1

Jill SingerDivision of Undergraduate Education

Directorate for Education & Human ResourcesNational Science Foundation

Email: jksinger@nsf.gov

Sustainability Grant Writing WorkshopCSU Chancellor’s Office

January 29, 2009

The Course, Curriculum, and The Course, Curriculum, and Laboratory Improvement Program: Laboratory Improvement Program:

Opportunities for Transforming Opportunities for Transforming Undergraduate Education in STEM Undergraduate Education in STEM

(and Some Proposal Writing Tips)(and Some Proposal Writing Tips)

2

Directorate for Education and Directorate for Education and Human Resources (EHR)Human Resources (EHR)

3

Course, Curriculum, and Course, Curriculum, and Laboratory Improvement (CCLI)Laboratory Improvement (CCLI)

Vision of the CCLI Program: Excellent STEM education for all undergraduate students Supports projects at all levels of

undergraduate education Supports activities in the classroom,

laboratory, and field settings

NEW SOLICITATION: NSF09-529 NEW SOLICITATION: NSF09-529 (replaces (replaces NSF08-546)NSF08-546)

Full proposal deadline: May 21, 2009 – For Type Full proposal deadline: May 21, 2009 – For Type 1 proposals from submitting organizations 1 proposals from submitting organizations located in states or territories beginning with A located in states or territories beginning with A through M (May 22, 2009 – N through W)through M (May 22, 2009 – N through W)

4

Important CCLI Project Important CCLI Project ComponentsComponents

Creating Learning Materials and Strategies Instrumentation and equipment requests are appropriate

but must be based on their impact on student learning Implementing New Instructional Strategies

Program encourages projects that lead to widespread adoption of promising pedagogical techniques

Developing Faculty Expertise From short-term workshops to sustained activities

Assessing and Evaluating Student Achievement

Conducting Research on Undergraduate STEM Education

5

Important CCLI Project FeaturesImportant CCLI Project Features

Quality, Relevance, and Impact

Student Focus Use of and Contribution to Knowledge

about STEM Education STEM Education Community-Building Sustainability Expected Measurable Outcomes Project Evaluation

6

Project Types:Project Types: Scale, Scope, Stage, & Scale, Scope, Stage, & SustainabilitySustainability

Three levels of support – Type 1, 2, and 3 Types are independent Type 2 and 3 projects reflect greater dependence on

previous work Type 1 Projects: total budget up to $200,000 ($250K when 4-year colleges

and universities collaborate with 2-year colleges) for 2 to 3 years Type 2 Projects: total budget up to $600,000 for 2 to 4 years Type 3 Projects: Budget negotiable, but not to exceed $5 million over 5

years

NEW! CCLI Central Resource Projects – budget negotiable, depending on the scope and scale of the activity, duration up to 5 years Projects provide leadership and implementation of activities that sustain a

community of practice engaged in transforming undergraduate STEM education

77

Program Director’s Notes Program Director’s Notes (1)(1)

Read the program solicitation Determine how your ideas match the solicitation

and how you can improve the match Articulate goals, objectives, &

outcomes Outcomes should include improved student

learning Build on existing knowledge base

Review the literature Present evidence that the proposed project is

doable; will enhance learning; is the best approach

Explore potential collaborations (industry, business, academic)

Use data to document existing shortcomings in student learning

88

Program Director’s Notes Program Director’s Notes (2)(2)

Describe management plan Provide tasks, team responsibilities,

timeline Provide clear examples of the

approach Integrate the evaluation effort early

Build assessment tools around defined objectives and expected outcomes

Connect with independent evaluation experts

Identify strategies for dissemination Define a plan to contribute to knowledge

base Address broader impacts Collaborate, form partnerships (build

community)

99

Program Director’s Notes Program Director’s Notes (3)(3)

What does the knowledge base say about the approach? What have others done that is related What have been the problems/challenges

Why is this problem important? Is it a global or local problem What are potential broader impacts How will it improve quality of learning

What is the evidence that the approach will solve the problem? Address and achieve the defined outcomes and

student learning What are alternative approaches?

10

Ways CCLI Can Support Ways CCLI Can Support UGR ActivitiesUGR Activities

Acquisition of research quality equipment and its integration into undergraduate courses.

Labs can be constructed that integrate advanced equipment, prepare students for research, and draw on faculty research expertise.

Incorporation of inquiry-based projects into laboratory courses.

Partnerships with local research and informal education institutions.

Service learning can provide relevant problems while addressing the needs of the local community.

1111

Writing the Proposal: Steps to Writing the Proposal: Steps to SuccessSuccess

Preparing to WritePreparing to Write Start EARLY Outline what you want to do Review the literature and descriptions of funded

projects. Know what is being done in your field and how your project is similar/different Use NSF Awards Search

(http://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/http://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/)) Read program solicitations to find the program that

best meets your needs If you still need clarification, contact (e-mail is best)

the appropriate program officer to discuss your idea. This may cause you to refine your idea and may prevent you

from applying to the wrong program Give yourself and your grants’ office enough time to

complete the process and submit the proposal

12

NSF Awards Search:NSF Awards Search:http://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/http://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/

1313

Writing the Proposal: Steps to Writing the Proposal: Steps to SuccessSuccessWritingWriting

Organize the proposal - use proposal guidelines Make it easy for reviewers to find key items in your proposal by

using such aids as bullets and an outline format Be sure you clearly describe what you want to do and how you

will do it as well as the problem you want to solve (goals and objectives)

For programs such as CCLI, describe how you will follow the progress of your project, determine whether it is successful and how you will disseminate the results

Consider the research potential of the project. Could the results add to the knowledge we have about what works and why in STEM education? If appropriate, relate your efforts to current research about what works and why.

Be sure the budget and budget explanation ‘match’ and that the budget reflects the size of the project team and the level of commitment for each member of the project team. Instrumentation, participant support, and/or travel requests should be clearly explained and justified.

1414One of the ways to confuse the reviewers…

1515

Fatal FlawsFatal FlawsFatal Flaw #1“My ideas are so great I’m certain NSF won’t care whether they

fit the program guideline.” Read the solicitation completely and carefully Write proposal and address each area outlined in the solicitation Check each program solicitation carefully for: Additional Criteria (for example)

Fatal Flaw #2“Trust us, we know what we’re doing.”

Formulate your idea(s); clearly state what you want to do Identify the audience(s) you want to work with Identify specific tasks and a timeline for completing activities Give background information; cite literature-demonstrate that you are aware of

similar efforts/prior work Address broader impacts; if diversity is one of your goals, how will you recruit and

support students?

Fatal Flaw #3“I’m sure they don’t actually count the pages. No one will

notice I’m over the page limit. Maybe I should just use a smaller font.” Follow page and font-size limits Consult the program solicitation and the GPG (Grant Proposal Guide)

1616

Fatal FlawsFatal FlawsFatal Flaw #4“NSF should know what I’ve done in the past without my

having to tell them. After all, they paid for it.” Provide results from prior funding Include a dissemination plan in your current proposal

Fatal Flaw #5“Evaluation will be ongoing and consist of a variety of

methods.” Plan for formative and summative evaluation Include evaluation plan with timelines and benchmarks

Fatal Flaw #6“I’ll inflate my budget because NSF always ends up cutting it

anyways” Budget should directly reflect workplan Provide biographical sketches for all key personnel.

1717

Some Common Reasons for Proposal Some Common Reasons for Proposal DeclineDecline

Lack of evidence the PI is aware of the relevant literature and is building upon it

Diffuse, superficial and unfocused plan Lack of sufficient detail Apparent lack of the requisite expertise or experience by

the proposers Lack of a clear plan to document and evaluate activities

and outcomes and to disseminate the results Evaluation plans that are mainly surveys to determine

user satisfaction with no clear mechanism for documenting changes in student learning, faculty approaches to presenting material, and/or approach to education (at the disciplinary, department or institutional level)

Proposals that do not explicitly address both Intellectual Merit and Broader Impact and exceed the page limit are returned without review

18

What Happens to your What Happens to your Proposal?Proposal?

Submission of proposal via FastLane Proposals are reviewed by mail and/or panels of

faculty within the discipline(s) A minimum of three persons outside NSF review each

proposal For proposals reviewed by a panel, individual reviews

and a panel summary are prepared for each proposal NSF program staff member attends the panel

discussion The Program Officer assigned to manage the

proposal’s review considers the advice of reviewers and formulates a recommendation

Negotiations may be necessary to address reviewers’ comments, budget issues, and other concerns

19

What Happens to Your ProposalWhat Happens to Your Proposal (2)(2)

NSF is striving to be able to tell applicants whether their proposals have been declined or recommended for funding within six months. Verbatim copies of reviews, not including the identity of the reviewer, is provided to the PI.

Proposals recommended for funding are forwarded to the Division of Grants and Agreements for review. Only Grants and Agreements Officers may make awards.

Notification of the award is made to the submitting organization by a DGA Officer.

20

Information and InquiriesInformation and Inquiries

Email undergrad@nsf.gov Phone 703-292-8670 Fax 703-292-9015

DUE Web Sitehttp://www.nsf.gov/div/index.jsp?div=DUE

Jill Singer – office: 703-292-5323 jksinger@nsf.gov