Fall 2009 CONFCHEM	Excellence in Education with CCLI: Notes from Recent Awardees An on-line conference, September and October 2009
	Abstracts	Papers	Instructions	Discussion Archive

 

Funding Opportunities at the National Science Foundation’s Division of Undergraduate Education (DUE) and Writing a Successful Proposal

Eileen L. Lewis
Program Director, DUE
ellewis@nsf.gov

Part One:  Funding Opportunities

DUE is a part of the Directorate for Education and Human Resources (EHR) as is the Division of Graduate Education (DGE), Research on Learning in Formal and Informal Settings (DRL), and Human Resource Development (HRD).  EHR’s Mission is to promote the development of a diverse and well-prepared workforce of scientists, engineers, mathematicians, educators, and technicians and a well informed citizenry who have access to the ideas and tools of science and engineering.

DUE’s Mission Statement is: DUE is an agent of change that leads the NSF efforts to achieve excellent STEM undergraduate education for all students.  It creates, develops, and manages programs that enable institutions to expand the professional Science and Engineering workforce and to strengthen the scientific literacy for citizens through undergraduate curricula and related activities.

An extra $75 million from H-1B visa fees employers pay to obtain a visa for a foreign high-tech worker to fund the S-STEM program.

DUE received an additional $85 Million in ARRA funds (stimulus money) in  FY2009.  Of that $60 Million was given to the NOYCE Scholarship Program and $25 Million to the Math and Science Partnership Program (see below for program details).

Various DUE Programs:

Advanced Technological Education (ATE)

Course, Curriculum, and Laboratory Improvement (CCLI)

Federal Cyber Service: Scholarship for Service (SFS)

Interdisciplinary Training for Undergraduates in Biological and Mathematical Sciences (UBM)

Math and Science Partnership (MSP)

Nanotechnology Undergraduate Education (NUE) in Engineering

National STEM Education Distributed Learning (NSDL)

NSF Director's Award for Distinguished Teaching Scholars (DTS)

NSF Scholarships in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (S-STEM) Presidential Awards for Excellence in Science, Mathematics and Engineering Mentoring (PAESMEM)

Research Coordination Networks in Biological Sciences (RCN)

Robert Noyce Teacher Scholarship Program

Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Talent Expansion Program (STEP)

The DUE programs of greatest interest to chemists are:

1. Course, Curriculum, and Laboratory Improvement (CCLI)
2. STEM Talent Expansion Program (STEP)
3. Scholarships in Science, Technology,   Engineering, and Mathematics (S-STEM)
4. Noyce Scholarship Program

Course, Curriculum, and Laboratory Improvement (CCLI):

The FY 2009 and latest solicitation is available at http://nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=nsf09529.  The CCLI program is for all types of educational institutions that serve undergraduates. CCLI supports efforts that conduct research on undergraduate STEM education, create new learning materials and teaching strategies, develop faculty expertise, implement educational innovations, and assess student achievement.

Type 1:

These projects typically will address one program component and involve a limited number of students and faculty members at one academic institution. Projects with a broader scope or larger scale can be proposed provided they can be done within the budget limitations. Proposed evaluation efforts should be informative, based on the project's specific expected outcomes, and consistent with the scope of a Type 1 project. In order to encourage collaboration between four-year colleges and universities and two-year colleges, projects involving such collaboration may request an additional $50,000 over the $200K/project. The distribution of effort and funds between the four-year institution and the community college should reflect a genuine collaboration.

Type 2:

These projects build on smaller-scale successful innovations or implementations, such as those produced by Type 1 projects, and refine and test these on diverse users in several settings. Type 2 projects carry the development to a state where the results are conclusive so that successful products and processes can be distributed widely or commercialized when appropriate. At a minimum, the innovation, if successful, should be institutionalized at the participating colleges and universities (up to $600K/project).

Type 3:

These projects combine established results and mature products from several components of the cyclic model. These projects should include an explicit discussion of the results and evidence produced by the work on which the proposed project is based. Such projects include a diversity of academic institutions and student populations. Dissemination and outreach activities that have national impact are an especially important element of Type 3 projects, as are the opportunities for faculty to learn how to best adapt project innovations to the needs of their students and academic institutions (up to $5 million/project).

The proposal deadlines for Type 1 type projects were May 21, 2009 (for submitting organizations located in states or territories beginning with A-M) and May 22, 2009 (for submitting organizations located in states or territories beginning with N-W).  The proposal deadline for Type 2, Type 3, and Central Resource Project proposals is January 13, 2010.  Information about the CCLI program is available at http://nsf.gov/funding/pgm_summ.jsp?pims_id=5741.

Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Talent Expansion Program (STEP):

STEP seeks to increase the number of students (U.S. citizens or permanent residents) receiving associate or baccalaureate degrees in established or emerging fields within STEM. Type 1 proposals are solicited that provide for full implementation efforts at academic institutions. Type 2 proposals are solicited that support educational research projects on associate or baccalaureate degree attainment in STEM. The next proposal deadline for STEP is September 29, 2009 with an optional letter of intent deadline date of August 18, 2009.  Information about the program and the current solicitation is available at http://nsf.gov/funding/pgm_summ.jsp?pims_id=5488.

Math and Science Partnership (MSP):

The MSP program responds to a growing national concern – the educational performance of the U.S. children in mathematics and science.  Through MSP, NSF awards competitive, merit-based grants to teams composed of institutions of higher education, local K-12 school systems, and their supporting partners.  Information about the program and the current solicitation is available at http://www.nsf.gov/funding/pgm_summ.jsp?pims_id=5756.

Robert Noyce Teacher Scholarship:

The Noyce Scholarship program seeks to encourage talented STEM majors and professionals to become K-12 and science teachers.  The program provides funds to institutions of higher education to support scholarships, stipends, and academic programs for undergraduate STEM majors and post-baccalaureate students holding STEM degrees who commit to teaching in high-need K-12 school districts.  A new component of the program supports STEM professionals who enroll as NSF Teaching Fellows in master’s degree programs leading to teacher certification by providing academic courses, professional development, and salary supplements while they are fulfilling a four-year teaching commitment in a high-need school district.  This new component also supports the development of NSF Master Teaching Fellows by providing professional development and salary supplements for exemplary math and science teachers to become Master Teachers in high-need school districts.  Information about the program and the current solicitation is available at http://www.nsf.gov/funding/pgm_summ.jsp?pims_id=5733

Programs of interest in other divisions:  RUI, ROA, MRI

1. These are housed within each discipline’s division (Math & PS)
2. RUIs are typically 3-year awards
3.  RUI-Research award with special section in the proposal titled “RUI Impact Statement” of up to five pages.
4.  Research Opportunity Awards (ROAs) enable faculty members at predominantly undergraduate institutions to pursue research as visiting scientists with NSF-supported investigators at other institutions.
5.  Major Research Instrumentation:  multi-user for research instrumentation

RUI Examples:

Award 0718749, for 3-years  $95,335
 “Model Compounds for P460 from Hydroxylamine Oxidoreductase (HOA)”, at Saint Francis University.  Study of models for HAO in Nitrosomonas europea (Ne), an autotrophic soil bacteria that oxidizes nitrogenous materials in order to make energy . 

Award 0809440, for 3-years  $270,000
 “Innovative Determination of Phase Diagrams of Surfactants in Water and Ionic Liquids” at Harvey Mudd College.  Research on surfactants prepared from renewable resources that are of great practical interest as environmentally-safe, biodegradable, and nonionic materials for pharmaceutical, cosmetic, and food.

ROA – Research Opportunity Award: Supplement Opportunity

1. ROAs enable faculty at predominantly undergraduate institutions, including community colleges, to pursue research as visiting scientists with NSF-supported investigators at other institutions.
2. Goal is to “enhance the research productivity and professional development of science faculty at undergraduate institutions through research activities that explore the emerging frontiers of science”.
3. Require 2-6 months for a supplement decision if there is an existing award.

An ROA supplement can be requested on a current award or when submitting a new or renewal proposal.  Most frequently, ROA activities are summer experiences, but partial support of sabbaticals may also be provided.  ROA supplements are usually less than $25,000 including indirect costs.  Details vary according to discipline (NSF-00-144 has general guidelines).

First discuss supplement with the cognizant Program Officer.  Prospective visiting ROA researcher and the NSF-supported PI at the host institution should work together to develop a research plan and budget.  The nature of the research responsibility, the duration of the ROA visit, salary, and other arrangements with respect to employment, are matters to be negotiated between the host institution, the PI, the prospective visiting scientist, and his/her home institution, as the proposal is developed.

REU Supplement

REU Supplements are similar to ROA Supplements except that a request is made to support a student from another institution by a PI with an RUI.  Most REU supplements are for research during the summer.  Support level is typically less than $10,000.

MRI – Major Research Instrumentation

Multi-user proposals are more common than single user proposals  PUI has special category of funding, but the allocation depends upon proposal pressure.  Support level is normally at least $75,000 but there is no upper limit.  Must have research active faculty with a record of publishing in peer-reviewed journals.  A part of ARRA (Stimulus) Funding.

MRIs are a Foundation-wide activity (NSF cross-cutting) with anemphasis on research but they must have important educational component.  For NSF overall in FY08, the budget was $93.9M.  The Chemistry Division received about $10.0 M with approximately $4.7 M going to PUIs.  There is a mandatory cost-sharing (30%) except for PUI institutions.  The deadline is the fourth Thursday in January, annually with an additional solicitation this summer.

MRI Examples:
Award 0821370, $307,250 to Texas A&M University-Kingsville for “Acquisition of a Field Emission-Scanning Electron Microscope for Nanoscience Research and Education ”,

Programs that support PUI Departments are DUE’s STEP, S-STEM, and Noyce.  REU (Research experiences for undergraduates) are also useful and support active research participation by undergraduate students in any of the areas of research funded by the National Science Foundation.  REU projects involve students in meaningful ways in ongoing research programs or in research projects specifically designed for the REU program.  The awards are for three years at about $200,000-$500,000 total.  There are over 50 REU Chemistry sites.  A directory of active REU sites can be found at: http://www.nsf.gov/crssprgm/reu/reu_search.cfm.

Specific REU sites:

Award 0552750, 3-years and $499,301 at North Carolina State University for “Sustainability, Energy and Engineering REU Site”.  REU Site on environmentally sustainable products and processes, and energy that supports 11 undergraduate students per year for three years in a 10-week research and professional development program

Award 0552762, 3-years and $221,592 at the University of North Dakota for “Undergraduate Interdisciplinary Research Emphasizing the Application of Environmental Chemistry to Address Societal Issues.”  Students will gain experience in research projects in the area of gas-phase chemistry and related environmental chemistry.

Part Two: Writing a Successful Proposal

Pay attention to the Merit Criteria: Intellectual Merit and Broader Impact.  Most proposal writers do fairly well with intellectual merit, but have problems with Broader Impact.  We’ll review both in this section and then give a list of things to do and not do in a proposal.

Under Intellectual Merit, you want to think about answers to the following questions:

1. How important is the proposed activity to advancing knowledge and understanding within its own field or across different fields?
2. How well qualified is the proposer (individual or team) to conduct the project?
3. To what extent does the proposed activity suggest and explore creative, original, or potentially transformative concepts?
4. How well conceived and organized is the proposed activity? Is there sufficient access to resources?

Make it clear that your proposal does one or more of the following:
Addresses a major challenge
Is supported by capable faculty and others
Improves student learning
Has a clearly articulated rationale and vision
Is informed by research in the area or other projects
Contains effective evaluation and dissemination
Shows adequate facilities, resources, and commitment
Has a Institutional and departmental commitment

Under Broader Impact, you want to think about answers to the following questions:

1. How well does the activity advance discovery and understanding while promoting teaching, training, and learning?
2. How well does the proposed activity broaden the participation of underrepresented groups (e.g., gender, ethnicity, disability, geographic, etc.)?
3. To what extent will it enhance the infrastructure for research and education, such as facilities, instrumentation, networks, and partnerships?
4. Will the results be disseminated broadly to enhance scientific and technological understanding?
5. What may be the benefits of the proposed activity to society?

Make sure your proposal does one or more of the following:

1. Shows how what you propose will Integrated into the institution’s academic programs
2. Discuss your contribution to the knowledge base and how this will be useful to other institutions
3. Talks about any widely used materials/products which can be disseminated through commercial and other channels
4. Shows how the project will improved content and pedagogy for faculty and teachers
5. Discusses any Increased participation by women, underrepresented minorities, and persons with disabilities
6. Makes a contribution toward ensuring high quality STEM education for people pursuing careers in STEM fields (or as teachers or technicians)

Below are a few representative dissemination activities for projects:

1. Partner with museums, nature centers, science centers, and similar institutions to develop exhibits in science, math, and engineering.
2. Involve the public or industry, where possible, in research and education activities.
3. Give science and engineering presentations to the broader community (e.g., at museums and libraries, on radio shows, and in other such venues).
4. Make data available in a timely manner by means of databases, digital libraries, or other venues such as CD-ROMs.
5. Publish in diverse media (e.g., non-technical literature, and websites, CD-ROMs, press kits) to reach broad audiences.
6. Present research and education results in formats useful to policy-makers, members of Congress, industry, and broad audiences.
7. Participate in multi- and interdisciplinary conferences, workshops, and research activities.
8. Integrate research with education activities in order to communicate in a broader context.

The proposal should talk about the impact of your activities.  Don’t just list activities.  More is not better unless you describe the outcomes of those activities.  Develop a dissemination plan with the same detail and attention you put into intellectual merit.  Be sure the broader impact is credible, i.e. realistic and believable so include appropriate funds in the budget.  The broader impact should be consistent with the proposal’s scope and objectives, the institution’s mission and culture, and the PI’s interest and experience. 

Help reviewers (and NSF program officers) by providing sufficient detail of what is proposed to be done.  This includes the objectives, strategies, and evaluation.  The importance of clarity and coherence can not be overstated.  Make sure there is agreement between the Project Summary and Project Description.  Look at the recent awards at the bottom of the home page of the program of interest.  It will give you abstracts, dollar amounts, PIs, Institution, Project Title, and other variables that will help you see the scope of what a program funds.

Top Ten Ways to Write a Proposal that Won’t Get Funded

Avoid submitting a disorganized proposal that needs to be read multiple times before someone can figure out what’s being proposed.  While it may be obvious to the writers, have someone unfamiliar with the proposal read the it before submission.

Flaw 10: Inflate the budget to allow for negotiations.
Instead…

1. Make the budget reflect the work plan directly.
2. Provide a budget explanation that ties your budget request to project personnel and activities.
3. Make it clear who is responsible for what.
4. Provide biographical sketches for all key personnel.

Flaw 9: Providea template letter of commitment for your (genuine) supporters to use (they will!).
Instead…

1. Ask for original letters of support that detail what your collaborators will do and why involvement in your project will help them.
2. Letters from administrators are stronger if they demonstrate real commitment, e.g. release time, faculty development funds, new course approvals,

Flaw 8:  Assume your past accomplishments are well known.
Instead…

1. Provide results from prior funding – this includes quantitative data and information on impact.
2. Describe how new efforts build on this previous work, and how it has contributed to the broader knowledge base about educational improvement.
3. Recognize that the review panelists are diverse and not all familiar with your institutional context.

Flaw 7:  Assume a project website is sufficient for dissemination.
Instead…

1. A website may be necessary, but who will maintain it and how in the long run? 
2. Engage beta test sites. “Early adopters” can serve as natural dissemination channels.
3. Plan workshops and mini-courses; identify similar projects and propose sessions at regional and national meetings.
4. Learn about and use NSDL and other clearinghouses.

Flaw 6:  Assert: “Evaluation will be ongoing and consist of a variety of methods.”
Instead…

1. Plan for formative and summative evaluation.
2. Include an evaluation plan with specific timelines and projected benchmarks.
3. Engage an objective evaluator.

Flaw 5:  Assume the program guidelines have not changed; or better yet, ignore them!
Instead…

1. Read the solicitation completely and carefully (and multiple times).
2. Address each area outlined in the solicitation that is relevant to your project.
3. Check the program solicitation carefully for any additional criteria, e.g. the Integration of Research and Education, or integrating diversity into NSF Programs, Projects, and Activities

Flaw 4:  Don’t check your speeling, nor you’re grammer.
Instead…

1. Check and double check; first impressions are important to reviewers.
2. State your good ideas clearly. Ignore the bad ones.
3. Have a trusted colleague who is not involved in the project read your drafts and final proposal.
4. Note:  Don’t use complimentary when you mean complementary or principle investigator when you mean principal investigator , etc.

Flaw 3:  Substitute flowery rhetoric for good examples.
Instead…

1. Minimize complaints about students, other departments, the administration, etc., and describe what you will do and why.
2. Ground your project in the context of related efforts.
3. Provide detailed examples of learning materials, if relevant.
4. Specify who you will work with and why.
5. State how you plan to assess progress and student learning.
6. Detail the tasks and timeline for completing activities.
7. Specifically address intellectual merit and broader impacts and use the phrases explicitly in the project summary.

Fatal Flaw 2:  Assume page limits and font size restrictions are not enforced.
Instead…

1. Consult the program solicitation and the GPG (Grant Proposal Guide) carefully.
2. Proposals that exceed page and/or font size limits are returned without review.

Fatal Flaw1:  Assume deadlines are not enforced.
Instead…                   

1. Work early with your Sponsored Research Officer (SRO).
2. Test drive FastLane and make sure your SRO knows how to drive too!
3. Set your own final deadline a day or so ahead of the formal deadline to allow time to solve problems.

Ways to Participate and get better at grant writing and administering:

1. Volunteer to be a reviewer of proposals (send a 2 page CV to a Program Officer
2. Use the materials/products from an awarded project
3. Join a project team
4. Become a collaborator or member of a coalition
5. Become a member of an Advisory Board
6. Become a test site for materials or methods

Most importantly, do something you are passionate about.

Program Staff:

We encourage each of you to investigate these opportunities and apply to the program.  If you wish to have additional information or talk with a program director about your ideas, please contact us. There are currently three program directors in DUE from 2-year colleges(listed below), In addition to the disciplines represented below, DUE has program officers in computer science, engineering, geosciences, mathematics, physics, and social sciences. The full staff listing is available at http://www.nsf.gov/staff/staff_list.jsp?org=DUE.  We look forward to hearing from all of you soon!