March 2016 Welcome and Introductions Program Purpose Fiscal Year - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Pre Pre-Applicat Application ion Workshop rkshop Hisp ispanic anic-Serv Serving ing Ins nstitution titutions s Di Division vision March 2016 Welcome and Introductions Program Purpose Fiscal Year 2016 Grant Competition
March 2016
Welcome and Introductions Program Purpose Fiscal Year 2016 Grant Competition Absolute Priorities Selection Criteria Allowable Activities Performance Measures Competitive Priorities Evidence Standards Planning Your Grant Application Questions from the Field Application Submission and Review
2
Title III, Part F (CFDA 84.031C) The Hispanic-Serving Institutions (HSI) STEM and Articulation
3
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
4
Applica
Applica
Indiv
Estima
Estima
Estima
5
6
7
A. A.
Quali lity ty of Project ect Design gn (maximu imum 30 point nts)
1. The extent to which the design of the proposed project is appropriate to, and will successfully address, the needs of the target population of other identified needs. (up to 10 points) 2. The extent to which the design of the proposed project includes a thorough, high- quality review of the relevant literature, a high-quality plan for project implementation, and the use of appropriate methodological tools to ensure successful achievement of project objectives. (up to 5 points) 3. The extent to which the proposed project is supported by strong theory. (up to 5 points) 4. The extent to which the proposed project represents an exceptional approach to the priority or priorities established for the competition. (up to 10 points)
8
What are the issues the proposal is attempting to address? How do the issues, needs, and proposed activities relate to the
How will the applicant address the needs? How will the applicant address the priorities? How would the project be presented using a Logic Model?
9
10
Is the institution considering new and proven service models
What gains are expected as a result of the proposed
What are the services and what’s the intended
11
C. C.
12
What are the potential contributions to the field? If the project is successful what improvements or systemic
13
D.
14
How will the proposed project be managed and who will
How will you ensure that the project is on schedule to meet
Have sufficient staff and time been committed to ensure that
15
E. E.
1. The extent to which the goals, objectives, and outcomes to be achieved by the proposed project are clearly specified and measureable. (up to 5 points) 2. The extent to which the methods of evaluation are thorough, feasible, and appropriate to the goals, objectives, and outcomes of the proposed
3. The extent to which the methods of evaluation will, if well-implemented, produce evidence about the project’s effectiveness that would meet the What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards with reservations. (up to 10 points)
16
What data collection tools will be used to determine whether
What metrics will be used to measure progress? Are long and short term objectives clear and measurable? How will the evaluation be used to inform continuous
17
Purchase, rental, or lease of scientific/laboratory equipment for educational, instructional, and research purposes.
Construction, maintenance, renovation and improvement of instructional facilities.
Support of faculty exchanges, fellowships and development; and curriculum development
Purchase of library books, periodicals, and other educational materials.
Tutoring, counseling, and student services designed to improve academic success.
Articulation agreements and student support programs designed to facilitate the transfer from two-year to four-year institutions.
Funds management.
Joint use of facilities, such as laboratories and libraries.
Establishing or improving a development office.
Establishing or improving an endowment fund.
Creating or improving facilities for Internet or
Establishing or enhancing a program of teacher education.
Establishing community outreach programs that will encourage elementary and secondary students to pursue postsecondary education.
Expanding the number of Hispanic and other underrepresented graduate and professional students that can be served by the institution through expanded courses and resources.
Providing education, counseling, or financial information designed to improve financial and economic literacy of students or the students’ families.
18
Key perform
ance measures ures for r assessi sing ng the effective tivenes ness s of the HSI STEM M and Articul iculation ation progr gram: am:
a.
The percentage change, over the five-year grant period, of the number of Hispanic and low-income full-time STEM field degree-seeking undergraduate students enrolled.
b.
The percentage of Hispanic and low-income first-time STEM field degree-seeking undergraduate students who were in their first year of postsecondary enrollment in the previous year and are enrolled in the current year who remain in a STEM field degree/credential program.
c.
The percentage of Hispanic and low-income first-time, full-time degree-seeking undergraduate students enrolled at four-year HSIs graduating within six years of enrollment with a STEM field degree.
19
d.
e.
20
f. f.
g. g.
h. h.
21
i.
j.
22
23
24
25
26
27
Applications supported by evidence of effectiveness that
Worth one additional point.
28
Applications supported by evidence of effectiveness that
Worth three additional points.
29
1. 1. Correla rrelatio ional al study dy with statistical controls for selection bias; 2. 2. Quasi uasi-experim experimental ntal design ign (QED) ED) study that meets WWC Evidence Standards with reservations; or 3. 3. Random andomized ized con
trolled
l (RCT) CT) that meets the WWC Evidence Standards with
WWC Rating ng: Meets ts WWC Standard ards Without
Reserva vatio ions ns WWC Rating ng: Meets ts WWC WWC Standard ards With Reserva vatio ions ns WWC Rating ng: Does Not Meet t WWC WWC Standa dards rds Random
zed control rolled led trials (RCTs) Ts) with h low attriti tion
RCTs with h high h attrition tion but baseline ne equiva valence lence of t the contro rol group up RCTs with h high h attrition tion and witho hout ut baseline ne equiva valence lence of t the contro rol group up Regre gressio ion discontinu ntinuity ty design gn studies ies meetin ing g all WWC standa dards rds for RDDs Regre gressio ion discontinu ntinuity ty design gn studies ies meetin ing g some WWC stand ndar ards for RDDs Regre gressio ion discontinu ntinuity ty design gn studie dies failing ng to m meet WWC stand ndar ards for RDDs N/A Quasi-exper xperim imenta ntal l design gn studies ies (QEDs Ds) ) that estab ablish lish baseline ne equiva valence lence Quasi-exper xperim imenta ntal l design gn studi dies (QEDs) ) that do not estab ablish baseline ne equiva valence lence
33
(National Cancer Institute)
1. The Educ ucatio ion Reso source urces Inform formation ation Cent enter er (ERIC) contains a searchable digital database of studies. 2. Other studies (and librarian assistance) are available through the Nation ional l Library rary of Educat ucation ion (NLE). 3. The What at Works ks Clearing earinghouse use has a Review iewed ed Studies udies Data tabase base listing studies reviewed by the WWC, describing the WWC rating of the study and the reason for the review (including links to any relevant WWC C publi blicat ation ions describing that review in greater detail).
39
Identify goals for your proposed project. Analyze every proposed activity to ensure that it is attainable,
Choose metrics and evaluation methods that will produce
Use the identified Performance Measures to build your project
40
Be realistic and straightforward about every aspect of your project
41
The estimated range of awards is $700,000-$1,200,000. The
Yes.
An institution may only receive one award, as the lead
42
No. The language in the program statute reads, with a
(i) to increase the number of Hispanic and other low income
(ii) to develop model transfer and articulation agreements
43
44
The deadline to submit applications for this competition is
No.
45
Yes.
Yes, stipends to students conducting research is allowable,
Yes.
46
Yes. Institutions may partner with other institutions to
No.
47
If we apply for one of the competitive preference priority and
48
A large sample includes either 350 or more students, or 50 or
49
The Federal l Regis ister er announ
cement ment notes es that the projec ject t evaluati uation
uld produce ce informa
tion at a WWC level l witho hout ut reserv ervations.
s requir irement ement apply annually ally or can it be cumula ulative? tive? That is, is it necess ssary ary for the sample e size (number er of partici icipants) nts) to reach h a l level l each year r that would uld facili lita tate te a rigor
ral l years rs of partici icipants nts be c combined ined to creat ate e a s sample le size e that will l facil ilit itat ate e a m method hod that would ld produc uce e inform
ation at the WWC with h reserv rvat atio ions ns level? l?
The Department will consider, for each applicant, “the extent to which the methods of
evaluation will, if well-implemented, produce evidence about the project’s effectiveness that would meet the What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards with reservations.” WWC evidence standards do not specify a sample size for studies to meet standards, nor do the standards require a specific number of years of data collection. Multiple period of data collection may be useful by including baseline data collection to establish the equivalence of the intervention and comparison groups. In addition, larger samples are, in general, more likely to support the detection of statistically significant effects, which may provide Moderate Evidence of Effectiveness for related projects in the future. Applicants should consider what study design features are feasible and reasonable for the purposes of their proposed project evaluations.
50
To avoid denying students services to which they are entitled and for which
funding is available, applicants should consider how to define the intervention being studied as part of the project evaluation. It is possible that the intervention could be a component of project’s design that is in need of further
reservations, researchers have several options to consider for creating a comparison group: (a) use a matched comparison group of students not receiving the intervention; (b) use a measure of need or merit to assign the intervention to students; or (c) use a lottery to select eligible students to receive the intervention. Eligible students in a comparison group may also be able to receive the intervention at a later time, following the completion of data collection for an intervention study.
51
The “Find What Works” tool on the WWC website is based on WWC intervention reports, but
reflects only a fraction of the studies reviewed by the WWC. Applicants should look for relevant studies that might provide evidence of effectiveness in the WWC database of reviewed studies (http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/ReviewedStudies.aspx) and in the Education Resources Information Center (http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/eric.asp). The WWC will review additional studies cited by applicants, if necessary to assess whether those studies meet WWC standards and provide Moderate Evidence of Effectiveness. Those newly-reviewed studies will then be entered into the WWC database as a resource for use in the future.
52
Statistical significance at the 0.05 level is relevant for assessing
53
While a single study may provide either Evidence of Promise or
54
A study reviewed under by the WWC prior to version 3.0 standards
55
Because of limitations in the study data previously coded by the WWC,
56
Yes.
57
The “Quality of the Project Design” refers to “the use of appropriate
58
Applicants should consult with their institution’s human research
59
ssing a competit titiv ive e preferenc rence priori rity. ty.
ressing sing one of the competitiv itive preferenc ence priorit
ies. s.
clude a separa rate heading ing for the absolute lute priori rities ties and for the competit titiv ive e priori
ties, , if you address s one.
lute priori rities ties
itive preference ence priorit
ies
60
ion crit iteri ria a
lute priori rities ties
t I, the Applicat ication ion for Federa ral l Assista stance ce (SF 424 24) ) and d the Depart rtme ment nt of Educ ucat ation ion Supplementa emental l Informati
24). ).
t IV, assura rances ces and certif ificat ication ions.
page projec ject t abstra ract.
61
Applicat
ication ions must be submit itted ted electron ronic ical ally ly usin ing Gr Gran ants. s.gov.
Downl
nload
lica cation tion packag kage e at Gr Gran ants.go .gov, v, comple plete offlin ine, , then n upload
it.
Applicat
ication ions receiv ived by Gr Gran ants.gov s.gov are date and time stamped.
Applicat
ication ions must be fully ly uploaded
, submit itted ted, , and date and time stamped d no later r than an 4:30 30 p.m., , Washi hingt ngton
, DC time, on May 31, , 2016. 16.
Avoid
id techn hnic ical al issues es and upload
d submit it your r appli lica cati tion
DEADL
DLIN INE – 4:30 30 p.m., Washi hingto ton n DC time, on May 31, , 201 016. 6.
62
63
64
65
66
67
itive. . Submit it a distin inct ctive ive applic ication ation that demons nstrat trates s know
ledge dge of
the subject ect and intell llect ectua ual l rigor; r;
led d and d direct ct, , but avoid id superflu fluous
rrativ ative;
r proposal sal clearl rly y with h evidence ence;
sure cons nsist istency ency between n sections ions;
ut your r project; ct; and and
ess each h compon
ent of each h selection ion crit iteri rion
68
DEADLINE
Competiti
69