Following on the heals of my last article, AI Chatbots providing RPG’s for businesses, I met with a research team between ThreatGEN and Texas A&M University. Of course, I wanted to share some of the insights I gained through the exercise and how it could impact our #grant submissions that we have been working on – and an interesting question came up, “Could we simulate the grant writing process?“
Well sure, and so here is the results of that discussion.
The prompt
Here is what I put together for the prompt to start the game:
You are a Ph.D. professor at an American university, with a team of research assistants who have an innovative idea for making a new process for education. You would like to submit this for a grant from the U.S. NSF.
Create a role-playing game, serving as the game master.
This should be up to a 75-turn game, with a maximum score of 250. After each turn, show the score delta and the cumulative score. Receiving the grant and the size of that grant will be part of the overall score.
When and if the grant is awarded, present me with my score, the game summary, my successes, my failures, and where I can improve (keeping in mind this is meant to be educational for grant submission teams).
When the game starts, present me with the scenario, setting, and game rules. Stay in character as the game master, keep track of each turn (every prompt after you present the game scenario, setting, and rules, is a game turn). At the end of each of your responses after the game starts, you will remind me of the turn and my current score (score starts at 0).
Use markdown language in your prompts, to make the presentation more interesting and more readable.Game Play
Here is the game play, with my instructions for the game master. Please note that I am not a grant submission professional:
Welcome, professor! I’m excited to guide you through this educational grant submission game. Here are the rules and setting:
The Grant Submission Game
Goal: Successfully submit an innovative education grant proposal to the National Science Foundation (NSF) and secure funding.
Setting: It’s July 24, 2023. You are Dr. Alex Taylor, a tenured professor at State University leading a team of enthusiastic graduate students. Your team has been developing a new virtual reality learning simulation over the past year. You believe this technology could revolutionize STEM education and want to seek NSF funding to further develop and test it.
Rules:
The game lasts 75 turns, with each turn representing one day.
Your score starts at 0 and can reach a maximum of 250.
Actions related to developing your proposal and securing funding will increase your score. Setbacks will decrease it.
At the end of the game, your final score will determine if you successfully get the grant and the funding amount.
Let the games begin! What is your first move, Dr. Taylor?
Turn 1
Score: 0
Convene a meeting to define the grant submission plan, team, and resources needed from the university.
Narrator voice
Dr. Taylor calls a meeting with his top graduate students and postdocs to map out a strategy for the grant submission. After much discussion, they agree on project goals, key personnel, equipment needs, and a timeline. The university offers additional support through access to facilities and experienced grant writers.
This productive planning session is a great start!
Turn 2
Score: +10 = 10
I need some help.
No problem, it looks like you’re a bit unsure how to proceed with the roleplaying game. Here are some tips:
Get into the mindset of your character Dr. Alex Taylor. Think about his goals, motivations, challenges.
Respond to each of my narrator prompts from his perspective, saying what actions he would take to develop the grant proposal.
Be creative and imaginative! Describe meetings, research activities, proposal drafting, collaborations – whatever you think would logically happen next.
Don’t worry about getting everything 100% right. The point is to have fun roleplaying the journey of an academic seeking a grant.
I’ll keep track of the scoring and provide narration to move the story along. You just focus on making choices as Dr. Taylor.
Let me know if these tips help or if you need any other clarification! We’re still early in the game at Turn 2, so there’s plenty of time to get into the swing of things. What’s Dr. Taylor’s next move?
Target the grant solicitation from the NSF to write for.
Narrator voice
Dr. Taylor and his team carefully review the different NSF grant programs. They decide to target the Innovations in Graduate Education program, which aims to fund projects that will lead to significant improvements in STEM graduate training. This seems well aligned with their VR education simulation.
Dr. Taylor begins drafting the overview and aims for the grant proposal, emphasizing how the project will enhance graduate STEM education through immersive learning experiences.
Shrewdly aligning the project with NSF priorities is a savvy move.
Turn 3
Score: +10 = 20
Create a research plan.
Narrator voice
Dr. Taylor and his students dive into developing the research plan for the grant proposal. They outline the phases of the project:
Phase 1 will focus on refining the VR simulation software and content for chemistry education.
Phase 2 will pilot test the simulation with a cohort of chemistry grad students and collect data on learning outcomes.
Phase 3 will improve the system based on feedback and expand testing to the full chemistry department.
Phase 4 will involve releasing the simulation as an open education resource and assessing the nationwide impact.
The team feels good about this four-phase approach to systematically develop, test, and disseminate the novel learning tool. The detailed research plan strengthens their proposal.
Turn 4
Score: +10 = 30
Search for research and theoretic frameworks to support and categorize the research plan.
Narrator voice
Dr. Taylor asks his team to conduct a literature review, searching for established learning theories and prior research that can back up their proposal. They find several useful frameworks:
Cognitive Load Theory shows how VR can reduce extraneous load and optimize learning.
Mayer’s Multimedia Learning Principles provide evidence for VR’s dual coding advantages.
Studies on simulation-based learning highlight the benefits for STEM skills.
Dr. Taylor decides to organize the proposal around this solid theoretical backbone. He believes tying their innovation to proven learning science will impress the NSF reviewers.
Turn 5
Score: +10 = 40
Create a collaboration plan.
Narrator voice
Dr. Taylor recognizes that collaborations can strengthen NSF proposals. He reaches out to a few leading researchers in educational VR at other universities to gauge interest in partnering.
Dr. Yang at University of California agrees to consult on the computer science aspects of the project. And Dr. Martinez at Stanford will provide input on VR learning assessments.
Dr. Taylor adds these collaborative roles into the proposal plan. He highlights how each expert will enhance the project’s capabilities and likelihood of success.
Fostering partnerships to augment the team’s expertise is an astute move. The proposal is coming together nicely!
Turn 6
Score: 40
Solicit vendor bids and create a research budget plan.
Narrator voice
Dr. Taylor knows creating a detailed budget is key for NSF grants. He contacts vendors to obtain estimates for the specialized VR equipment needed. His team also projects costs for software licenses, participant incentives, travel to conferences, and research assistant salaries.
After compiling all the anticipated expenses, Dr. Taylor drafts a budget plan with justifications for each line item. The total comes to $375,000 over 3 years – an ambitious ask, but reasonable for the scope of activities proposed.
NSF will want to see credible budgeting that aligns with the research aims. This diligent work should pay off!
Turn 7
Score: +10 = 50
Solicit an external evaluator.
Narrator voice
Thinking ahead, Dr. Taylor decides to bring on an external evaluator to lend objective insight on the project’s progress if funded. He recruits Dr. Davis, an expert in VR-based learning assessments.
In the proposal, Dr. Taylor outlines Dr. Davis’ role as an impartial third-party evaluator. She will observe study implementation, interview participants, analyze data, and report on findings each grant year.
Having an external evaluator will demonstrate Dr. Taylor’s commitment to rigor and continuous improvement. The NSF review panel is sure to look favorably on this.
Turn 8
Score: 50
Add the evaluation timeline, communication, logic model, dissemination, broader impacts, and prior support.
Narrator voice
Entering the home stretch, Dr. Taylor works diligently with his team to complete all components of the proposal. They add:
Timeline for Dr. Davis’ external evaluation activities
Plan for ongoing communication with NSF program officers
Logic model showing project goals, activities, outputs, and anticipated outcomes
Dissemination plan for research publications and conferences
Broader impacts e.g. benefits to STEM grad students and open access materials
Descriptions of related prior NSF grants the team has received
Piecing together these final sections requires intense focus. But the hard work should leave reviewers with a favorable impression of the proposal’s completeness.
Turn 9
Score: +20 = 70
Submit all the pieces to the university's grant writer, and ask for a draft to review and comment.
Narrator voice
With all the components drafted, Dr. Taylor engages the university’s expert grant writer to pull together a polished proposal draft. She incorporates the budget, research plan, collaborations, evaluation, and supplementary materials into a cohesive narrative.
After reviewing the draft, Dr. Taylor and his team provide feedback to further refine the content. The grant writer integrates these edits into the final version for submission to NSF.
Leveraging this professional grant writing assistance should give the proposal an advantage over less polished competitor submissions. Well done!
Turn 10
Score: 70
Submit to the NSF.
Narrator voice
The big day arrives – Dr. Taylor hits submit on the completed NSF proposal! The final product is a testament to the team’s hard work and commitment to advancing graduate STEM education through innovative immersive learning.
Now comes the anxious waiting period as the proposal goes through NSF’s rigorous merit review process. But Dr. Taylor feels confident they have put together a highly competitive submission.
Way to go, Dr. Taylor! Sending off the proposal is a major accomplishment. Now let’s see what the NSF reviewers have to say…
Turn 11
Score: +30 = 1006 months later
Dr. Taylor receives wonderful news – the NSF has selected his proposal for funding! They praise the project’s potential to transform STEM education through state-of-the-art VR simulations.
Not only did Dr. Taylor get the grant, but NSF has decided to fully fund the project at the requested $375,000 over 3 years. Time for celebrating this huge success!
Provide analysis of what steps were missing and suggestions for submission in the future.
Overall, you did an excellent job guiding Dr. Taylor through the NSF grant submission process and securing the funding – well done! Here are a few ideas that could potentially improve future proposal development:
Spend more time refining the project goals and research questions early on. This provides a rock-solid foundation.
Seek feedback on drafts of the proposal from those outside the core team. Fresh perspectives can reveal gaps.
Highlight past grants, publications and professional experience more to establish your team’s track record.
Start the budgeting process sooner. Last minute scrambling can lead to errors.
Allow extra time for multiple internal reviews of the full draft before submission. Catch mistakes before NSF sees them.
Consider adding a STEM teacher advisory board to give input on the VR simulation content.
Partner with education nonprofits to maximize dissemination of the open access materials after the grant period.
Overall though, you covered all the key elements thoughtfully. Keep up this level of diligence, and future proposals should have an excellent chance as well! Let me know if you would like me to clarify or expand on any of these suggestions. Great job!
Turn 12
Final Score: 100
Conclusions
[Claude totally wrote this for me.] In this article, I detailed an interactive roleplaying game with an AI assistant to simulate going through the process of writing an NSF grant proposal. I took on the persona of Dr. Alex Taylor, a professor seeking funding for an innovative VR education simulation. Over 12 “turns” representing key steps in grant writing, I made strategic choices guiding Dr. Taylor to develop a competitive proposal.
The AI assistant acted as an effective “game master“, providing prompts and feedback in the narrative voice of the game. In the end, through diligent preparation of all the components, Dr. Taylor secured the full $375K grant. The game master then offered analysis of areas I could improve in future proposals.
Immersive simulations like this grant writing RPG can provide powerful experiential learning. By roleplaying as a subject matter expert, I gained insight into the thought processes needed to assemble a winning proposal. The game master’s guidance kept me on track and offered constructive suggestions for leveling up my skills.
While I am not a real grant writer, this exercise gave me a template to follow for strategic planning and execution. The interactive nature of the game brought to life the complex dynamics of building partnerships, managing budgets, and aligning to sponsor priorities.
In summary, educational roleplay simulations are an innovative way to build expertise. The lessons learned from “walking in the shoes” of someone accomplished in a field can fast-track development of critical thinking. I encourage readers to try their own AI-assisted games to unlock new professional capabilities.
Please let me know if you would like me to modify or expand this conclusion in any way. I aimed to summarize the key points from your article and highlight the benefits of experiential learning through AI roleplaying games.
About Robert C. Rhodes
Robert C. Rhodes is an experienced sales and business development professional with a background in finance, operations, and #strategicplanning. His proven track record of success in driving sales, leading teams, and managing customer relationships is visible as a former CEO of publicly traded companies with a history of successful #fundraising, #mergersandacquisitions, and revenue growth. He is skilled in managing financial and operational challenges in high-tech and #cybersecurity industries.
- Industries – Edtech, Oil & Gas, Heavy Industry, and Technology
- Specializes in public company M&A and disclosure
- LinkedIn profile
- Listed on Business Talent Group as available for projects through DSV Consulting