IES Grant Writing Workshop - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Loading...

PPT – IES Grant Writing Workshop PowerPoint presentation | free to download - id: 495867-YzExM



Loading


The Adobe Flash plugin is needed to view this content

Get the plugin now

View by Category
About This Presentation
Title:

IES Grant Writing Workshop

Description:

IES Grant Writing Workshop Institute of Education Sciences U.S. Department of Education April 2011 ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:196
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 103
Provided by: RubyA9
Learn more at: http://ies.ed.gov
Category:

less

Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: IES Grant Writing Workshop


1
IES Grant Writing Workshop
  • Institute of Education Sciences
  • U.S. Department of Education
  • April 2011

2
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

3
Agenda (continued)
  • Four Sections of the Research Narrative
  • Significance
  • Research Plan
  • Personnel
  • Resources
  • Other IES Grant Programs
  • Application Submission and Review

4
A bit about IES
5
IES Structure
National Board for Education Sciences
Office of the Director
Office of Standards Review
National Center for Education Research
National Center for Education Evaluation
National Center for Education Statistics
National Center for Special Ed Research
6
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

7
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

8
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

9
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

10
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)

11
Key Dates
Application Deadline Letter of Intent iesreview.ed.gov Application Package www.grants.gov Start Dates
6/23/11 4/21/11 4/21/11 3/1/12 to 9/1/12
9/22/11 7/21/11 7/21/11 7/1/12 to 9/1/12
12
Information for Applying
  • Requests for Applications
  • Letter of Intent
  • IES Grants.gov Application Submission Guide
  • Application Package

13
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
  • To be informed about the release of future RFAs,
    sign up for the IES Newsflash http//ies.ed.gov/n
    ewsflash/

14
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.gov

15
IES Grants.gov Application Submission Guide
  • Instructions for completing and submitting the
    application package
  • Available on http//ies.ed.gov/funding about May
    1, 2011

16
Application Packages for FY 2012
  • Available at www.grants.gov
  • Help support_at_grants.gov or 1-800-518-4726
  • 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

17
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

18
Identify the Appropriate Grant Program
  • Read the appropriate Request for Applications
  • http//ies.ed.gov/funding
  • Look at the abstracts of projects funded
  • http//ies.ed.gov/ncer/projects/
  • http//ies.ed.gov/ncser/projects/
  • Talk to the appropriate Program Officer

19
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

20
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

21
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

22
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.

23
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

24
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.

25
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

26
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

27
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
28
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?

29
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

30
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

31
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

32
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

33
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

34
The 5 Research Goals
  • Exploration
  • Development and Innovation
  • Efficacy and Replication
  • Scale-up Evaluation
  • Measurement

35
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

36
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

37
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?

38
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

39
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

40
Would these fit under Development and Innovation?
  • Develop 9th grade biotechnology course over
    summer, implement from September to December, and
    measure student gains in knowledge.
  • Give half the student iPads, monitor how theyre
    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

41
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

42
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)

43
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

44
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

45
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

46
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 interventions efficacy
  • Routine implementation as implemented by
    practitioners with expected level of support if
    adopted by a school or district

47
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

48
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

49
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

50
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

51
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

52
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

53
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

54
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

55
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

56
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

57
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

58
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

59
The Applications 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

60
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

61
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 8th and 12th graders based on NAEP
    data
  • Do quote back RFA if a specific topic is
    highlighted and your work will address that topic

62
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

63
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)
  • Dont 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

64
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

65
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

66
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

67
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

68
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

69
Four Sections of the Research Narrative
  • Significance
  • Research Plan
  • Personnel
  • Resources

70
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

71
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

72
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

73
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

74
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

75
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

76
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

77
Four Sections of the Research Narrative
  • Significance
  • Research Plan
  • Personnel
  • Resources

78
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

79
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

80
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

81
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

82
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

83
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

84
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

85
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

86
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 5th 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

87
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

88
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

89
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

90
National Research and Development Centers
  • RD 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

91
Centers Key Problem Areas in Applications
  • Focused program appears to be one persons
    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

92
Education Research and Development Centers
  • Center on Cognition and Adult Literacy
  • Center on State and Local Policy

93
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

94
Grant Program Application Deadline Letter of Intent Due Date Application Posted Start Dates
305A Ed Research 324A Sp Ed Research 324B Sp Ed Postdoc 6/23/11 4/21/11 4/21/11 3/1/12 to 9/1/12
305A Ed Research 324A Sp Ed Research 305B Ed Postdoc 305C Ed RD Centers 324C Sp Ed RD Centers 305D Stats/Methods 305E State/Local 9/22/11 7/21/11 7/21/11 7/1/12 to 9/1/12
95
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

96
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 43000 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

97
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

98
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

99
Peer Review Process Information
  • http//ies.ed.gov/director/sro/peer_review/index.a
    sp

100
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

101
Upcoming Application Process Webinars
http//ies.ed.gov/funding/webinars/index.asp
  • Monday, May 2, 2011 100 p.m. 230 p.m. EST
  • Full, Registration ClosedMonday, May 23,
    2011100 p.m. 230 p.m. EST
  • Open, Registration still available

102
  • http//ies.ed.gov/
  • Allen Ruby
  • Allen.Ruby_at_ed.gov
About PowerShow.com