TY - JOUR
T1 - Board 194
T2 - 2023 ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition - The Harbor of Engineering: Education for 130 Years, ASEE 2023
AU - Bates, Rebecca A.
AU - Benson, Lisa
AU - Sims, Randi
AU - Watts, Kelsey
AU - Jensen, Karin
AU - Ko, Evan
AU - Lichtenstein, Gary
N1 - We are grateful for the participation of former program officers, the mentee participants, and the brave PIs who allowed their previously funded proposals to be used as fodder for discussion. This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant Nos. 2037807, 2037788, 2037797. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.
PY - 2023/6/25
Y1 - 2023/6/25
N2 - Peer review of grant proposals is critical to the National Science Foundation (NSF) funding process for STEM disciplinary and education research. Despite this, scholars receive little training in effective and constructive review of proposals beyond definitions of review criteria and an overview of strategies to avoid bias and communicate clearly. Senior researchers often find that their reviewing skills improve and develop over time, but variations in reviewer starting points can have a negative impact on the value of reviews for their intended audiences of program officers, who make funding recommendations, and principal investigators, who drive the research or want to improve their proposals. Building on the journal review component of the Engineering Education Research Peer Review Training (EER PERT) project, which is designed to develop EER scholars' peer review skills through mentored reviewing experiences, this paper describes a program designed to provide professional development for proposal reviewing and provides initial evaluation results.
AB - Peer review of grant proposals is critical to the National Science Foundation (NSF) funding process for STEM disciplinary and education research. Despite this, scholars receive little training in effective and constructive review of proposals beyond definitions of review criteria and an overview of strategies to avoid bias and communicate clearly. Senior researchers often find that their reviewing skills improve and develop over time, but variations in reviewer starting points can have a negative impact on the value of reviews for their intended audiences of program officers, who make funding recommendations, and principal investigators, who drive the research or want to improve their proposals. Building on the journal review component of the Engineering Education Research Peer Review Training (EER PERT) project, which is designed to develop EER scholars' peer review skills through mentored reviewing experiences, this paper describes a program designed to provide professional development for proposal reviewing and provides initial evaluation results.
KW - Peer review
KW - grant proposal review
KW - professional development
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85172123804&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85172123804&partnerID=8YFLogxK
M3 - Conference article
AN - SCOPUS:85172123804
SN - 2153-5965
JO - ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Conference Proceedings
JF - ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Conference Proceedings
Y2 - 25 June 2023 through 28 June 2023
ER -