What is your name?
What is the dedicated theme for the Research Institute?
"
"
Page location
There are two types of player roles in the Research Institute scenario – Research Director & Research Scholar. The teacher plays the Research Director and the role of Research Scholar is assigned by discipline to the students in the class.
Using discipline-based groups allows the Research Scholars to focus on knowledge in a single discipline on the designated theme. Otherwise, the material is just overwhelming. When a broader social science perspective is required, discipline scholars will be called on to account for their discipline approach in a multidisciplinary activity.
For the multidiscipline part to be viable, a few students must be assigned as Research Scholars in at least five of the ten social science disciplines listed:
Decide on how to allot the disciplines to the students in your class:
Explain to the students:
As presented in the Research Scholar Script, here are the basic parts of a Research Proposal:
RESEARCH PROPOSAL PARTS |
---|
Introduction (Overview & Literature Review) |
Method Plan |
Bibliographic List of Cited Sources |
Appendix (optional) |
Show the students how to write a Literature Review using the custom-designed Confetti Way and the Steps 3-7 of the Research Scholar Script Form to determine the exact work plan over the next couple of weeks.
Two weeks of the six-week version of this scenario is a conservative estimate for the time required to complete all the review work (Steps 3-7).
Once Step 3 is complete and the literature review drafts have been produced, convene the Research Scholars into discipline groups to discuss viable research questions, following the instructions in Step 4 of their Script Form.
Once the discipline groups complete the Step 4 discussions, convene a Multidisciplinary Panel Session, Step 5. In turns, the disciplines summarize their Literature Reviews and present the “emerging questions” identified in Step 4.
Step 5 of the Research Scholar Script Form is the most time-consuming of all the steps. It involves everything from finding relevant sources to writing about the literature in a referential way. The goal of the Multidisciplinary Panel Session is to generate a collection of questions that reflect diverse and wide-ranging disciplines.
You could arrange in advance to have all or part of the instructional session delivered by library staff, if available. This is highly recommended for teachers new to teaching or unfamiliar with the library’s resources.
Ask to see each of the Research Scholar Script Forms to verify that the research plans are moving forward at around the same pace. Spend time with those whose forms are sketchy or incomplete.
Convene informal panel sessions to present and review the research plans. The hope is that by coaxing Research Scholars to openly discuss their Decision Circuit plans, they will firm up and formalize their ideas. The cross-fertilization of ideas will provide the peers with a chance to provide feedback and support. Weak choices or poorly formulated justifications can be picked over before the plans are written up formally.
You will convene and monitor an Internal Grants Review. This should be scheduled during the final two weeks of a six-week version of the scenario.
The Internal Grants Review is intended to provide the Research Scholars with a competitive advantage in external grant competitions. It connects scholars across disciplines, in multidisciplinary peer exchanges, on Research Institute proposals.
It should improve the quality of proposals and enhance the success rate for grant acceptance in the highly competitive funding environment of the Collegiate Contest.
All Institute proposals must be submitted to this internal review prior to being submitted for formal evaluation and external funding competitions (e.g., the Collegiate Contest). The Internal Grants Review involves two sessions:
A Reviewer Report Panel session consists of three Research Scholars from different disciplines. Each panel member’s draft proposal is critically reviewed by the two fellow panellists.
Each Research Scholar is responsible for providing a copy of their draft proposal in advance of the scheduled session.
Using the ten-item Peer Review Report Form, the Research Scholars review the two draft proposals they have received before the scheduled panel session.
At the panel session, the Review Reports are delivered in hard copy to be presented and discussed for 45 minutes.
The written reports are required to prepare the Reviewer’s Response.
Responses to the Reviewers’ Reports are discussed in a follow-up session with the same peers.
Each Research Scholar prepares, in advance, a Response to the Reviewers’ Reports, using the eight-item Response Form below.
The Responses to Reviewers’ Reports are presented and discussed for 30 minutes.
Each peer should summarize their Response based on their answers to the eight question prompts. Then an open and free exchange of ideas should ensue. The Response session is informal in structure, operating more as a friendly exchange.