My First Experience with Grant Writing

​

Entering this course without prior experience in grant proposal writing, I felt excited and anxious. I quickly learned that a proposal isn’t just about describing a good idea; it’s about crafting a clear, actionable plan. Through assignments and feedback, I understood how to structure a narrative around a meaningful problem, supported by realistic steps and an RFP framework.

My Cycle A proposal aimed at creating an online learning program for women in regions with restricted access to education was driven by my passion. Although it did not align with a specific RFP, the process encouraged me to think critically about practical design, collaboration, and how to measure success effectively. I also learned that grant writing requires transparency regarding how to handle research results and where to share them for real-world impact.

​

Learning to Follow and Apply the RFP

​

The most significant shift came with Cycle B. Unlike my first proposal, this one began by identifying an RFP. That changed everything; the RFP gave me a roadmap and helped me target my language and structure. I understood what the funder cared about and revised my work accordingly.

I focused on alternative assessments in online higher education for cycle B. Feedback suggested narrowing the scope, clarifying recruitment strategies, and defining key terms like “alternative assessment.” These suggestions helped me be more realistic and better aligned with the proposal’s goals.

 

Clarity, Budgeting, and Accountability

​

A crucial takeaway was the need for specificity, particularly regarding the budget. Initially, I thought a rough outline would suffice, but I realized that every dollar must be justified. Reviewers expect details about tools, roles, and resources, not vague categories. I began to treat the budget as a reflection of my priorities and planning skills.

Another takeaway was the need for a clear evaluation step in the proposed research map. Feedback also taught me to be more specific about the evaluation process. I had to clearly outline who would be surveyed, when, how data would be collected, and how it would be utilized, rather than just stating I would gather feedback or conduct surveys.

 

Course Readings: Deepening My Understanding

​

The course readings significantly enhanced my understanding of effective grant proposal writing.

One important takeaway was aligning proposals with the funder's mission and priorities. By carefully analyzing the Request for Proposal (RFP), I learned to customize my objectives, methods, and evaluation plans to meet specific criteria. This approach enhances the proposal's relevance and potential impact.

The readings also highlighted the importance of having clear, measurable outcomes and utilizing logic models to illustrate the relationship between activities and goals. While I understand these concepts, I find that we may struggle with clarity when it comes to implementing these ideas and creating a roadmap for the research. This is where peer feedback can be particularly beneficial.

​

Learning Through Peer Proposals and Feedback

​

Reviewing peer proposals and providing feedback exposed me to various approaches to similar problems. The insights from Professor Cain and my classmates highlighted gaps I had not previously noticed, such as areas that required more clarity or justification.

They highlighted missing details and asked questions that helped refine the clarity and depth of my proposal. This collaborative exchange demonstrated that grant writing is an iterative process improved through community dialogue.

​

From Passion to Precision: The Need for Structure and Specificity

​

During this course, I realized that while passion is necessary, it is not sufficient for writing a strong grant proposal. A clear, specific, practical plan and a funder must support a solid idea.

I also learned that proposals are stronger when they include details about stakeholder involvement, anticipated challenges, and how findings will be shared.

In Cycle A, reviewers suggested incorporating engagement strategies with local partners and addressing challenges like internet access. In Cycle B, they recommended narrowing the proposal's scope and clarifying the process for instructor recruitment and the definition of "alternative assessments." These suggestions encouraged me to go beyond general plans and be more intentional in crafting each section of a proposal.

Strong proposals demonstrate both purpose and detailed planning. They require specificity in design, audience, and implementation.

​

Looking Forward: A Research Idea Inspired by My Proposal

​

As I look toward future research directions, I’ve gained more clarity on how to frame my work from a Learning Design and Technology (LDT) perspective. Rather than centering the project in social impact language, I avoid advocacy and instead formulate the title to reflect an LDT inquiry, something that points to instructional design strategies, learner interaction, and the conditions that shape access and engagement. For example, for my cycle A and B proposal, this shift allows me to approach the problem analytically, asking which design elements contribute to learners in restricted educational environments and engagement and retention in online learning.

​

Conclusion: A Transformational Experience

​

This course has transformed the way I think about educational design and advocacy. Grant writing is no longer just a technical task; it’s a way to make ideas real.

Above all, I learned that learning is an iterative process. My growth occurred draft by draft, conversation by conversation. It is this process, not just the final outcome, that I will take with me moving forward.