Name
Abstract | ||
|---|---|---|
You develop a plan for testing the prototype for a new learning strategy in your class or across institutions. How can you ensure that your plan is clearly understood by reviewers and the managing NSF program officer? What goes through the reviewer's mind once a proposal is submitted? What prompts one proposal to be recommended for funding but another declined? Close examination of the panel review process can inform proposal writing and ensure that reviewers will understand an idea, identify its merit, and value a PI's vision of how the work will broaden participation in STEM education. This workshop steps through the NSF proposal review process from submission of proposal to award or decline, touching on NSF intellectual merit and broader impact criteria, mapping the project pipeline to appropriate evaluation. Participants gain insight into writing a good review and improving one's own proposal writing. For further information and travel support see: https://people.cs.clemson.edu/~etkraem/UPCSEd/. Laptops recommended.
|
Year | DOI | Venue |
|---|---|---|
2020 | 10.1145/3287324.3287531 | Proceedings of the 50th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education |
Keywords | Field | DocType |
cs education, ed research proposals, illustrative projects | Computer science,Officer,Public relations,Knowledge management,Narrative | Conference |
ISBN | Citations | PageRank |
978-1-4503-5890-3 | 0 | 0.34 |
References | Authors | |
0 | 5 | |
Name | Order | Citations | PageRank |
|---|---|---|---|
| Stephanie E. August | 1 | 0 | 1.01 |
| S. Megan Che | 2 | 0 | 1.01 |
| Eileen T. Kraemer | 3 | 0 | 4.39 |
| Mark Pauley | 4 | 0 | 0.68 |
| Murali Sitaraman | 5 | 270 | 40.99 |