(NCES) RFA Feedback Survey and (OSERS) RSA Webinar Participant Feedback Survey

NCER 2015 84.305H Survey

https://surveys.ies.ed.gov/?305Hsurvey2015

According to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, no persons are required to respond to a collection of information unless such collection displays a valid OMB control number. The valid OMB control number for this information collection is 1880-0542. Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 10 minutes per response, including time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. The obligation to respond to this collection is voluntary. If you have comments or concerns regarding the status of your individual submission of this survey, please contact Christina Chhin directly at, U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, 400 Maryland Ave., SW, CP-611A, Washington, DC 20202. [Note: Please do not return the completed survey to this address.]

Thank you for participating in this survey. Your feedback is important to helping IES improve its grants program.

If you need assistance completing this survey, please contact IES/NCER by sending an email to [email protected]

The password for this survey is 2015RFA.

Please enter the password to access this survey:

START

1. How did you first learn about the Partnerships and Collaborations Focused on Problems of Practice or Policy (84.305H) grant opportunity at IES?

• Read about it on the IES website

• Read about it on another website

• Read about it in a newsletter or journal

• Read about it in the IES newsflash

• Heard about it from an IES staff member

• Heard about it from a co-worker, friend, or colleague

• Other

• If #1 = Other, then go to #2

• If #1 = all other responses, then go to #3

2. Provide the mechanism indicated as “Other” in the previous item that you learned about this grant opportunity.

Text Box – Maximum 4,000 characters (about 500 words). Longer responses may be truncated.

3. Including the application(s) you submitted for the FY2015 RFA, how many IES grant applications have you submitted as the Principal Investigator? (Count previous submissions of the same application as separate applications.)

• 1

• 2-3

• 4+

• If #3 = 1, then go to #5.

• If #3 = 2-3 or 4+, then go to #4.

4. Compared to the RFAs for the Partnerships and Collaborations Focused on Problems of Practice or Policy grant program from previous years, the clarity and organization of the FY 2015 RFA is _____

• much better.

• somewhat better.

• no better or worse.

• somewhat worse.

• much worse.

5. Did you submit a letter of intent for the FY 2015 RFA?

• Yes

• No

6. Rate the clarity of the distinction in the RFA between application requirements and application recommendations.

• Very Clear

• Somewhat Clear

• Somewhat Unclear

• Very Unclear

7. Rate the level of difficulty of locating important material in the RFA.

• Not at all Difficult

• Somewhat Difficult

• Difficult

• Very Difficult

8. Did you contact an IES program officer as you prepared your application(s) for the FY 2015 competition?

• Yes

• No

• If #8 = No, then go to #11

• If #8 = Yes, then go to #9

9. For what reason(s) did you contact an IES program officer? (Please check all that apply.)

• Question(s) about the suitability of the study for the Partnerships and Collaborations Focused on Problems of Practice or Policy program

• Question(s) about the Topics described in the RFA

• Questions about partnerships for your proposed study

• Question(s) about the budget for your proposed study

• Question(s) about your eligibility to apply

• Question(s) about the application process

• Question(s) about the review process

• Question(s) about resubmitting a previous application that was not funded

• Other

• If #9 = Other, then go to #10

• If #9 = all other responses, then go to #11

10. Provide the reason indicated as “Other” in the previous item that you contacted an IES program officer.

Text Box – Maximum 4,000 characters (about 500 words). Longer responses may be truncated.

11. Have you participated in an IES webinar since the RFA was released?

• Yes

• No

• If #11 = No, then go to #15.

• If #11 = Yes, then go to #12.

12. Rate the utility of the webinar(s) in which you participated.

• Highly Useful

• Useful

• Marginally Useful

• Not Useful

• If #12 = Highly Useful, then go to #14.

• If #12 = Useful, Marginally Useful, or Not Useful, then go to #13.

13. Comment on how the webinar could be more useful.

Text Box – Maximum 4,000 characters (about 500 words). Longer responses may be truncated.

14. Did you view/download the transcript and/or the slides from a webinar on the IES website?

• Yes

• No

15. Rate the clarity of the Student Education Outcomes section of the RFA (pp. 2-3).

• Very Clear

• Somewhat Clear

• Somewhat Unclear

• Very Unclear

• N/A – Did not read this section

16. Rate the clarity of the Authentic Education Settings section of the RFA (pp. 2-3).

• Very Clear

• Somewhat Clear

• Somewhat Unclear

• Very Unclear

• N/A – Did not read this section

17. Rate the clarity of the eligibility requirements for the partners (discussed on pp. 5-6), regarding:

    1. the education agency

• Very Clear

• Somewhat Clear

• Somewhat Unclear

• Very Unclear

1. the research institution.

• Very Clear

• Somewhat Clear

• Somewhat Unclear

• Very Unclear

1. the inclusion of other partners.

• Very Clear

• Somewhat Clear

• Somewhat Unclear

• Very Unclear

18. Please comment on any language about the eligibility requirements that were unclear to you. Provide specific examples if possible .

Text Box – Maximum 4,000 characters (about 500 words). Longer responses may be truncated.

19. Rate the clarity of the Changes in the FY 2015 Request for Applications section of the RFA (pp. 8-9).

• Very Clear

• Somewhat Clear

• Somewhat Unclear

• Very Unclear

20. A major change was the addition of a Partnership section in the Project Narrative that would be scored separately. In terms of the organization and clarity of your application, what was the effect of having a distinct Partnership section of the Project Narrative?

• Much Better

• Somewhat Better

• Neither Better nor Worse

• Somewhat Worse

• Much Worse

21. Rate the overall clarity of Part III of the RFA, Competition Regulations and Review Criteria (pp. 43-48).

• Very Clear

• Somewhat Clear

• Somewhat Unclear

• Very Unclear

• N/A – Did not read this section

22. Rate the overall clarity of Part IV of the RFA, Preparing Your Application (pp. 49-56).

• Very Clear

• Somewhat Clear

• Somewhat Unclear

• Very Unclear

• N/A – Did not read this section

23. Rate the overall clarity of Part V of the RFA, Submitting Your Application (pp. 57-79).

• Very Clear

• Somewhat Unclear

• Very Unclear

• N/A – Did not read this section

24. Having the RFA and the Application Submission Guide combined into a single document is _____ than having them be separate documents.

• much better

• somewhat better

• no better or worse

• somewhat worse

• much worse

25. Rate the utility of the Glossary.

• Highly Useful

• Useful

• Marginally Useful

• Not Useful

• I did not notice the Glossary

26. Did you submit an application as the PI to the Research-Practitioner Partnerships in Education Research topic?

• Yes

• No

• If #26 = No, then go to #32.

• If #26 = Yes, then go to #27.

27. Rate the clarity of…

    1. The Purpose section (p. 12).

• Very Clear

• Somewhat Clear

• Somewhat Unclear

• Very Unclear

1. The Significance section (p. 13).

• Very Clear

• Somewhat Clear

• Somewhat Unclear

• Very Unclear

1. The Partnership section (pp. 13-15).

• Very Clear

• Somewhat Clear

• Somewhat Unclear

• Very Unclear

1. The requirements and recommendations for improving the capacity of the education agency to participate in and/or use research.

• Very Clear

• Somewhat Clear

• Somewhat Unclear

• Very Unclear

1. The requirements and recommendations for tracking the success of your partnership.

• Very Clear

• Somewhat Clear

• Somewhat Unclear

• Very Unclear

1. The Research Plan section (pp. 15-16)

• Very Clear

• Somewhat Clear

• Somewhat Unclear

• Very Unclear

1. The types of research that can be done.

• Very Clear

• Somewhat Clear

• Somewhat Unclear

• Very Unclear

1. The plan for future research.

• Very Clear

• Somewhat Clear

• Somewhat Unclear

• Very Unclear

28. Please comment on any language or concepts that were unclear to you. Provide specific examples if possible.

Text Box – Maximum 4,000 characters (about 500 words). Longer responses may be truncated.

29. As you interpreted the RFA, what do you think was the right balance between partnership activities and research activities?

• 25% partnership and 75% research

• 40% partnership and 60% research

• 50% partnership and 50% research

• 60% partnership and 40% research

• 75% partnership and 25% research

30. Was your partnership newly formed in response to this RFA?

• Yes

• No

• If #30 = No, then go to #31.

• If #30 = Yes, then, go to #32.

31. How long has your partnership been in place?

Text Box – Maximum 4,000 characters (about 500 words). Longer responses may be truncated.

32. Did you submit an application as the PI to the Continuous Improvement Research in Education topic?

• Yes

• No

• If #32 = No, then go to #36.

• If #32 = Yes, then go to #33.

33. Rate the clarity of…

    1. The Purpose section (pp. 19-20).

• Very Clear

• Somewhat Clear

• Somewhat Unclear

• Very Unclear

1. The Significance section (pp. 21-23).

• Very Clear

• Somewhat Clear

• Somewhat Unclear

• Very Unclear

1. The description of the theory of change.

• Very Clear

• Somewhat Clear

• Somewhat Unclear

• Very Unclear

1. The requirement that the partnership has worked together for at least 1 year.

• Very Clear

• Somewhat Clear

• Somewhat Unclear

• Very Unclear

1. The Partnership section (pp. 23-24).

• Very Clear

• Somewhat Clear

• Somewhat Unclear

• Very Unclear

1. The requirements and recommendations for improving the education agency’s capacity to carry out research, development, and implementation.

• Very Clear

• Somewhat Clear

• Somewhat Unclear

• Very Unclear

1. The requirements and recommendations for tracking the success of your partnership.

• Very Clear

• Somewhat Clear

• Somewhat Unclear

• Very Unclear

1. The Research Plan section (pp. 24-27).

• Very Clear

• Somewhat Clear

• Somewhat Unclear

• Very Unclear

1. The role of the education agency partner in carrying out the research.

• Very Clear

• Somewhat Clear

• Somewhat Unclear

• Very Unclear

1. The types of research that can be done.

• Very Clear

• Somewhat Clear

• Somewhat Unclear

• Very Unclear

1. The continuous improvement process (pp. 25-26).

• Very Clear

• Somewhat Clear

• Somewhat Unclear

• Very Unclear

1. The ongoing comparison study (p. 26-27).

• Very Clear

• Somewhat Clear

• Somewhat Unclear

• Very Unclear

34. Please comment on any language or concepts that were unclear to you. Provide specific examples if possible.

Text Box – Maximum 4,000 characters (about 500 words). Longer responses may be truncated.

35. How long has your partnership been in place?

Text Box – Maximum 4,000 characters (about 500 words). Longer responses may be truncated.

36. Did you submit an application as the PI to the Evaluation of State and Local Education Programs and Policies topic?

• Yes

• No

• If #36 = No, then go to #39.

• If #36 = Yes, then go to #37.

37. Rate the clarity of…

    1. The Purpose section (pp. 30-31).

• Very Clear

• Somewhat Clear

• Somewhat Unclear

• Very Unclear

1. The Significance section (pp. 31-33).

• Very Clear

• Somewhat Clear

• Somewhat Unclear

• Very Unclear

1. The instructions for an acceptable program or policy for evaluation.

• Very Clear

• Somewhat Clear

• Somewhat Unclear

• Very Unclear

1. The Partnership section (pp. 33-34).

• Very Clear

• Somewhat Clear

• Somewhat Unclear

• Very Unclear

1. The requirements and recommendations for improving the capacity of the education agency to participate in and use research.

• Very Clear

• Somewhat Clear

• Somewhat Unclear

• Very Unclear

1. The Research Plan section (pp. 34-40).

• Very Clear

• Somewhat Clear

• Somewhat Unclear

• Very Unclear

1. The instructions for an acceptable research design.

• Very Clear

• Somewhat Clear

• Somewhat Unclear

• Very Unclear

1. The instructions for the cost analysis plan (p. 39).

• Very Clear

• Somewhat Clear

• Somewhat Unclear

• Very Unclear

1. The instructions for the dissemination plan (p.39).

• Very Clear

• Somewhat Clear

• Somewhat Unclear

• Very Unclear

38. Please comment on any language or concepts that were unclear to you. Provide specific examples if possible.

Text Box – Maximum 4,000 characters (about 500 words). Longer responses may be truncated.

39. Rate the clarity of the RFA on:

    1. The content to include in the Personnel section of the application.

• Very Unclear

• Somewhat Unclear

• Somewhat Clear

• Very Clear

1. The content to include in the Resources section of the application.

• Very Unclear

• Somewhat Unclear

• Somewhat Clear

• Very Clear

1. The importance of the education agency setting the main objective(s) for the research project.

• Very Unclear

• Somewhat Unclear

• Somewhat Clear

• Very Clear

1. The purpose of the Joint Letter of Agreement between the primary partners.

• Very Unclear

• Somewhat Unclear

• Somewhat Clear

• Very Clear

40. Please give us any additional feedback you may have about the RFA, including comments on the length, the level of detail, the organization, and comparisons to RFAs from previous years.

Text Box – Maximum 4,000 characters (about 500 words). Longer responses may be truncated.

Thank you for contributing your time and thoughtful responses to this important survey. If you have any questions about this survey, please feel free to contact IES/NCER by e-mail at [email protected] .