learning labs reviewer webinar.7.17.12

Reviewer OrientationJuly 17, 2012

Learning Labs in Libraries and Museums

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

Agenda

• Program Overview• Accessing Files• Evaluating Proposals• Timeline• Questions

3

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

Program Description

“Grants support the planning and design of learning labs in libraries and museums intended to engage middle-and high-school youth in mentor-led, interest-based, youth centered, collaborative learning using digital and traditional media.”

Program Guidelines: http://www.imls.gov/applicants/learning_labs_guidelines.aspx

5

Program Overview

Learning Labs in Libraries and Museums grants are intended to support projects that:

•Promote libraries and museums as innovation hubs for middle and high school youth•Use current research, design and programming principles to develop 21st century skills•Build capacity of library and museum professionals•Produce model, replicable plans for the field

6

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

Opportunities for Funding

Grants for Learning Labs in Libraries and Museums may be used to:

•Support the development of comprehensive plans for programs, space, staffing, and budgeting for Learning Labs

•Prototype certain Lab activities or experiences

•Support emerging labs that are already in the process of connecting youth with innovative digital media and learning

8

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

Accessing Proposals

• Confidential Gmail accountName: Reviewer Numberusername: llreviewerxpassword: learninglabs

• Basecamp project

10

Gmail login

11

Go to https://accounts.google.com

Gmail account

PLEASE 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

Gmail account

PLEASE DO NOT:

•Change the name or login information on this account

•Link it to your personal account (you will lose anonymity)

•Import any contact lists

13

Gmail account

Basecamp invitation

Basecamp access

Enter as new user

Basecamp login

https://launchpad.37signals.com/signin

Basecamp files

18

Evaluating Proposals

• Getting Started:

• Review the Handbook

• Check proposals for conflicts

• Complete and return Service Agreement

• Download one Evaluation form per proposal

19

CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT

As a reviewer or panelist for the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS), you may receive a grant application for review that could present a conflict of interest. Such a conflict could arise if you are involved with the applicant institution, or in the project described in the application, as a paid consultant or through other financial involvement. The same restrictions apply if your spouse or minor child is involved with the applicant institution or if the application is presented on behalf of an institution with which you, your spouse or minor child is negotiating future employment.

20

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.

21

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

22

Narrative Sections/Evaluation Criteria

• Statement of Need

• Project Goals and Impact

• Project Design

• Project Resources: Personnel, Time, Budget • Project Probability of Lasting Benefits

23

1. Statement of Need

• Does the proposal clearly describe the community served by the applicant library or museum and identify specific needs among the community's youth population?

• Does the proposal provide appropriate supporting evidence (e.g. demographic or economic data, local foundation reports, etc.) of community youth's needs?

• Does the proposal adequately explain how these needs would be addressed by the proposed Learning Lab?

24

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?

 25

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?

26

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?

27

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?

28

5. Project Probability of Lasting Benefits

Is this project poised to build the capacity of library and museum professionals as mentors and creators of effective programs and learning environments, and promote museums and libraries as innovation hubs for middle- and high-school youth in order to promote 21st century learning? Y / N (circle one)

29

Scoring

Provide text comments for each Evaluation Section

Assign 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 5

Ratings and Overall score should correspond

30

Overall Score

5 (Excellent) The applicant’s response provides excellent support for each of the evaluation criteria through the proposed activities. It strongly demonstrates the potential for libraries and museums to become youth innovation hubs through the incorporation of current research, development, and practices in 21st century skill-building for community youth, and will thereby build capacity in the field for library and museum professionals to be mentors and creators of effective programs/learning environments. (Scores of “excellent” should only be for the highest quality applications. E.g. ratings of “H” for all sections)

31

Overall Score

4 (Very Good) The applicant’s response provides very good support for each of the evaluation criteria through the proposed activities. Some minor flaws exist that may be readily rectified. Innovation and impact are both demonstrated, but are not exemplary.

Section ratings: mostly “H”; one or two “S”

32

Overall Score

3 (Good) The applicant’s response provides good/adequate support for each of the evaluation criteria. Both innovation and strategic impact are demonstrated, but in a limited manner. A score of "3" indicates you believe the proposal could be funded if funds are available, but is not as high a priority as proposals with a score of "4" or "5".

Section ratings: mostly “S”; may have one “H” and/or one “N”

33

Overall Score

2 (Some Merit) The application shows some merit but would benefit from taking into consideration the recommendations and feedback from reviewers. A rating of "some merit" indicates the submission is not ready to receive funding in its current form.

Section ratings: mix of “S” and “N”

34

Overall Score

1 (Do Not Fund) The "do not fund" score is for projects that you do not believe would ever be fundable as a Learning Labs in Libraries and Museums Grant because they do not have goals and elements required in this grant program. It may be a project fundable in another grant category.

Section ratings: All or mostly “N”

35

Finished?

Read over comments and check scores

Save a copy of each review on your computer

Send a copy to learninglabsreviews@gmail.com

Return honorarium request and W-9

36

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.

37

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

38

Questions?

• Unmute your phone to ask questions, or type them in to the question box.

• Teleconference for reviewers: July 25

39

Contact Us

Margaret Glass, mglass@astc.org 202.783.7200 x 129

Amy Eshleman, aeshleman@urbanlibraries.org 312.676.0958

Allison Boals, aboals@imls.gov 202.653.4702

40

Thank you!

41