Funding page

From WikEd

Post here your comments on which of the three funding possibilities on the syllabus you think would be most positive for TEP and why. If you know of some other funding opportunity that you think would be more positive, briefly describe it and why. (Or you can email me a Word file and then link it from here. Or you can email your survey to everyone in our seminar.)
jal

Comments on the three grant possibilities: (Heather)

Department of Education FIPSE proposal-- The parameters of this grant are broad enough that the application could easily be arranged to meet the particular needs of TEP. Personally I like the approach of first determining the needs and goals of the program, then looking for potential partners (on-campus as well as in the larger community), and then finally looking for granting possibilities that will fit the program goals. This grant seems to allow for this approach.

National Science Foundation ITEST proposal-- This grant also presents significant possibilities for TEP. UCSD already has science and technology outreach programs to the K-12 community. Seeking this grant would allow these programs to to be extended-- Making them available to more individuals and/or schools, making the offerings more comprehensive, and involving TEP more directly in studying their impact on teaching and learning.

National Science Foundation SLC proposal-- This proposal seems to be the weakest fit for TEP. It involves establishing a large-scale, long-term center to study the science of learning -- It seems to be a better fit for cognitive science than for TEP. Perhaps TEP could be an involved partner in pursuing such a grant, rather than the primary applicant.

Grant Funding Comments by Chris Halter

This seems almost repetitive because Heather’s comments above are very succinct and reflect the view that I had of these three grants.

Department of Education FIPSE proposal: This grant is the most promising for me, both from a TEP viewpoint and a personal viewpoint. TEP has many of the internal structures in place to be competitive for this grant and we are currently on a trajectory to put programs in place for our pre-service teacher’s that meet the requirements of this grant. My own course activities are in line to meet many of what this grant is asking.

National Science Foundation ITEST proposal: This one has many opportunities for TEP be involved in a program that will have a direct impact on kids and their experiences. We are in a very good position to broker and mediate outreach relationships between the Preuss school and UCSD departments, such as SDSC. The faculty of TEP are often seen as “teachers�? by the Preuss school, so we have that insider relationship with them. We all do K-12 education. We also have the connections and insights to those schools that on campus departments so desperately need to have a lasting impact on K-12 education.

National Science Foundation SLC proposal: As pointed out, this may be the least viable. TEP does not have the infrastructure to compete in this grant.

It's reassuring to see that even though I am not closely connected to the work at TEP, my feelings about the funding opportunities match up with Heather and Chris!

Kim

I agree with the comments above that the first two RFPs seem more feasible for TEP, as opposed to the creation of a Center which would essentially be required in the third. After skimming the RFPs I would lean toward the FIPSE, as it seemed to have a broader range of possibilities. The ITEST seemed (upon skimming at least) heavily weighted toward 7-12, and if that's what they are really seeking to fund, this would limit faculty involvement at TEP as well as some strong district partnerships at the elementary level. While IT could certainly be the focus of a FIPSE grant, it also would not necessarily be the central focus as in the second RFP, either. However, the FIPSE emphasis on replicability, scalability might make this a tricky proposal to write for a start-up project.

Cheryl

I felt like all these grants were fairly institutionally oriented - 3rd one too big for me to even grasp - other ones less big but still kinda big. The latter are certainly appropriate for the program to consider, and I don't have much to add that hasn't been said. However, they're also pretty specific in overall focus (as they should be, given the kind of grants). Honestly, I had a hard time imagining how my particular research might fit in (as well as others among us). So I decided to take a look around for itsy bitsy grants - the kind an individual might apply for (I'm starting to imagine more specific ways in which hundreds of dollars or a few thousand might be put to appropriate use).

I was pretty surprised at how hard it was to come up with something. Maybe it's my searching skills (or my punishment for aiming low) but really... I found nothing obviously great and was at it for almost an hour. Maybe these kinds of things are more local (within the university), but even the OGSR grants (the ones listed on the website anyway) didn't seem terribly fertile. I ran into little potential roadblocks like having to be "economically disadvantaged" or "in the sciences" or "pre-doctoral" or even the more debateable "desiring a university teaching career". Just thought it was interesting. I obviously need to know more.

Pam --- I was intrigued by NSF’s Science of Learning Centers (SLC) because of their apparent vision of bringing together academic disciplines and different entities (including industry) to enrich research and knowledge in different fields. TEP seems to have academic partnerships with other campus departments, and this seems to be of great benefit in the enhancement of its graduate students’ content knowledge, and in broadening areas of interest and research for both graduate students and faculty members. This funding opportunity could help create a “TEP Center�? where research opportunities would not be the “sole property�? of TEP’s graduate students and faculty, but where community members including teachers, community organizers, administrators, graduate students and faculty from other departments and universities, policy makers, leaders, etc. could come together to work on collective projects, participate in symposiums, teach, learn, and plant seeds for innovative programs (It doesn't hurt to dream, right? :-) )

Luz