Step 11


  • Schedule about an hour’s worth of class time for the students to revise their work in an open lab setting. Invite them to ask questions of each other and you on an as-needs basis.
  • Advise them on the importance of responding to the revision requests. Scholars who respond well to revision requests should have little trouble having their proposal endorsed for external competition. This may even motivate them to put extra effort into revising the proposal and becoming involved in the Collegiate Contest.
  • Ensure that, if they have not done so already, they account for their revisions in Step 8 of their script form, Post-Revision.
  • Explain how the Research Proposals can qualify for endorsement for external competition.


  • To add some structure to this open lab activity, ask them to bring questions stemming from the feedback generated during the Internal Grants Review. You could assemble them into separate groups – each focused on a shared problem such as the thesis or limitations. Ask in advance or at the beginning of the class which problems they are having and build the groups from there. Consulting with them in separate problem-area groups is easier than dealing with each case on an individual basis.
  • Once the final revisions are complete, you can either determine endorsement by setting a simple performance standard for the proposal (e.g., a minimum grade of 75%) or qualify the proposals in a more involved panel-like session as was done for the Reviewer’s Report.
  • As a reviewer, you recommend the proposal be:
    • Accepted with few or no adjustments – rated outstanding
    • Accepted with some minor adjustments – rated excellent
    • Accepted with improvements – rated very good
    • Rejected with an invitation to resubmit after major revisions – rated underdeveloped
    • Rejected with an invitation to consult with the Research Director – rated seriously flawed