Your search found 1784 results.

Descriptors:
College Faculty; Educational Technology; Federal Aid; Grants; Periodicals; Web Based Instruction; Plagiarism; Computer Software; Program Proposals; Proposal Writing; Research Proposals; Public Agencies; Citations (References)

Abstract:
It is not news that software exists to check undergraduate papers for plagiarism. What is less well known is that some federal grant agencies are using technology to detect plagiarism in grant proposals. That variety of research misconduct is a growing problem, according to federal experts. The National Science Foundation, in its most recent "Agency Financial Report," said allegations of plagiarism and data fabrication in grant proposals and reports had more than tripled during the previous 10 years. Agencies take such misconduct seriously because their reputations are on the line when they finance the research. They can and will impose penalties that could derail one's career. It is important for scholars to understand that copying information or text from someone else's grant proposal is considered plagiarism--just as if the document copied had been published in a scholarly journal--whether or not that proposal received money. And it is not just young scholars who need to take that lesson to heart. Plagiarism in grant proposals is happening among academics at all levels of experience, from assistant professors to seasoned full professors. Some faculty members are simply unaware that the practice constitutes research misconduct. In this article, the author presents some key points that may seem obvious to composition instructors but apparently are not obvious to faculty members writing grant proposals: (1) Do not forget to use quotation marks when copying text verbatim from a source. Many researchers neglect to insert quote marks when electronically copying portions of an electronic document into one of their own files, and then lose track of which words are their own; (2) Paraphrasing means restating a concept in one's own words. Just changing a few words does not qualify. Also, be sure to cite the original source of the idea; (3) Carelessness and time constraints do not excuse plagiarism. Leave enough time to review the proposal before submission to ensure a paragraph has not been pasted in without attribution. If students are assisting with proposal preparation, leave enough time to review their work as well; and (4) Additional guidance on avoiding plagiarism is plentiful. Universities that receive federal money must provide grantees with training in the responsible conduct of research. Take advantage of the training, which may consist of Web tutorials or workshops. The Web sites of university research-compliance offices also contain useful advice on plagiarism. Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

More Info:
Help | Tutorial Help Finding Full Text |  More Info:
Help Find in a Library |  Publisher's website

Descriptors:
Grants; Research; Researchers; Futures (of Society); Personnel Selection; Selection Criteria; Peer Evaluation; Interviews; Program Proposals; Intellectual Disciplines; Context Effect; Talent; Value Judgment

Abstract:
Career grants are an important instrument for selecting and stimulating the next generation of leading researchers. Earlier research has mainly focused on the relation between past performance and success. In this study we investigate how the selection process takes place. More specifically, we investigate which quality dimensions (of the proposal, of the researcher and societal relevance) dominate. We also study which phases in the process (peer review, committee review, interview) are dominant in the evaluation process. Finally, we investigate whether differences between disciplines are visible. The analysis of our data set, consisting of the reviews of 898 grant applications, shows that talent has different dimensions and therefore is not obvious. The evaluation of talent was found to be contextual, although there were only small differences between disciplines. Unlike the interviews with the applicants, the external peer reviews hardly influence the decision-making on grant allocation. The notion of talent was found to be the least evident in the social sciences and humanities. Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

More Info:
Help | Tutorial Help Finding Full Text |  More Info:
Help Find in a Library |  Publisher's website

Descriptors:
Evidence; Physical Activities; College Athletics; Program Proposals; Position Papers; Feasibility Studies; Questionnaires; Interviews; Program Implementation; Adoption (Ideas); Program Attitudes; Change Strategies; Organizational Change; Case Studies; College Governing Councils; Performance Factors; Alignment (Education)

Abstract:
This study was conducted to determine the success for the diffusion of the Coalition on Intercollegiate Athletics (COIA) white paper Framing the Future: Reforming Intercollegiate Athletics. The Stages of Concern Questionnaire (SoCQ) and personal interviews were utilized to collect data and purposeful sampling was used to identify one NCAA Division I university in the state of Texas. Athletic personnel and faculty senate members were asked to complete the SoCQ and participate in an interview for the study. Findings provide evidence that the participants share common concerns in relation to the adoption of the COIA white paper such as creating a balanced approach to academics and athletics, increasing campus pride, and academic integrity. Participants also felt that meaningful collaboration among faculty and staff members can prove beneficial to helping individuals take ownership in the adoption process. (Contains 1 figure.) Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

More Info:
Help | Tutorial Help Finding Full Text |  More Info:
Help Find in a Library |  Publisher's website

Descriptors:
State Standards; Educational Technology; Internet; Elementary Secondary Education; Educational Improvement; Improvement Programs; Technology Uses in Education; Technology Integration; Educational Innovation; Technological Advancement; Influence of Technology; Technology Planning; Educational Opportunities; Barriers; Performance Factors; Program Proposals; Change Strategies; Educational Change

Abstract:
Technological progress has consistently driven remarkable advances in the U.S. economy, yet K-12 education sees little technological change compared to other sectors, even as U.S. K-12 students increasingly lag behind students in other nations. This proposal considers how we can take a signature American strength--innovation--and apply it to K-12 education. We argue that the advent of Common Core State Standards (CCSS) and broadband Internet create promising opportunities for developing new learning technologies but that a fundamental obstacle remains: the effectiveness of learning technologies is rarely known. Not surprisingly, when no one knows what works, schools are unlikely to buy, and innovators are unlikely to create. Our proposed EDU STAR system will solve this problem by (a) undertaking rapid, rigorous, and low-cost evaluations of learning tools and (b) reporting results to the public. Coupling Internet-based real-time evaluation systems (demonstrated daily by many leading companies) with trusted reporting (modeled by "Consumer Reports" and others), the proposed EDU STAR platform will help schools make informed learning technology decisions and substantially reduce entry barriers for innovators. EDU STAR will bring together K-12 schools, teachers, and innovators and continually improve this critical foundation for economic prosperity. (Contains 4 figures, 3 tables, 2 boxes, and 16 endnotes.) Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

More Info:
Help | Tutorial Help Finding Full Text |  Publisher's website

Descriptors:
Charter Schools; School Turnaround; Program Proposals; Bids; Educational Administration; Barriers; School Restructuring; Performance Contracts; Change Strategies; Educational Change; Organizational Change

Abstract:
The California school that parents want to turn into a charter now has two organizations seeking to make the change. At the end of a process that drew just four applicants, two relatively small California organizations are each making a case that they be allowed to help lead one of the most publicized school turnaround efforts in the nation's history: the proposed transformation of Desert Trails Elementary School. Parents in the community of Adelanto, northeast of Los Angeles, invited charter operators to submit proposals to help them transform the academically struggling school through the state's "parent trigger" law, even as the school's future remains the subject of a protracted legal battle. Despite the overwhelming attention focused on the proposed school overhaul, the parents received limited interest from charter organizations before narrowing the list to two finalists. Neither of the two finalists, LaVerne Elementary Preparatory Academy, in the nearby city of Hesperia, and the Lewis Center for Educational Research, a nonprofit group in neighboring Apple Valley, which oversees two charters, has experience turning around an academically low-performing school. Both organizations acknowledge the challenges if they are chosen to manage a new charter school at Desert Trails, perhaps most notably the prospect of trying to repair bitter divisions among parents in Adelanto. Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

More Info:
Help | Tutorial Help Finding Full Text |  More Info:
Help Find in a Library |  Publisher's website

Descriptors:
Competition; Educational Change; Individualized Instruction; Federal Programs; Educational Improvement; Instructional Innovation; Educational Planning; Educational Strategies; Educational Objectives; Program Proposals

Abstract:
The list of 61 finalists for the latest Race to the Top competition shows that the U.S. Department of Education was successful in enticing high-scoring applications from districts in rural America and in states that had not shared in the Race to the Top bounty before. But whether the ultimate winners, which will be announced this month, will be successful in increasing personalized teaching and learning in classrooms--a key priority for this competition--is unclear. Interviews with several of the finalists show that the competition didn't elicit entirely new initiatives from districts, and instead rewarded those already well on their way to tailoring instruction to students' individual needs. While previous Race to the Top competitions have pitted states against each other with a focus on general reform or early-learning initiatives, this latest contest was designed to spur education improvement--particularly in the area of personalized learning--at the district level. Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

More Info:
Help | Tutorial Help Finding Full Text |  More Info:
Help Find in a Library |  Publisher's website

Descriptors:
Economic Climate; School Districts; Grants; Grantsmanship; School Role; School Community Relationship; Partnerships in Education; Elementary School Students; Older Adults; Community Centers; Program Proposals; Proposal Writing; Documentation; School Security; Technology Uses in Education; Adjustment (to Environment); Evaluation Criteria

Abstract:
The economy has school districts in a stranglehold. But there is a way out. Despite beliefs to the contrary, the grant money pot has not dried up. The author's book "Successful Grant Writing for School Leaders: 10 Easy Steps" shares strategies and success stories from some of his own 30 school grants and from school districts small and large, rural and urban. The goal is to build a steady flow of significant income as a result of well-written grants for the school system. In this article, the author describes three scenarios which suggest that successful pursuit of outside funds often involves partnering with local businesses, social institutions and other school districts. The author illustrates the successful route taken by three districts. Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

More Info:
Help | Tutorial Help Finding Full Text |  More Info:
Help Find in a Library |  Publisher's website

Descriptors:
Accountability; Stakeholders; Vocational Education; Success; Career Readiness; College Readiness; Definitions; State Policy; State Action; Program Descriptions; Program Proposals; Developmentally Appropriate Practices; Transitional Programs; Performance Factors

Abstract:
Career and technical education (CTE) is forced to be reactive. A good example is the fact that CTE cannot prepare students for jobs that do not exist. Outside forces create the demand for occupations and workers: CTE has to react to the demand. CTE must also respond and react to changes created by legislative mandates and administrative order. Due to the hard work of state educational agencies and stakeholders, including the Kentucky Association for Career and Technical Education (KACTE), the Kentucky Board of Education has adopted a college- and career-readiness accountability system. In this article, the author outlines the process of defining career readiness and getting a career-readiness definition adopted by the state. Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

More Info:
Help | Tutorial Help Finding Full Text |  More Info:
Help Find in a Library |  Publisher's website

Descriptors:
Peer Evaluation; Comparative Analysis; Accountability; Research Projects; Grants; Program Proposals

Abstract:
The demand for greater public accountability is changing the nature of ex ante peer review at public science agencies worldwide. Based on a four year research project, this essay examines these changes through an analysis of the process of grant proposal review at two US public science agencies, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the National Science Foundation (NSF). Weaving historical and conceptual narratives with analytical accounts, we describe the ways in which these two agencies struggle with the question of incorporating considerations of societal impact into the process of peer review. We use this comparative analysis to draw two main conclusions. First, evaluation of broader societal impacts is not different in kind from evaluation of intellectual merit. Second, the scientific community may actually bolster its autonomy by taking a broader range of considerations into its peer review processes. Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

More Info:
Help | Tutorial Help Finding Full Text |  More Info:
Help Find in a Library |  Publisher's website

Descriptors:
Scientific Literacy; Protocol Analysis; Sampling; Program Development; National Programs; Contracts; Program Proposals; Citizenship; Civics; Technological Literacy; Information Technology; National Surveys; Evaluation Methods; Measurement Objectives; Measurement Techniques; Task Analysis; Program Descriptions

Abstract:
These protocols represent a working guide for planning and implementing national sample assessments in connection with the national Key Performance Measures (KPMs). The protocols are intended for agencies involved in planning or conducting national sample assessments and personnel responsible for administering associated tenders or contracts, including the: (1) Performance Measurement and Reporting Taskforce (PMRT) and its subgroups; (2) Benchmarking and Educational Measurement Unit (BEMU); (3) PMRT Secretariat; (4) assessment contractors; and (5) assessment liaison personnel for schooling sectors in the states and territories. The protocols in this document refer to national sample assessments conducted in a three-year cycle in: (1) science literacy (samples of Year 6 students); (2) civics and citizenship (samples of Year 6 and Year 10 students); and (3) information and communication technology (ICT) literacy (samples of Year 6 and Year 10 students). The protocols for the national sample assessments are presented under four major headings: (1) Management, Liaison and Communication; (2) Development and Conduct of Assessments; (3) Reporting; and (4) Data Storage and Access. Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

 ERIC Full Text (43K)