91990022R0002 SF33 SBIR Direct to Phase II combined Word.docx

U.S. Department of Education Institute of Education Sciences

“AMERICA’S SEED FUND”

SMALL BUSINESS INNOVATION RESEARCH PROGRAM

DIRECT TO PHASE II

SPECIAL TOPIC

PROGRAM SOLICITATION FOR FY 2022

REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS

RFP Number: #91990022R0002

DIRECT TO PHASE II PRIORITY AREA (1)

Projects to Develop New Education Technology Products to Ready Existing Evidence-Based Innovations for Use at Scale in Education or Special Education Settings, and to Plan for Commercialization

CRITICAL NOTE: Proposals in response to this Direct to Phase II solicitation are only permitted for projects that focus on readying existing evidence-based innovations for scale that were originally created by researchers at universities (or academic institutions) or researchers at non-profit education research organizations.

Proposals for projects to ready existing evidence-based innovations for use at scale originally created by developers at small businesses are not permitted in response to this solicitation. Such projects may be appropriate for submission under ED/IES SBIR’s 2022 Phase I solicitation #91990022R0001.

ISSUE DATE: December 1, 2021

CLOSING DATE: February 1, 2022 11:00 AM, Eastern Standard Time

PHASE II

TABLE OF CONTENTS

II. Direct to Phase II Priority Area (1) ……………………………………………………….…. 4

III. Direct to Phase II Proposal Contents (Sections A through J below make up the body of the proposal to be submitted)

IV. Instructions for Submission …………………………………………………………………….. 42

V. Method of Selection and Evaluation Criteria……………………………………………. 45

VI. Additional Information

I. SOLICITATION OVERVIEW

The Department of Education’s (ED) Small Business Innovation Research Program (SBIR), administered by the Institute of Education Sciences (IES), provides awards for the research and development of new, commercially viable education technology products. Known as “ED/IES SBIR,” the program’s goal is to grow a portfolio of products that are based in research and widely deployed to address pressing needs across topic areas in education and special education.

The 2020 SBIR Policy Directive provides authorization to three agencies to make Direct to Phase II awards, including the Department of Education. As the name implies, Direct to Phase II awards bypass the requirement that offerors receive an award for a Phase I project to develop and test a prototype of a new education technology product. This ED/IES SBIR Direct to Phase II program solicitation #91990022R0002 invites eligible small businesses to submit a Direct to Phase II proposal for projects to ready existing evidence-based innovations (products, programs, or practices) for use at scale in education and special education settings, and to plan for commercialization. The projects funded through this solicitation are intended to result in the successful transition of existing evidence-based innovations to education practice through the distribution of scalable new education technology products that are sustainable over time.

Section II Priority Area (1) below provides more information on the background and specifications for this Direct to Phase II solicitation. Offerors are reminded that ED/IES SBIR has also released its general Phase I solicitation #91990022R0001. Proposals to conduct projects to develop the same or a similar version of a new education technology product under both solicitations are not permitted. In such cases both the Phase I proposal and a Direct to Phase II proposal will be rejected without review.

Key Dates

II. Direct to Phase II Priority Area (1) Projects to Develop New Education Technology Products to Ready Existing Evidence-Based Innovations for Use at Scale in Education or Special Education Settings, and to Plan for Commercialization Background:

In recent decades, funders in and outside of government have made a significant investment in the development of new innovations[footnoteRef:1] (products, programs, or practices) in education and special education, and evaluations of their efficacy. While awards to researchers at universities and non-profit organizations have yielded an array of new evidence-based[footnoteRef:2] innovations which were evaluated through controlled laboratory studies, researcher implemented school pilots, or efficacy trials, fewer researcher-developed innovations have successfully transferred into practice and are used at scale. This means that children, students, educators, special education practitioners, and administrators ultimately have not been able to benefit from many evidence-based innovations. [1: This solicitation uses the term “Innovations” throughout to refer to products, programs, or practices that have been created by researchers at universities or non-profit education research organizations in the field of education and special education. Examples of innovations include technology or non-technology-based interventions, apps, assessments, tools, professional development materials or manuals, assistive technologies, or educator delivered approaches. ] [2: This solicitation uses the term “evidence-based” throughout to refer to innovations that have undergone research which demonstrates that use of the innovation improves outcomes when implemented in education or special education. Findings may come from one or more well-designed and well-implemented randomized control experimental or quasi-experimental studies.

Barriers to wide-scale replication, adoption, and sustainability of researcher-developed and evidence-based innovations in education and special education are well documented, and include: whether innovations have the needed technology infrastructure for scalable deployment, are feasible to implement at scale, have the appropriate market-fit, and whether researchers have the capacity to commercialize the innovation. Examples may include:

· Technology-based innovations that were built on outdated or obsolete back-end software systems

· Innovations that rely on one-on-one researcher-delivered trainings, professional development, or coaching, rendering implementation challenging

· Older innovations that lack sufficient current product-market fit with respect to interface or delivery system, and

· Innovations that are too narrow in focus, limiting uptake when schools seek comprehensive solutions

Planning for commercialization is an additional challenge for researcher developed innovations to be used at scale in practice. Many researchers, whether at universities or non-profit education research organizations, lack the experience to support commercialization including capacity to license, market, distribute, sell, or maintain and update interventions. Researchers may not have the capacity to provide support to schools that would be willing to use the innovations, or to connect to local school administrators and teachers to provide information that the innovation is available.

One model to address these challenges is for university and non-profit education researchers to leverage partnerships with small business technology firms and industry organizations that possess the technological and commercialization expertise to develop, distribute, and sustain updated and more robust versions of the existing evidence-based innovations. Examples of this model include:

· University researchers initially created a non-technology delivered innovation to apply growth mindset to instruction and learning. However, the innovation’s scalability was limited because it relied on face-to-face teacher training and static paper-and-pencil student activities. To develop a scalable model, a small business created an education technology platform with automated training modules and animated lessons, permitting the existing innovation to be implemented at scale without developer support and to be more engaging and interactive for student participants.

· Researchers initially developed an online literacy program for early readers that personalized instruction through formative feedback to educators. However, the backend of the technology system could not process large amounts of student data and implementation required significant researcher involvement and adaptation across schools. To ready the innovation for use in schools at scale, a small business upgraded the underlying data architecture and created automated support and adaptation functionalities.

Direct to Phase II Solicitation: This Direct to Phase II solicitation requests proposals for projects for: (1) full-scale development of a new education technology product to ready an existing evidence-based innovation (originally developed by researchers at universities or non-profit education research organizations) for use at scale in education or special education settings; (2) pilot research to demonstrate the promise of the new education technology product to be ready for use at scale; and to (3) prepare for the commercialization of the new education technology product to be distributed at scale and sustained over time through revenue or some other funding source.

Because the focus of the Phase II project is to ready existing innovations already demonstrated to be evidence-based, projects through this solicitation will be funded without a prior Phase I award.

Specifications:

Evidence-Base for the Existing Innovation

· The evidence-base for the existing innovation (that was originally developed by a researcher at a university or a non-profit education research organization) must include research findings supported by one or more well-designed and well-implemented randomized control experimental or quasi-experimental studies.

Areas of Focus

· In education, technology products can be for use at any level from pre-kindergarten to Grade 16, or for adult education. Products for adult education populations must address basic or secondary reading, writing, or mathematics skills, or other skills needed for an occupational certificate or degree. Products for student learning may be for use in schools or remote settings to replace, supplement, or enable the delivery of curricula or instruction OR to facilitate out-of-school learning opportunities (e.g., after-school or summer programs, distance learning programs, on-line programs, enrichment programs, self-directed learning). Products focusing on engaging parents or caregivers are permitted for children and students in pre-K to grade 12, provided the intended outcomes for the product are to support student learning or promote relevant outcomes listed in the in the paragraph above on products for student use.

· In special education, technology products can be used by infants, toddlers, or students with or at risk for disabilities, or teachers (or other instructional personnel, related services providers, or family members) in early intervention or special education settings. Offerors who are preparing proposals in the area of special education are encouraged to read Priority Area 2 on page 8 of the 2022 Phase I 91990022R0001 for additional specifications.

Project Scope

· Projects funded through this Direct to Phase II solicitation are required to preserve the nature and essential functionality of an existing evidence-based innovation, while adding a new technology component, or adapting or upgrading a technology component so that the new product can be used at scale.

· Proposals in response to this solicitation must include plans for a project of sufficient scope in terms of the technological development to justify the award and the amount of the funding provided.

· The existing evidence-based innovations developed by researchers may currently not be technology-based. For example, some innovations may be a paper-based workbook or intervention, an instructional approach delivered by educators, or a training delivered by coaches.

· It is anticipated that offerors will propose a variety of projects through this solicitation to upgrade or add to an existing innovation or to integrate or combine the innovation with an already established product. Examples may include projects to:

· upgrade the backend structure of an existing technological innovation with modern software standards so that the new product can function or be usable at scale

· develop a website to enable delivery and implementation of an existing evidence-based innovation

· improve a component of the evidence-based innovation to achieve a product-to-market fit, such as projects to convert a paper-based workbook to a technology-delivered intervention, a redesign of a student user-interface, or an educator data dashboard to inform decision making

· combine or integrate an existing evidence-based innovation (which may be too narrow in scope by itself to allow for a commercially viable product that would be broadly adopted) with another product, such as projects to merge an evidence-based innovation that is an assessment battery within an existing product

Eligibility

· Proposing small businesses must fit the eligibility requirements described in this solicitation.

· The existing education innovation is required to have been created by researchers at either universities (or other academic institutions) or non-profit education research organizations.

· Under the current solicitation, it is anticipated that some researchers may create their own small business, comprised of a team of individuals with expertise in different areas.

· It is also anticipated that some university researchers or researchers at organizations who developed the existing evidence-based product or practice may partner with an existing small businesses that offers technological development and commercialization expertise. In such cases the small business must lead the proposal (a requirement of the SBIR program).

· In all cases, the proposal should present a plan stipulating who among researchers, universities, or the small business will hold the intellectual property, and may specify plans for what entity will commercialize the product. Such plans should be provided in the technical narrative of proposals.

· Projects to ready existing evidence-based innovations for use at scale originally created by developers at small businesses are not permitted through this competition. Such projects may be appropriate for submission under ED/IES SBIR’s 2022 Phase I solicitation #91990022R0001.

Prior Research

· Proposals must present results from prior research on the existing evidence-based innovation, including: (1) data demonstrating the usability, feasibility, and fidelity of implementation; and (2) the evidence-base for improving outcomes.

Rationale and Need for Additional Development to Support Scaling

· Proposals must present information on why the existing innovation is not ready for use at scale and must provide results from concept testing through focus groups with a small number of intended users and decision makers (e.g., super-intendents, district administrators, principles, educators, students, parents) who have viewed plans and mock-ups, provided feedback, and believe the new education technology product would be usable, feasible, and meet current need(s).

Commercially Deployed Innovations

· Existing evidence-based innovations that are already commercially deployed and available in education or special education at a smaller scale (e.g., a few schools) are eligible to be the focus of a proposal under this solicitation. However, such proposals must justify why additional funding would be required to further ready the innovation to be used at a greater scale and indicate how the scope of the proposed new technological development is commensurate with the amount of funding requested.

· Evidenced-based innovations that are already commercially deployed at a larger scale (e.g., 50 schools or more) outside of research studies, and that are generating revenue through the sale of the innovation, are not eligible to submit proposal through this program, as this program intends to support innovations that have not been implemented in schools at scale. Such innovations may be more appropriately considered as candidates for the development of a new component to be added to their product through the 2022 Phase I solicitation 91990022R0001.

III. PROPOSAL CONTENTS (SECTIONS A - J)

Content and Formatting Requirements To ensure that the text of the proposal is organized for reviewers to read and that all offerors have the same amount of available space in which to describe their projects, offerors must adhere to the below page, font size, and format specifications for Section III. PROPOSAL CONTENTS (A – J)

· For the purpose of proposals submitted under this solicitation, a “page” is 8.5 inches x 11 inches, with 1-inch margins at the top, bottom, and both sides.

· Single space text in the proposal narrative, including titles, headings, footnotes, quotations, references, and captions, as well as all text in charts, tables, figures, and graphs.

· Type must conform to the following requirements: The height of the letters must not be smaller than 12 point using Microsoft Word. Type density, including characters and spaces, should be no more than 15 characters per inch (cpi). For proportional spacing, the average for any representative section of text should not exceed 15 cpi. Type size must yield no more than 6 lines of type within a vertical inch. Standard black type must be used for text. Offerors must check the type size using a standard device for measuring type size, rather than relying on the font selected for a particular word processing/printer combination.

· Figures, charts, graphs, tables, or screen shots (outside of what is requested in other sections) must be included in the 15-page section in SECTION B. PROJECT NARRATIVE.

· Proposals may not be resubmitted with or without revision under this program solicitation after the submission deadline.

SECTION A. COVER PAGES

Guidance for “SECTION A. COVER PAGES”

· All of the items in the “SECTION A. COVER PAGES” are required to be inserted as the opening pages of a Direct to Phase II proposal. To structure Part I of a proposal, offerors must follow the exact format as the items below.

· Proposals shall not include any other cover pages beyond what is specified below.

· Do not include page numbers on the Cover Pages. Numbering should begin with “1” on the first page of the SECTION B. PROJECT NARRATIVE.

a) CERTIFICIATION Proposals in response to this Direct to Phase II solicitation are only permitted for projects that focus on readying existing evidence-based innovations for scale that were originally created by researchers at universities (or education institutions) or researchers at non-profit education research organizations, NOT by developers at small businesses are not permitted in response to this solicitation.

Was the original evidence-based innovation created by researchers at a university (or academic institutions) or researchers at non-profit education research organizations? YES or NO

b) Project Title:

c) Name of the Small Business:

d) DUNS:

e) Contact Person: For the representative authorized to represent the small business concern in negotiations, fill in the information below:

i) Contact Name:

ii) Contact Title:

iii) Contact Phone: in format 999-999-9999

iv) Contact Email:

f) Principal Investigator (PI): For the PI, fill in the information below:

i) PI Name:

ii) PI Title:

iii) PI Phone: in format 999-999-9999

iv) PI Email:

g) HUBZone-owned SBC Certification:

Does the offeror qualify as a HUBZone-owned SBC and meet the definition as stated in this solicitation? Enter YES or NO The website listed below contains information about the SBA’s HUBZone program: http://www.sba.gov/hubzone/

h) Woman-owned SBC Certification:

Does the offeror qualify as a woman-owned SBC and meet the definition as stated in this program solicitation? Enter YES or NO

i) Socially and Economically Disadvantaged SBC Certification:

Does the offeror qualify as a socially and economically disadvantaged SBC and meet the definition as stated in this program solicitation? Enter YES or NO

j) Service-Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business Certification:

Does the offeror qualify as a Service-Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business? Enter YES or NO

k) Small Business Address: For the address of the small business, fill in the information below: (Please do not enter address information in ALL CAPS)

i) Street Address:

ii) Address Line 2: Enter apartment, suite, or floor (optional).

iii) City:

iv) State: Enter the state’s current postal abbreviation designated by the U.S. Postal Service.

The website listed below contains information about postal abbreviations for U.S. states and territories:

https://about.usps.com/who-we-are/postal-history/state-abbreviations.htm

v) ZIP Code:

l) Small Business Phone: in format 999-999-9999

m) Company Website URL:

n) For every member of the project team, fill in the below table.

Notes

· At a minimum, each project requires a Principal Investigator and a Data Security Liaison.

· See Section C and Clause H.13 3452.204-72 for more information on Contractor Security Vetting Processes and the role of the Data Security Liaison. The Data Security Liaison is permitted to serve in more than one role, and other roles can be added as such in the same box.

· As many lines can be added with additional Project Roles as needed.

Principal Investigator (required)

Data Security Liaison (required)

(Add additional lines for more team members)

o) Priority Area

ALL PROJECTS ARE REQUIRED TO INDICATE PRIORITY AREA 1

p) Video Demonstration in Support of the Proposal (Optional)

Insert a URL to a video demonstration here:

Offerors may provide the URL (Uniform Resource Locator) link to a video demonstration to highlight the existing evidence-based innovation originally created by a researcher that will be the focus of this project to develop a new education technology product to ready the innovation for use at scale and to plan for commercialization.

· The videos should be posted to the YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/) platform during the whole period of the review from the submission date on or before February 1to May 1, 2022.

· If the video is posted on a website other than YouTube, it is possible reviewers will not be able to watch the video.

· Videos can be no longer than 4-minutes in duration. Reviewers will be instructed to stop viewing at 4 minutes.

· Videos cannot be altered in any way after the submission deadline. (Note – if the posting date on the YouTube video is after the submission date, the video will be deemed ineligible.)

q) Project Abstract:

Describe the new education technology product that will be developed to ready an existing evidence-based innovation for use at scale if an award is provided in the Direct to Phase II project from the ED/IES SBIR program (200 word maximum).

r) Signatures for the Authorized Representative and the Principal Investigator

Provide the authorized signature for the representative authorized to represent the small business concern in negotiations in the below box:

Provide the authorized signature for the Principal Investigator in the below box:

s) SBA Company Registry:

All offerors to the SBIR program are required to register at the SBA Company Registry (http://sbir.gov/registration) prior to proposal submission. Below this paragraph, offerors are required to attach a .pdf FILE of the SBIR.gov SBC Registration Control ID Form as proof of registration in this section of the proposal. Proposals that do not include the .pdf file will be returned without review. See below a picture of a blank SBIR.gov Registration Control ID Form that offerors will complete, save as a .pdf FILE, and include within the proposal.

SECTION B. PROPOSAL NARRATIVE

Guidance for Section B. PROPOSAL NARRATIVE

· All contents that make up “SECTION B. PROPOSAL NARRATIVE” must be fifteen (15) pages or less. Any content in this section beyond fifteen (15) pages will not be reviewed.

· Numbering should begin on the first page of the SECTION B. PROJECT NARRATIVE” with “1” in the top right-hand corner.

· Offerors are required to follow the exact format specified in the items below to structure the proposal.

I. SIGNIFICANCE

a. Problem Statement and Best Current Practices Describe the problem in education or special education that the new education technology product will address. Cite the most recent data detailing the scope and nature of the problem to support the significance of proposal.

Describe the most common products, programs, or practices that are currently being used in the field in this area. Describe the shortcomings of the current products, programs, or practices.

b. The Existing Evidence-Based Innovation, and the New Education Technology Product to Be Developed

i. Describe the existing evidence-based innovation that was initially created at a university or at a non-profit education research organization.

· Specify the user(s) of the existing innovation, including the age group or grade levels.

· List and briefly describe the key components of the existing innovation. If a component of the existing innovation is technology-based, indicate the hardware on which it operates (e.g., a desktop computer, a tablet, smart phone).

· Indicate whether the existing innovation was designed to be replicated across settings or cultural context, or if components can be adapted or changed depending on a particular setting or cultural context.

· Indicate whether the existing innovation was designed to replace, supplement, or be integrated within existing education practice(s).

· Describe how the existing innovation was implemented during research studies, such as pilot studies or efficacy trials.

· List the outcomes that result from using the existing innovation. (Note: Research results are to be presented in Section II INFORMATION ON THE EXISTING INNOVATION, not in this section.)

ii. Describe the new education technology product that would be developed with the Direct to Phase II award to ready the existing evidence-based innovation for use at scale.

· In doing so, list each of the components of the existing innovation that will remain the same during the development of the new education technology product. Describe the new component(s) of the new education technology product to be developed and/or the components that will be adapted/updated from the existing innovation.

· Describe how the new education technology product will ready the existing innovation to be used at scale.

· For existing evidence-based innovations originally created without the use of technology, explain how the core components of the innovation will be preserved in the new education technology product and explain why further developing the existing innovation as a new education technology product will lead to successful scaling.

· Indicate the expected cost to schools to purchase the new education technology product overall, the per student cost, and the level of resources (e.g., time, schedules, equipment) needed to implement and use the product.

· Beyond what is provided in the description of the existing innovation in the section above, list additional outcomes, if any, that are intended to result if the new education technology product was available for use at scale by students, educators, or administrators.

c. Theoretical and empirical support Explain the underlying theory of change and provide any data from relevant studies from the extant scientific literature to show that the new education technology product can be expected to produce the intended results. Include relevant references to the scientific literature.

II. INFORMATION ON THE EXISTING EVIDENCE-BASED INNOVATION & JUSTIFICATION OF THE NEED FOR THE NEW EDUCATION TECHNOLOGY PRODUCT This section describes the creation of and the prior research-base for the existing evidence-based innovation that is the focus of this proposal, and provides information to justify the need for a new education technology product to ready the innovation for use at scale in education and special education settings.

a. Development of the Existing Innovation

· Provide a concise summary of the R/R&D procedures through which the existing innovation was initially created by researchers at a university or at a non-profit education research organization. Provide a timeline for key milestones.

b. Prior Research on the Existing Evidence-Based Innovation

· Provide a synthesis of research that demonstrated the usability and feasibility of the existing innovation. Discuss findings showing that the innovation functioned and could be feasibly implemented with fidelity, and areas where challenges occurred that support the need for the proposed development in this proposal and enhancement of the existing innovation.

· Provide a synthesis of research that demonstrated the existing innovation is evidence-based in leading to the intended outcomes. (For innovations that have an assessment component, present research demonstrating the validity of the innovation and its connection to education outcomes as well.)

· Include information on the sample, design, procedures, analysis, and measures for the above studies.

c. Research to Support the Proposed New Education Technology Product

· Present findings from user-concept or focus-group testing, where a small group of intended end-users and school decision makers were presented plans or mock-ups for the proposed new education technology product. Describe what feedback was gathered and whether the groups of individuals were supportive of the proposed new education technology product.

d. Initiatives to Distribute the Existing Innovation This section requests information on any prior initiatives by the researcher (or partners) to distribute the existing innovation outside of research studies to schools or districts, whether for free or for a fee. Offerors should select “a.” or “b.” to respond to, based on whether the innovation has already been distributed.

· a. If distribution has occurred outside of research studies, indicate the number of users (students, educators) and schools that used or are using the existing innovation, and whether the existing innovation was available for free or for a fee. Describe the strategy that was used to distribute the existing innovation. Describe why the existing innovation has not been distributed to a larger number of settings. Describe successes and problems that occurred during these distribution and implementation efforts.

· b. If there have been no users or schools that have used the existing innovation outside of research, indicate if any initiatives were attempted to distribute the existing innovation. If not, offerors should describe why no initiatives were attempted.

III. PHASE II WORKPLAN

a. Full-scale Development of the New Education Technology Product

· Describe the technological R/R&D procedures to iteratively develop the new education technology product so that it can function at scale (usability), and can be implemented and used flexibly across different settings and with diverse populations (feasibility and fidelity of implementation). Describe how the development work will support the delivery of or will be integrated within the components of the existing innovation that will remain.

Provide a timeline presenting the ordering of the steps in the iterative development process. This plan may entail small-scale studies of multiple components tested independently, which may be useful early and/or later in the development process. Such activity should be conducted with the targeted user audience (e.g., educators, students, preschoolers with or at risk for disabilities). If the project is developing a new education technology product that includes an assessment as a component, offerors must also provide a plan to establish the validity of the assessment and its connection to education outcomes.

b. Pilot Study

· Present a plan for a pilot study after the new education technology product is fully developed.

The goals of the Direct to Phase II pilot study are to (i) demonstrate the promise of the new education technology product to be ready for scale (e.g., to be usable, feasible, and can be implemented with fidelity) and (ii) to demonstrate that the outcomes that result from using the new product are consistent (or similar) with the outcomes from prior studies that demonstrated that the existing innovation was evidence-based.

The design and scope of the pilot study in a Direct to Phase II in a proposal are expected to vary from project to project, will depend upon the funding and time that is available, and the unique focus of the new education technology product and its implementation (e.g., student, classroom, school). As a result, it is expected that pilot studies may range in the number of districts, schools, classrooms, educators, or students. Depending on budget and considerations with timing, offerors may propose to include a larger (and more representative and diverse) sample of end-users for part of the Pilot Study to measure the promise of the new education technology product to be ready to be used at scale. In all cases, offerors are not expected or advised to propose research at a large scale (e.g., 10 districts, 100 schools).

i. Measuring the Promise of the Product to Be Used at Scale

· To measure the promise of the of the new education technology product to be ready for use at scale, researchers may compare the implementation of the new product to the implementation of the existing innovation that occurred during prior research studies. This solicitation does not require offerors to propose pilot studies that include a control group that implements a business-as-usual control or comparison group.

The primary question of interest in measuring whether the new product is ready for use at scale is “Are end-users able to more successfully implement the new product compared to implementation that occurred during prior research studies?" Such proposals must compare results measures of usability, feasibility, and fidelity of implementation same from prior research. The pilot study may also include new measures to understand the promise of the new education technology product to be used at scale.

ii. Measuring Outcomes Resulting from the Use of the New Education Technology

· To measure outcomes resulting from the use the new education technology, researchers may compare performance on the same (or similar) intended outcomes between individuals using the new education technology product and retrospectively, to those who used the existing innovation in prior research studies.

For new education technology products to be used by students, or students or children with or at risk for disabilities, a primary question of interest in measuring whether the new product achieves the intended outcomes is "Does this new product improve outcomes for students, or students or children with or at risk for disabilities, as much as the existing innovation during prior research studies conducted with a similar group?" Such proposals must include the same or equivalent student/child outcome data (e.g., test scores or other assessment data; completion of academic courses; measures of behavior) as the research studies that used the existing innovation.

For new education technology products to be used by educators/administrators (or other instructional personnel, related service providers, or family members for students with disabilities) that are designed to show promise for improving educator/administrator and student or child outcomes, a primary question of interest in testing the promise of the product should be "Does this new product improve outcomes for educator/administrator and student/child outcomes as much as the existing innovation during prior research studies conducted with a similar group?" Such proposals should demonstrate that, when educators/administrators use the proposed technology, their own performance as well as their students’ or the child performance would be consistent (or improved) relative to a similar group that has previous used the existing innovation. Such proposals must include outcome data from educators/administrators and students/children.

For new education technology products used by educators/administrators (or other instructional personnel, related service providers, or family members for students with disabilities) that are designed to show promise for improving educator/administrator (and not student/child outcomes), a primary question of interest in testing the promise of the product should be "Does this new product improve educator/administrator outcomes as much as the existing innovation during prior research studies conducted with a similar group?” Such proposals should evaluate whether the product shows promise for improving educators' ability to carry out their job in the area proposed, and need not include student level outcome data.

Pilot Study Specifications

Design. The offeror should describe the design of the pilot study and provide a rationale for why this is the most appropriate design to demonstrate the promise of the new education technology be ready for use at scale, and to demonstrate that the intended outcomes from using the new education technology product are equivalent (or improved) when retrospectively compared to similar groups that used the existing innovation in prior research.

Research Questions. Offerors should pose clear, concise hypotheses or research questions that address the new product’s usability, feasibility, the users’ fidelity of implementation, the promise of impact on outcomes, and the cost.

Usability: Does the new product function as intended? Do users understand how to easily navigate the various components of the new product?

Feasibility: Are students engaged in the material when using the new education technology product? Do educators find the new product to be useful as an instructional tool for their course? Can the educator implement the new product during regular instruction, whether in a physical classroom or through remote learning?

Fidelity of Implementation: Are educators/administrators able to implement the new education technology product in a school or classroom or through remote learning, and easily able to integrate within existing practice in the manner in which the developer intended?

Validity of Assessments (if included as a component of the new education technology product): What is the extent to which the assessment adequately measures the intended constructs, and generates results that are meaningful and that are actually intended, or statistically valid?

Promise of Readiness to Use at Scale: Is the new education technology product usable, feasible, and able to be integrated into existing practice in the manner in which the developer intended across a representative sample of settings?

Impact on Outcomes: Is implementation of the new education technology product similar to outcomes when compared retrospectively with use of the existing evidence-based innovation in past research studies?

Sample. Offerors should describe the sample (e.g., students or educators or administrators) and the settings (e.g., school, early intervention setting, remote settings) that will be used to assess the promise of the education technology product to be ready for use at scale and if the product leads to the outcomes that are similar to prior studies of the existing innovation. If possible given scope and budget constraints, offerors are encouraged to make an effort to ensure a diversity of learners and contexts/settings in performing research on the new education technology product.

Offerors must include one letter from a school or a special education setting that has agreed to participate in the Direct to Phase II research should the proposal be awarded. This letter should be no longer than one (1) page and is to be included in SECTION E. Letters are not needed from multiple or every school that has agreed to participate in the research.

Instruments. Describe the instruments that will be used to measure whether the new education technology product is ready for use at scale, including the usability, feasibility, and fidelity of implementation. Researchers may propose to use existing instruments to determine readiness to scale or create new instruments.

Describe the instruments that will be used to measure the intended outcomes that will result from end-users using the new education technology product. Researchers should propose to use the same measures as were used in prior studies of the existing evidence-based innovation in order to enable comparison of the outcomes of the innovation between the current and prior studies.

Where appropriate, include information on reliability and validity of the instruments. Offerors should discuss how usability, feasibility, and fidelity of implementation measures were selected or will be developed and used. Offerors should use established instruments from the literature on the scaling of evidence-based interventions or create new measures to examine contextual factors that help or prevent scale up, and for determining if a program or intervention is scalable.

For student/child outcome measures, offerors should also discuss their psychometric properties (e.g., reliability and validity). Offerors should make sure to identify the instruments to be used to measure all proximal and distal outcomes.

If instruments need to be developed, offerors should describe what will be developed, why it is necessary, how it will be developed, and, as appropriate, the process for assessing its reliability and validity.

Procedures. Clearly describe what data will be collected, how and when it will be collected, and how the data will be analyzed. Include a clear and detailed description of the data analysis procedures. For quantitative data, specific statistical procedures should be described. The relation between hypotheses and the independent and dependent variables should be clear. For qualitative data, the specific methods used to index, summarize, and interpret data should be delineated.

Cost: All proposals must provide plans for measuring the cost of the new education technology product and the cost to implement the product. A cost analysis can help schools, districts, and states understand both total and per student monetary costs of implementing any given product (e.g., expenditures for personnel, facilities, equipment, materials, training, and other relevant inputs). Resources on developing and conducting a cost analysis are available as part of the Standards for Excellence in Education Research principles on the IES website. See https://ies.ed.gov/seer/cost_analysis.asp for more information.

c. Potential problems

· Describe any potential problem areas that are anticipated in the Direct to Phase II and provide alternative strategies that would be considered in such circumstances.

Key Terms

Usability: The extent to which the product functions as intended, and the extent to which the intended user understands or can learn to use the product effectively and efficiently, and is physically able to use the product.

Feasibility: The extent to which the product can be implemented, whether in-schools, special education or early intervention settings, or remote settings.

Validity of Assessments (If included as a component of the product): The extent to which the assessment adequately measures the intended constructs, and generates results that are meaningful and that actually intended, or statistically valid.

Fidelity of Implementation: The extent to which the product is being delivered as it was designed to be by end users, whether in-schools, special education or early intervention settings, or a remote setting.

Promise of Education Outcomes: The extent to which the pilot research shows improvement in the outcomes of interest consistent with individuals who participated in prior research studies of the existing innovation.

IV. COMMERCIALIZATION PLAN

The Direct to Phase II proposal must include a succinct Commercialization Plan, with a description of potential pathways for the eventual commercial distribution and sustainability of the proposed new education technology product that readies an existing evidence-based innovation for use at scale.

Provide a description in each of the following areas:

a. Project value, expected outcomes, and impact Describe the commercial potential of the proposed new product.

b. Company Briefly describe the company. In the description, detail the following: the origins of the company, corporate objectives, core competencies, and present size (annual sales level and number and types of employees); the history of previous federal and non-federal funding and subsequent commercialization, and any current products that have significant sales; a vision for why the business will be a sustainable entity in the future and over time; and how this SBIR project would integrate with the overall business plan of the company.

c. Market, customer, and competition Describe the marketing and sales strategy for the product. Describe the targeted market and provide a brief profile of the potential customer. Describe what hurdles must be overcome to gain market/customer acceptance of the product. Describe any strategic alliances, partnerships, licensing agreements, or endorsements that are in place to help market and sell the product. Provide letters detailing such agreements or endorsements in Section F.

d. Intellectual Property (IP) protection and licensing Describe how the company is going to protect the IP of the product that results from the project. Also note other actions that may be considered that will constitute at least a temporal barrier to others aiming to provide a similar solution. Describe steps that will be taken to license the product.

e. Finance plan Describe the necessary financing that will be required and when it will be required, as well as plans to raise the requisite financing to launch the product into Phase III and begin the revenue stream. Plans for this financing stage may be demonstrated in one or more of the following ways:

· Letter of commitment of funding (include in SECTION F)

· Letter of intent or evidence of negotiations to provide funding, should the Phase II project be successful, and the market need still exists (include in SECTION F);

· Letter of support for the project and/or some in-kind commitment (include in SECTION F);

· Specific steps to be taken to secure funding when Phase II ends to support commercialization.

Offerors are encouraged to seek commitment(s) of funds and/or resources from an investor or partner organization for commercialization of the product(s) resulting from the SBIR award. Funding may stem from any one of a number of different sources, including (but not limited to): the SBIR firm itself, private investors or "angels", venture capital firms, investment companies, joint ventures, R/R&D limited partnerships, strategic alliances, research contracts, sales of prototypes (built as part of this project), public offering, state finance programs, non SBIR-funded R/R&D, or production commitments from a Federal agency, with the intention that the results will be used by the United States government or other industrial firms. Documentation of such commitments shall be included in Section F.

f. Production plan Briefly describe how the production of the product will occur (e.g., in-house manufacturing or contract manufacturing).

g. Revenue stream Explain the plans to generate a revenue stream for the company should this project be a success. Examples of revenue stream generation include (but are not limited to) manufacture and direct sales, sales through value added resellers or other distributors, joint ventures, licensing, and services. Describe how staffing will change to meet the revenue expectations.

In SECTION F, offerors may provide up to five (5) letters of support for potential pathways for the eventual commercial distribution and sustainability of the proposed product. Each letter must not exceed one (1) page in length. Information on pages beyond the one (1) page will not be reviewed. Letters must adhere to the requirements as set forth in the solicitation.

Letters of support should be from individuals not listed as key personnel in the project.

Letters of support may come from investors, venture capital firms, future potential…