• Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
94
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0

Actions

Shares
Downloads
1
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide
  • MG
  • Eligibility check has already been carried out by IMLS program staff.
  • Use a fresh browser screen – especially if you have a personal Gmail account.
  • Each Gmail account has an invitation to a Basecamp account, where the proposals and supporting documents are stored.
  • Please use the new username and email provided for you – this ensures confidentiality of reviewers. Simply choose a password and confirm it to access Basecamp.
  • Use the tabs under the Project name (Field Review Group X) to navigate in the project. Click on “Files” to see the contents sorted into “Applications FY13” and “Handbook and reviewer documents.” Click on each file name to download.
  • Select and circle your answer
  • “ H” for each section
  • Mostly ‘”H” ranks; one or two “S” scores
  • All or almost all “S” scores
  • Mostly “S” scores; one or two “N” scores
  • All or mostly “N” scores

Transcript

  • 1. Learning Labs in Libraries and MuseumsReviewer OrientationJuly 17, 2012
  • 2. Connecting to the Webinar• Be sure you can hear through your speakers, headset, or phone.• Dial in: 1 877 568 4108• Access Code: 805-396-217 (PIN code)• You will remain muted for most of the session.• To ensure confidentiality, attendee list is blocked. 2
  • 3. Agenda• Program Overview• Accessing Files• Evaluating Proposals• Timeline• Questions 3
  • 4. Learning Labs Program Partners• Joint initiative funded by the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation and the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS)• Urban Libraries Council (ULC) and Association of Science-Technology Centers (ASTC) are partner cooperators 4
  • 5. Program Description“Grants support the planning and design of learninglabs in libraries and museums intended to engagemiddle-and high-school youth in mentor-led,interest-based, youth centered, collaborativelearning using digital and traditional media.”Program Guidelines:http://www.imls.gov/applicants/learning_labs_guidelines 5
  • 6. Program OverviewLearning Labs in Libraries and Museums grants areintended to support projects that:•Promote libraries and museums as innovationhubs for middle and high school youth•Use current research, design and programmingprinciples to develop 21st century skills•Build capacity of library and museum professionals•Produce model, replicable plans for the field 6
  • 7. Grant Basics• Eligible Institutions: Museums, Libraries• Awards up to $100,000 each• Cost sharing of at least one-third is encouraged• Partnerships strengthen application 7
  • 8. Opportunities for FundingGrants for Learning Labs inLibraries and Museums may be used to:•Support the development of comprehensive plans forprograms, space, staffing, and budgeting for LearningLabs•Prototype certain Lab activities or experiences•Support emerging labs that are already in the processof connecting youth with innovative digital media andlearning 8
  • 9. Funding Cycle• Second funding cycle• First cohort funded January 1, 2012• Twelve current grantees: see IMLS press release• Second cohort starts January 1, 2013• Cohorts together form community of practice with goal to create a national network of Learning Labs 9
  • 10. Accessing Proposals• Confidential Gmail account Name: Reviewer Number username: llreviewerx password: learninglabs• Basecamp project 10
  • 11. Gmail login Go to https://accounts.google.com 11
  • 12. Gmail accountPLEASE DO:• Use this identification information to access the project Basecamp account.• Use your Gmail address ID to "sign" your reviews• Use the Gmail account to email your completed reviews to program staff ( learninglabsreviews@gmail.com) 12
  • 13. Gmail accountPLEASE DO NOT:•Change the name or login information on thisaccount•Link it to your personal account (you will loseanonymity)•Import any contact lists 13
  • 14. Gmail account
  • 15. Basecamp invitation
  • 16. Basecamp accessEnter asnew user
  • 17. Basecamp loginhttps://launchpad.37signals.com/signin
  • 18. Basecamp files 18
  • 19. Evaluating Proposals• Getting Started: • Review the Handbook • Check proposals for conflicts • Complete and return Service Agreement • Download one Evaluation form per proposal 19
  • 20. CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENTAs a reviewer or panelist for the Institute of Museum andLibrary Services (IMLS), you may receive a grant applicationfor review that could present a conflict of interest. Such aconflict could arise if you are involved with the applicantinstitution, or in the project described in the application, as apaid consultant or through other financial involvement. Thesame restrictions apply if your spouse or minor child isinvolved with the applicant institution or if the application ispresented on behalf of an institution with which you, yourspouse or minor child is negotiating future employment. 2 0
  • 21. Confidentiality• The information contained in grant applications is strictly confidential. Do not discuss or reveal names, institutions, project activities or any other information contained in the applications. Contact program staff if you have any questions concerning an application—do not contact an applicant directly. 2 1
  • 22. Evaluation Form• One form for each proposal• Copy unique Log Number from proposal: “LG-XX-XXXX”• Fill in comments for each section• Sign with your Gmail ID, Date 2 2
  • 23. Narrative Sections/Evaluation Criteria• Statement of Need• Project Goals and Impact• Project Design• Project Resources: Personnel, Time, Budget• Project Probability of Lasting Benefits 2 3
  • 24. 1. Statement of Need• Does the proposal clearly describe the community served by the applicant library or museum and identify specific needs among the communitys youth population?• Does the proposal provide appropriate supporting evidence (e.g. demographic or economic data, local foundation reports, etc.) of community youths needs?• Does the proposal adequately explain how these needs would be addressed by the proposed Learning Lab? 2 4
  • 25. 2. Project Goals and Impact• Does the proposal clearly explain the learning objectives of a Learning Lab for middle and high school youth, the community, and the library or museum itself?• Does the proposal identify long-term goals and outcomes that will shape the planning and design of the proposed Lab?• Does the proposal explain the potential benefits of a Learning Lab for the community, and for informing other institutions and communities considering building a lab?• Does the proposal explain how the identified goals and outcomes will shape an appropriate and effective evaluation plan for the proposed Lab? 2 5
  • 26. 3. Project Design• Does the proposal show evidence that the project team understands and will continue to base its work on evolving research and practice on youth, digital media, and learning?• Does the proposal describe the facilities or environments for the Learning Labs and explain how the design related to its intended use?• Does the proposal describe the process used to determine how and why digital media will be used in the proposed lab?• Does the proposal demonstrate an understanding of the importance of mentors by planning for their professional development? 2 6
  • 27. 3. Project Design• Does the proposal demonstrate collaboration in the planning process by its inclusion of partners, stakeholders, and Lab users?• Does the proposal articulate a plan that is feasible and sustainable?• Does the proposal clearly articulate the intended results of the planning process, including any documents, agreements, or other products?• Does the proposal explain how the project team will determine if the intended results of the planning process have been achieved? 2 7
  • 28. 4. Project Resources: Personnel, Time,Budget• Does the proposal provide a clear description of how the application will effectively complete the project activities through the deployment and management of resources, including people, money and supplies?• Does the proposal clearly explain the roles, responsibilities, and time commitment of the leadership team and other personnel assigned to the project, as well as their ability, based on expertise and experience, to achieve the project goals?• Does the proposal provide a cost-efficient, complete, and accurate budget that uses appropriate resources for the proposed activity?• Does the proposal clearly explain how information will be shared and decisions made with any proposed partners? 2 8
  • 29. 5. Project Probability of Lasting BenefitsIs this project poised to build the capacity of libraryand museum professionals as mentors and creatorsof effective programs and learning environments,and promote museums and libraries as innovationhubs for middle- and high-school youth in order topromote 21st century learning? Y / N (circleone) 2 9
  • 30. ScoringProvide text comments for each Evaluation SectionAssign one summary rating for each section • Highly Successful (H) • Successful (S) • Not Successful (N)Assign one overall numeric score for the proposal • 1,2,3,4 or 5Ratings and Overall score should correspond 3 0
  • 31. Overall Score5 (Excellent) The applicant’s response providesexcellent support for each of the evaluationcriteria through the proposed activities. It stronglydemonstrates the potential for libraries and museums tobecome youth innovation hubs through the incorporationof current research, development, and practices in 21stcentury skill-building for community youth, and willthereby build capacity in the field for library andmuseum professionals to be mentors and creators ofeffective programs/learning environments. (Scores of“excellent” should only be for the highest qualityapplications. E.g. ratings of “H” for all sections) 3 1
  • 32. Overall Score4 (Very Good) The applicant’s response providesvery good support for each of the evaluation criteriathrough the proposed activities. Some minor flawsexist that may be readily rectified. Innovation andimpact are both demonstrated, but are notexemplary.Section ratings: mostly “H”; one or two “S” 3 2
  • 33. Overall Score3 (Good) The applicant’s response providesgood/adequate support for each of the evaluationcriteria. Both innovation and strategic impact aredemonstrated, but in a limited manner. A score of"3" indicates you believe the proposal could befunded if funds are available, but is not as high apriority as proposals with a score of "4" or "5".Section ratings: mostly “S”; may have one “H” and/or one “N” 3 3
  • 34. Overall Score2 (Some Merit) The application shows some meritbut would benefit from taking into consideration therecommendations and feedback from reviewers. Arating of "some merit" indicates the submission isnot ready to receive funding in its current form.Section ratings: mix of “S” and “N” 3 4
  • 35. Overall Score1 (Do Not Fund) The "do not fund" score is forprojects that you do not believe would ever befundable as a Learning Labs in Libraries andMuseums Grant because they do not have goals andelements required in this grant program. It may bea project fundable in another grant category.Section ratings: All or mostly “N” 3 5
  • 36. Finished?Read over comments and check scoresSave a copy of each review on your computerSend a copy to learninglabsreviews@gmail.comReturn honorarium request and W-9 3 6
  • 37. How Your Reviews Are Used• Field reviewer input provide a basis for the panel review. Your review will direct panelists to the strengths and weaknesses of an application, and help to determine which proposals best fit the program goals.• If an application is not funded, your review comments help the applicant to understand the basis for this decision. Applicants whose proposals are not ranked highly enough for panel review will only receive your field review comments. 3 7
  • 38. Review Timeline• June 15: Final day for proposals• July 11: Proposal access open• July 17: Reviewer webinar• July 25:Reviewer Teleconference• August 10: Submit evaluations 3 8
  • 39. Questions?• Unmute your phone to ask questions, or type them in to the question box.• Teleconference for reviewers: July 25 3 9
  • 40. Contact UsMargaret Glass, mglass@astc.org 202.783.7200 x 129Amy Eshleman, aeshleman@urbanlibraries.org 312.676.0958Allison Boals, aboals@imls.gov 202.653.4702 4 0
  • 41. Thank you! 4 1