Successful Grant Writing: Part 2

This workshop addresses mechanisms of writing and submitting federally funded proposals, specifically for national funding agencies like the National Science Foundation and the Department of Education. The National Science Foundation funds research in all academic of science and engineering, including science and engineering education, but also funds “high-risk, high pay-off” ideas and novel collaborations. It has seven directorates in which science teacher educators can submit proposals. Normally, science teacher educators will seek funding in the Directorate of Education and Human Resources (EHR) in which one will find a variety of programs such as Discovery Research PreK-12 (DRK-12) and Advancing STEM Informal Learning under the Division of Research on Learning in Formal and Informal Settings (DRL). In the Department of Education, science teacher educators are usually interested in the Institute of Education Sciences’ programs: Effective Teachers and Effective Teaching, Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Education, Mathematics and Science Education, and Professional Development for Teachers and School-Based Service Providers. There are 27 centers and institutes within the National Institute of Health (NIH). The Science Education Partnership Award is a program at NIH that both formal and informal science teacher educators would wish to become more familiar.
ASTE members who are completing their doctoral studies and seeking positions in higher education and who are faculty members at the assistant/associate levels will desire to participate in this two-hour beginning and intermediate level grant-writing workshop. Science teacher educators who are interested in research, especially young scholars will definitely benefit from this workshop. Oftentimes research grants assist new scholars to “jump start” their research agendas (which can be a challenge without funding support, etc.). Professional developers seeking funding for their work, or curriculum developers working with school systems that are interested in grant writing will definitely profit from this workshop. Obtaining grants can promote development of science teacher educators (relative to scholarship) in teacher education. Grant funding fosters partnerships/collaborations, networking, promotes research agendas, assist in the professional development of K-12 teachers, and can assist in doctoral student education. Grant funding can also lead to funding for participation in conferences and publication submissions. Oftentimes research grants also help new scholars get off the ground with their research agendas (which can be a challenge without funding support, etc.). The workshop presenters have been PIs and co-PIs of both federally funded and privately funded grants. Dr. Atwater, a professor at the University of Georgia, has been PI of federally funded and privately funded grants and served on the Committee on Equal Opportunities in Science and Engineering (CEOSE), a congressionally mandated advisory committee to the National Science Foundation. She is now the PI of a NSF-funded EAGER grant, work that is potentially transformative but have “high risk-high payoff”. She has conducted grant-writing workshops at University of Georgia. Dr. Melody Russell, an associate professor at Auburn University, is the co-PI of a collaborative NSF grants in which she is responsible for the research component. Dr. Malcolm B. Butler, a professor at University of Central Florida, has experience being the PI on privately funded grants, PI and co-PI on collaborative NSF grants, and PI on U.S. Department of Education grants. He has conducted grant writing workshops for junior faculty and Holmes Scholars. Dr. Rhea Miles, an associate professor at East Carolina State University, is co-PI on a NIH/SEPA grant, has experience as PI on several foundation grants, and coordinator of a NSF-ITEST grant. Each of the workshop presenters brings a wealth of knowledge and experience in the writing of a variety of grants. The presenters are or have been the PI or co-PI of over $28 million of funded grants.
The objectives of the workshop include answering the following questions:
1. How do proposal writers identify their interests, intentions and needs?
2. How do proposal writers target the appropriate funding agency? The appropriate program within the funding agency?
3. How do proposal writers contact program directors in the program?
4. How to put together a good team to write a proposal? What are important issues or concerns relative to collaborating on writing grant proposals?
5. What do the proposal writers need to know about the specific criteria for the program? How do you get assistance? Are there any “tricks”?
6. How do proposal writers submit proposals at their institutions? What are the deadlines?
7. What are the differences between evaluation and research for the proposal?
8. What voices of support do you need if any?
9. If the renegotiation of the budget with the program director starts, what does that mean about funding?
10. What to do if your program officer contacts the project team with questions about the proposal or wants you to elaborate on specific aspects of the proposal?
11. Your institution received the grant. What are the next steps?
12. How do you identify potential funding from private agencies?

Near the end of the workshop, each participant will completed a questionnaire to evaluate the workshop. A Likert-type questionnaire will evaluate the expertise of the presenters, the appropriateness of the goals for the audience, and the accomplishment of the goals of workshop. The presenters will tally the results to assist us with any follow-ups with might make with the participants.
Description of the Workshop
The workshop will occur in three parts. The first part will focus upon answering questions 1 through 4. This part of the workshop will occur through PowerPoint presentation and discussion. Questions 5 through 7 will be answered through examples of occurrences when submitting proposals. Question 8 will be lead in discussion format. A case study format will be utilized to answer Questions 9 -11. Finally, the answer to Question 12 will discussed in the breakout sessions.
Part II will of the workshop will either consist of participants discussing their own abstracts of proposals they wish to get funded or the presenters sharing abstracts of funded projects and breaking the participants into groups to discuss the pros of these funded grants and their funding agencies. Funding agencies – NSF and NIE will be categories to divide the groups. The NSF subgroups will be either collaborative/cooperative or regular proposals and may be further divided based upon programs.
Part III will be a question-and-answer session, along with the completion of the evaluation questionnaire. Sufficient time will be given for the question-and-answer session (15 minutes) and the completion of the evaluation questionnaire (5 minutes).
Availability of the Presenters: Participants can contact the presenters for minor input or a few ideas for their proposal submissions. However, the presenters will not read proposals and can only provide superficial feedback. If a participant request assistance with the conceptualization, writing, reading, or substantial feedback on the proposal, then it is expected that the presenter would be identified as senior personnel or co-PI on any proposal submission.