Objectives for this Assignment. In this assignment, you are asked to walk on the other side of the street and approach grant writing from the perspective of a reviewer/evaluator. However, because we are colleagues in the class, you are also asked to go beyond the role of reviewer/evaluator and act in a colleagial advisory capacity as well. Specifically, the objectives for the assignment are as follows:

1. To act as a reviewer for a funding agency and to read and evaluate a set of partial proposals

2. To test the soundness of the arguments presented in a needs statement and the degree to which they lead to the proposed solution
   

   Note: We are less concerned at this point about how well the arguments are documented but rather with whether the arguments are documentable, that is, evidence probably exists to support the argument even if it isn't included in the paper.

3. To examine the stated objectives to see if they
   • flow logically from the statement of need
   • describe the anticipated outcomes of the project
   • are specific, measurable and achievable.

4. To provide concrete suggestions for improvement for those areas where the proposal needs strengthening.

Specifics. Your task in this assignment is to provide evaluative, analytical, and advisory comments to your colleagues. You are to do this collaboratively with other members of your group. Remember for this assignment, Group A (Teams 1, 2 and 3) will review the work of members of Group B (Teams 4 and 5); they, in turn, will review the work of members of Group C (Teams 6 and 7) who will review the work of members of Group A.

This will involve getting together in some virtual way -- possibly in the MOO or through web board or email discussions and planning how you wish to do this work. One suggested approach is as follows:

• First, review the Needs Statement, Goals and Objectives assignment.

• Then, read individually all the needs statements of the members of the group you are assigned to review.

• Make notes on strengths, areas where improvements are needed, and suggestions for improvement.

• Come together to develop consensus on your judgments and to combine your suggestions.

• Agree on some equitable way of completing the write-ups. In doing the write-ups, consider a paragraph by paragraph method of responding.

• Review the draft write-ups and edit them so that all of you are willing to support the final critiques.

• Post your critiques on SiteEdit in new directories created for this purpose.

• Tell the colleagues whose work you have assessed the URLs where the critiques are located.

Due date. The critiques are due on July 7. I expect each critique will be 1/2 to 1 page long.