: on SF 424 Form, Item 4b (Agency Identifier Number) –Note: at top of Abstract and Research Narrative

Education Research Topics (84.305A) Reading and Writing Mathematics and Science Education Cognition and Student Learning Social and Behavioral Context for Academic Learning Education Technology Effective Teachers and Effective Teaching Improving Education Systems: Policies, Organization, Management, and Leadership Postsecondary and Adult Education Early Learning Programs and Policies English Learners

Identify Education Research Topic Purpose: This study will examine the association between aspects of preschool quality and child health, behavioral and cognitive outcomes in community-based and school-based early care and education programs. Purpose: The purpose of this research is to test several possible ways to influence participation in college savings plans and subsequent savings behavior. Purpose: This study will provide a detailed examination of factors that predict gender differences in elementary school mathematics performance. Purpose: This project is designed around findings from a local needs assessment of teachers, which found: a) a need for more support for laboratory work; b) a need for greater access to subject matter experts; and c) a strong desire to plan together.

Special Education Research Topics (84.324A) Early Intervention and Early Learning in Special Education Reading, Writing, and Language Development Mathematics and Science Education Social and Behavioral Outcomes to Support Learning Transition Outcomes for Special Education Secondary Students Cognition and Student Learning in Special Education Professional Development for Teachers and Related Service Providers Special Education Policy, Finance, and Systems Autism Spectrum Disorders Technology for Special Education Families with Children with Disabilities

Identify Special Education Research Topic Purpose: This research group will develop and preliminarily evaluate SELF: Social-Emotional Learning Foundations, to promote emotional and behavioral self-regulation for children in Kindergarten and first grade who are at risk for emotional and behavioral disorders. Purpose: This research will providing guidance for speech- language pathologists by examining how dosage, techniques, and context are associated with language outcomes. Purpose: Federal regulations issued in April 2007 allow states to develop "modified academic achievement standards" that are challenging for eligible students but are less difficult than grade- level achievement standards. This project will develop and validate an assessment based on modified academic achievement standards.

Issues Specific to Topics All require student outcomes (Effective Teachers, Systems) Grade range varies by topic –Most topics are for K-12 students only –Early Learning: for pre-K (ages 3-5) and their teachers Exception if project is to follow pre-K students into later grades applicant can choose most appropriate topic –Education Technology: pre-K to adult except science (grade 12) – Cognition: pre-K to adult (voc ed, adult ed, remedial post-sec) –Postsecondary and Adult: for older students Postsecondary includes high school programs to get students into postsecondary Postsecondary limited to sub-baccalaureate and baccalaureate Adult: adult basic education, adult secondary education, and English Learner

Topics (continued) Improving Education Systems: Policies, Organization, Management, and Leadership –Anything designed to improve the overall functioning of a school, district, state, or national education system Programs Finance Leadership Organization and Management –Combined into 1 topic because interventions may include all of these approaches

Topics (continued) Topics can Overlap –Effective Teachers & Effective Teaching Read/Write & Math/Science: determine if focus on Prof Dev or on curriculum/instructional approach Cognition: applying cognitive science to teacher practice Early Learning topic is for pre-K teachers English Learners: if for EL teachers can be either Improving Ed Systems: teacher certification, recruitment, and retention can go to either topic –Ed Technology with all programs Is focus/team on tech development or on substance –English Learners with Read/Write & Math/Science Is EL the primary focus or a secondary focus –Improving Ed Systems with all programs Except Early Learning Programs and Policies and Postsecondary and Adult Education

Choosing among Overlapping Topics What literature are you citing? To which topic is your area of expertise best aligned? If your focus is on a specific population of students/teachers, go to that program/topic: – Is your focus on a specific type of student/teacher (e.g., special education or English Learners), or are you studying them as subgroup of your sample?

Topics (continued) Pre-service programs –Only exploratory research can be done on teacher pre-service programs – no development of pre- service programs, evaluation of them, or measures-development for them –Can develop or evaluate pre-service components with in-service teachers –Support for leadership pre-service programs if the programs last 24 months or less

Issues Specific to Special Education Topics Children with disabilities or at risk for developing disabilities: –At Risk based on individual assessment not population characteristics (e.g. low SES) –Be specific about which disabilities you are addressing Specify the inclusion/screening criteria Applicants to the following topics must address students with a disability only and not students at risk for a disability: –Transition Outcomes –Autism Spectrum Disorders –Families of Children with Disabilities

Special Education Topics (continued) Grade Coverage –Early Intervention: infants to age 5 –Cognition: infants to grade 12 –Technology: infants to grade 12 –Autism: pre-K – 12 –Transition: secondary students only (middle/high school) –Others: K -12 Overlaps –Autism and Other Topics Comprehensive interventions with multiple outcomes to Autism One outcome goes to that topic (e.g. Math/Science) –Early Intervention and Other topics if follow pre-K students to later grades

Decide Which Topic Your Research Idea Would Fall Under Think about your research question(s) Decide which topic it best fits under If not sure –Check RFA –Discuss with program officer

Grant Research Goals All applications to 84.305A and 84.324A must be directed to a specific research goal (1 of 5) –Note: on SF 424 Form, Item 4b –Note: at top of Abstract and Research Narrative The goal describes the type of research to be done So every application is directed to a specific topic/goal combination

The 5 Research Goals Exploration Development and Innovation Efficacy and Replication Scale-up Evaluation Measurement

Exploration Exploration of the association between education outcomes and malleable factors (non-causal) – A factor that can be changed by the education system be it a student, teacher, or school characteristic, or an education program or policy –Underlying processes that enhance or inhibit learning –Aspects of a school, district, or community associated with beneficial education outcomes –Education interventions associated with beneficial education outcomes

Exploration Exploration of the factors that mediate or moderate the relationship between malleable factors and student outcomes Small primary data studies, secondary analyses, and meta-analyses –Secondary data: Typical $100,000 to $300,000 per year (direct and indirect) Maximum 2 years and $700,000 –Include primary data: Typical: $100,000 to $400,000 per year Maximum 4 years and $1,600,000

Would these Research Questions fit under the Exploration Goal? Do middle school girls score higher on English achievement tests than boys? Is hands-on science teaching associated with better grades for boys? Is increasing foster care payments linked to better academic outcomes of foster children? Does Bluebird Reading Curriculum cause higher student achievement on reading tests? Do students with certain types of disabilities have shorter attention spans?

Development and Innovation Develop new interventions – E.g., instructional practices, curricula, teacher professional development, principal practices, policies –Iterative development process –Define “operating as intended” and how to measure Feasibility of implementation –Implement the intervention in an authentic education delivery setting –Small sample of users –Demonstrate “operating as intended”

Development and Innovation Collect pilot data on promise of intervention to achieve intended outcomes –Does not need to be causal study –Stronger with comparison group –Can be no more than 30% of grant budget –Obtain evidence to support grant for evaluation Typical award: $150,000 to $400,000 per year –Maximum of 3 years and $1,500,000

Would these fit under Development and Innovation? Develop 9 th grade biotechnology course over summer, implement from September to December, and measure student gains in knowledge. Give half the student iPads, monitor how they’re used, and compare test scores at end of year. New writing program –Develop with 10 teachers over 1 year – try components out in class and revise accordingly –Feasibility test with the 10 teachers in Year 2 –Compare writing scores of students of the 10 teachers to scores of students from 10 other teachers in Year 3

Efficacy and Replication Causal test of whether or not a fully developed intervention has a beneficial impact on student outcomes relative to a counterfactual in an authentic educational setting –Interventions already in wide use –Interventions not in wide use Takes place under “ideal” conditions –Homogenous sample of students/schools –Extra assistance to support high implementation

Efficacy and Replication Detailed description of intervention –Theory of Action –Empirical evidence –Practical importance Random assignment to intervention and comparison conditions preferred –Strong quasi-experiment designs can be proposed when experiment not feasible –Single-subject methods / single-case designs –Check What Works Clearinghouse evidence standards (RCTs, RDD, Single Case, Attrition)

Efficacy and Replication Address power of design to identify impacts Address fidelity of implementation of treatment and comparison groups Address important moderators Detail analysis plan Avoid apparent conflicts of interest for evaluation team Typical award: $250,000 to $650,000 per year –Maximum of 4 years and $3,500,000

Efficacy and Replication Follow-up Study Follow students who received intervention into later grades, or Follow teachers (principals or schools) who received intervention after the project ends to see if sustained effect on practice and on student outcomes Typical award: 150,000 to $300,000 per year –Maximum of 3 years and $1,200,000

Would these fit under the Efficacy and Replication Goal? Randomly assign iPads to treatment and control groups Intervention will provide 3 weeks of teacher training, ongoing coaching, plus classroom materials Match 30 schools who adopted an anti-bullying program to 30 schools who did not based on % minorities and FSL and average test scores 4 districts agree to take part in a study that will randomly assign a math curriculum to 2 of them

Scale-up Evaluation Independent causal test of whether or not a fully developed efficacious intervention has a beneficial impact on student outcomes relative to a counterfactual in an authentic educational setting under routine implementation –Independent: evaluation team has no financial interest in intervention –Efficacious: evidence of intervention’s efficacy –Routine implementation: as implemented by practitioners with expected level of support if adopted by a school or district

Scale-up Evaluations Limit of 25% of budget for implementation of the intervention Other requirements similar to Efficacy and Replication Replications of Scale-up Evaluations allowed with different populations (students, schools) Typical award: $350,000 to $900,000 per year –Maximum of 5 years and $5,000,000

Scale-up Evaluation Follow-up Study Follow students who received intervention into later grades Typical award: $250,000 to $400,000 per year –Maximum of 3 years and $1,500,000

Would these fit under Scale-up Evaluation? Test new in-service math teacher training program developed under a Development and Innovation grant in 60 randomly assigned classrooms A district wants to compare 2 Algebra 1 curricula, and the companies agree to provide them at cost along with teacher coaching A charter management company that has 2 small efficacy studies receives funds from a millionaire to take over 40 schools. 80 schools apply, and the company will randomly select half if it receives IES funds to do an evaluation

Measurement Develop and validate assessments or other measurement tools –Typically to be used by practitioners: screening, progress monitoring, and outcome assessment –Some cases for use by researchers –Validation of non-student measures involves student outcomes (e.g., Effective Teachers) –Program specific, e.g., cost-accounting under Improving Education Systems

Measurement Not for evaluating an assessment used as an intervention The measure is the primary product – Not creating a measure as part of a larger study Typical awards $150,000 to $300,000 per year –Maximum of 4 years and $1,600,000

Would these fit under Measurement? Developing a formative chemistry assessment to help students learn how to balance formulas Developing a measure of teacher instruction in fractions and validating it against teacher logs and principal observations Develop a measure of student attention and validate it against student grades as part of a project to evaluate an intervention to increase student time on task

The Goals Build on One Another Exploration should lead to: –Development or modification of an intervention –Efficacy evaluation of an intervention Development and Innovation should lead to an Efficacy evaluation if found feasible and pilot data is supportive Efficacy and Replication should lead to a Scale-up evaluation if impact found Measurement should feed into the other goals

Decide Which Goal Your Research Idea Would Fall Under Think about your research question(s) Decide which goal it best fits under If not sure: –Check RFA –Discuss with program officer –If your idea straddles several goals, consider breaking it into smaller pieces –Choose goal with best fit, not the one that offers greatest funding

Expected Products Under the Goals Exploration –Identify a malleable factor associated (or not) with student outcomes to support a future Development project –Identify a mediators and/or moderators of the relationship between a malleable factor and student outcomes to support a future Development project –Identify initial evidence of the association of a program or policy with student outcomes to support a future Efficacy Project Development and Innovation: an intervention ready to implement and evaluate

Expected Products Efficacy & Replication: a methodological sound evaluation of an intervention Scale-up Evaluation: a methodologically sound independent evaluation of an intervention carried out under routine conditions Measurement: a validated instrument ready for use

Dissemination Expected for all Goals Publications in peer-reviewed journals Quick release of findings: working papers, presentations and posters, seminars Products others can use: software, manuals, instruments, monographs Teaching others to use findings/products: short courses, long courses, on-line tutorials Long-term collaborations with practitioners

The Application’s Research Narrative Key part of your application 4 Sections –Significance –Research Plan –Personnel –Resources Each section scored and an overall score given Requirements vary by program & goal 25 pages, single spaced

Significance Describes the overall project –Your research question to be answered; intervention to be developed or evaluated, or measure to be developed and/or validated Provides a compelling rationale for the project –Theoretical justification Logic Models, Change Models –Empirical justification –Practical justification

Significance Do not assume reviewers know significance of your work Do not quote back RFA on general importance of a topic, –e.g., RFA paragraph on lack of reading proficiency of 8 th and 12 th graders based on NAEP data Do quote back RFA if a specific topic is highlighted and your work will address that topic

Significance: Exploration Goal Describe the malleable factors, moderators, and mediators to be examined Justify their importance –Theoretical rationale –Empirical rationale –Practical importance How work will lead to useful next step –Development or modification of interventions to address the identified malleable factors or underlying process to improve student outcomes –Identification of interventions for more rigorous evaluation Overall importance

Significance: Development Goal Context for proposed intervention –Why needed: what problem exits –What exists now (may be many alternatives already) Detailed description of intervention to be developed –Clearly identify components already developed, partially developed, and to be developed (no jargon) –Don’t overextend (# grades, full vs. part year) Theory of change (theoretical support) Empirical support Practical importance: –Meaningful impact, feasibility, affordability Answer the question: Why will this intervention produce better student outcomes than current practice? Overall importance

Significance: Efficacy & Replication Detailed description of intervention –Show fully developed, implementation process, and ready to be evaluated Justification for evaluating the intervention –Importance of practical problem it is to address –If in wide use, show it has not been rigorously evaluated –If not in wide use, show evidence of feasibility and promise to address the practical problem Theory of change: why lead to expected outcomes –Theoretically and empirical rationale –Direct impact on student outcomes or through mediators Justify that it could lead to better outcomes than current practice Overall importance

Significance: Scale-Up Evaluation Detailed description of intervention Justification for evaluating the intervention –Evidence of meaningful impacts (Efficacy study) Theory of change Justify that it could lead to better outcomes than current practice Implementation under normal conditions Independent evaluation Evidence that implementation can reach high enough fidelity to have meaningful impacts Overall importance

Significance: Measurement Description of assessment and how it will be used Theoretical basis for constructs to be measured Empirical evidence for constructs Practical need for the assessment Feasibility of use Overall importance

Significance – 2 Key Problem Areas Unclear Description of Malleable Factor or Intervention –May have many components and these may be applied at different times– graphic may help –Unclear how to be implemented to ensure fidelity –Unclear why strong enough to expect an impact –Overly focused on actions not content Example: provide 10 professional development sessions of 4 hours apiece - no detail on what occurs in sessions

Significance – 2 Key Problem Areas Lack of a Theory of Change –Why a malleable factor should be related to a student outcome –Why an intervention should improve outcomes versus current practice –Why an assessment/instrument should measure a specific construct –A well laid out theory of change makes clear what is expected to happen and in what order –Easy for reviewers to understand research plan – why measure certain outcomes –Graphic can be helpful – e.g. a logic model

Four Sections of the Research Narrative Significance Research Plan Personnel Resources

Research Plan Describe the work you intend to do –How you will answer your research question, develop your intervention, evaluate the intervention, or develop and/or validate your assessment Make certain Research Plan is aligned to Significance section –All research questions should have justification in Significance. Step-by-step process –Timeline to show when everything will be done

Research Plans Differ by Research Goal However all should describe: –Setting –Population and sample Sampling plan: inclusion and exclusion criteria Size (power issue) and attrition External validity –Measures Outcomes: proximal and distal; answer research questions Other measures: fidelity, feasibility, operating as intended, feedback Quantitative and qualitative Reliability and validity Relevance: sensitivity vs. broad interest Multiple comparisons issue

All Research Plans Should Include (cont.) –Research Design (more detail on following slides) –Analysis Describe how it answers research questions Show your model: show different types of models used Address clustering Describe how missing data will be handled Check for equivalency at start of study and attrition bias throughout Describe sensitivity tests of assumptions Describe analysis of qualitative data and links to quantitative analysis

Research Design Start off with you research questions The research design should answer your questions –Do not have the design section written independently by a methodologist –If sections are written by different people have everyone read through the whole application Issues common to designs across goals –Attrition and missing data –Obtaining access to and permission to collect/use data

Research Design Varies by Goal Exploration –Primary data Sampling strategy Data collection and coding processes –Secondary data Descriptive analysis Statistical correlational analysis Analyses attempting to address selection issues Mediation analysis Development –Focus should be on iterative development process –Feasibility study: use in authentic education setting –Pilot study: comparison to a similar group

Research Design Varies by Goal Efficacy and Replication –Randomized Control Trail (RCT) favored Unit of randomization and justification Procedures for assignment –Strong quasi-experiment - justify why RCT not possible How it reduces or models selection bias Discuss threats to internal validity – conclusions to be drawn –Describe the control/comparison group –Power analysis/MDES – show calculation and assumptions –Fidelity of implementation study in both T and C –Mediator and moderator analyses –Contamination issues: schools vs. classrooms

Research Design Varies by Goal Scale-up Evaluation –Same as Efficacy & Replication except requires implementation under routine conditions, independent evaluator, and a cost study Measurement –The plan to develop or refine the assessment Evidence of constructs Interpretation of assessment results Item development and selection Procedures for administering and scoring –Reliability and validity studies

Four Sections of the Research Narrative Significance Research Plan Personnel Resources

Personnel Section Describe key personnel –Link each person and their expertise to their role in project - show that every aspect of project has person with expertise to do it Methodologists: show expertise in particular method to be used Substantive person for all issues addressed Do not propose to hire a key person with X expertise Project management skills –Give time contribution for each - show that every aspect has enough time from expert Orient CVs same way – specific to project –4 pages plus 1 page for other sources of support

Personnel Requirements Publication record and projected publications from this grant are considered Developers should discuss past success getting developed interventions evaluated If previous IES grant, discuss results Evaluations require attention to objectivity should a developer or persons with financial interest be involved –Efficacy projects: address how objectivity maintained –Scale-Up: Independent evaluation: developer can provide routine implementation support

Personnel Strategies for PI Senior Researcher –Show adequate time to be PI –Make credentials clear: not all reviewers may know Junior Researcher as PI/PD –Show adequate expertise not only to do work but to manage project –Reviewers may be more comfortable if you have senior person(s) on project to turn to for advice

Resources Show the institutions involved have the capacity to support the work –Do not use university boilerplate Show that all organizations involved understand and agree to their roles –What will each institution, including schools, contribute to the project –Show strong commitment of schools and districts –Have alternatives in case of attrition

Resources (continued) Appendix C should back this up with –Detailed Letters of Support from research institutions, States, districts, schools Data issues –Document permission to use and access to confidential data (letters in Appendix C) –Show familiarity with data – show that it can be used to do the proposed work –If merging datasets, show that it can be done

Appendices Appendix A (15 page limit) –Figures, charts, and tables –Examples of measures –3 pages to address past reviewer comments or to argue that a proposal is a new submission Appendix B (10 page limit) –Examples of materials used in an intervention or assessment Appendix C (no page limit) –Letters of agreement (districts, schools, data providers, other partners, consultants) –Clearly state responsibilities of the writer

Budget and Budget Narrative Provide a clear budget and budget narrative for overall project and each sub-award IES Grants.gov Application Submission Guide describes budget categories Check RFA for specific budget requirements for Research Goals and Grant Programs Ensure agreement among Research Narrative, Budget, and Budget Narrative

Other Grant Programs Do not use topic/goal structure Use a similar Research Narrative –Postdoctoral Training uses a Fellowship Plan in place of Research Plan and the Research Narrative has a 15 page limit –Centers address Management and Institutional Resources, include a 5 th component: Plans for Other Center Activities, and the Research Narrative has a 35 page limit –Stats/Methods and State/Local use same Research Narrative Have only 1 application deadline

Postdoctoral Training Program (84.305B & 84.324B) Grants to institutions to establish postdoctoral training programs to train researchers in the skills necessary to conduct the type of research that IES funds Institution must grant doctoral degrees in fields relevant to education Up to 5 years with up to 8 fellow/years for a maximum of $687,000 –Funding for fellow recruitment, stipend, benefits, travel, other costs –No funding for faculty research, faculty salaries, or facilities 6/23/11 deadline for Special Education Training Program 9/22/11 deadline for Education Training Program

Statistical and Research Methodology in Education (84.305D) Expand and improve the methodological and statistical tools available for mainstream education researchers Funding – Typical Range: $45,000 to $300,000 per year – Maximum: 3 years, $1,000,000 Applications accepted for 9/22/11 deadline only

Evaluation of State and Local Education Programs and Policies (84.305E) Rigorous evaluations of education programs or policies implemented by state or local education agencies. Requires collaboration with the state or district agency. Funding –Typical Range: $500,000 to $1,000,000 per year –Maximum: 5 years, $5,000,000 Applications accepted for 9/22/11 deadline only

National Research and Development Centers R&D Centers address key complex education issues, create solutions, and contribute to knowledge and theory A focused program of research –Tightly linked set of studies on key issue –50-75% of funds used to address focused program Supplemental studies and leadership activities Cooperative agreement with $1 - $2 million a year (direct and indirect) for up to 5 years Applications accepted for 9/22/11 deadline only

Centers – Key Problem Areas in Applications Focused program appears to be one person’s research agenda versus a national issue Focused program is a set of poorly linked studies, i.e., several peoples’ individual research agendas A set of linked studies are proposed but not one is given enough detail to allow reviewers to evaluate its quality

Education Research and Development Centers Center on Cognition and Adult Literacy Center on State and Local Policy

Special Education Research and Development Centers Center on Interventions for Families of Students with Autism Spectrum Disorders Center on Interventions for Families of Students with Emotional and Behavioral Disorders Center on School-Based Interventions for Secondary Students with Autism Spectrum Disorders Center on Reading Instruction for Deaf and Hard of Hearing Students

Grant ProgramApplication Deadline Letter of Intent Due Date Application Posted Start Dates 305A: Ed Research 324A: Sp Ed Research 324B: Sp Ed Postdoc 6/23/114/21/11 3/1/12 to 9/1/12 305A: Ed Research 324A: Sp Ed Research 305B: Ed Postdoc 305C: Ed R&D Centers 324C: Sp Ed R&D Centers 305D: Stats/Methods 305E: State/Local 9/22/117/21/11 7/1/12 to 9/1/12

Grant Submission Make sure your institution is registered on grants.gov Complete your online forms and upload PDFs Authorized representative completes the process Submit by 4:30:00 EST on deadline – earlier is safer If problems uploading –Contact Help Line 1-800-518-4726 and get a case number You should receive four emails –Grants.gov: assigns you a number that starts with GRANT –Grants.gov: your application is validated or rejected due to errors. If the latter, correct and resubmit until validated. –Dept. of Ed: retrieved your application from Grants.gov –Dept. of ED: assigns you a number that starts with R305 or R324

Application Review (Office of Standards & Review) Compliance screening for format requirements Responsiveness screening to program/goal requirements Assigned to review panel –2-3 reviewers (substantive and methodology) –If scored high enough, application is reviewed by full panel Many panelists will be generalists to your topic There will an expert in every procedure you use –Overall score plus scores on Significance, Research Plan, Personnel, and Resources –So far, all applications with overall score of Outstanding and Excellent have been funded Resubmissions encouraged: address comments See

Application Review (Office of Standards & Review) Compliance screening for format requirements Responsiveness screening to program/goal requirements Assigned to review panel –2-3 reviewers (substantive and methodology) –If scored high enough, application is reviewed by full panel Many panelists will be generalists to your topic There will an expert in every procedure you use –Overall score plus scores on Significance, Research Plan, Personnel, and Resources –So far, all applications with overall score of Outstanding and Excellent have been funded Resubmissions encouraged: address comments

Peer Review Process Information http://ies.ed.gov/director/sro/peer_review/index.asp

Notification All applicants will receive e-mail notification of the status of their application All applicants receive copies of reviewer comments If you are not granted an award the first time, plan on resubmitting and talk to your program officer

Upcoming Application Process Webinars http://ies.ed.gov/funding/webinars/index.asp Monday, May 2, 2011 1:00 p.m. – 2:30 p.m. EST Full, Registration Closed Monday, May 23, 2011 1:00 p.m. – 2:30 p.m. EST Open, Registration still available

http://ies.ed.gov/ Allen Ruby Allen.Ruby@ed.gov

IES Grant Writing Workshop Institute of Education Sciences U.S. Department of Education April 2011.

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "IES Grant Writing Workshop Institute of Education Sciences U.S. Department of Education April 2011."— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback

Log in

Auth with social network:

IES Grant Writing Workshop Institute of Education Sciences U.S. Department of Education April 2011.

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "IES Grant Writing Workshop Institute of Education Sciences U.S. Department of Education April 2011."— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback