Jill Singer

1

The Course, Curriculum, and Laboratory
Improvement Program Opportunities for
Transforming Undergraduate Education in STEM
(and Some Proposal Writing Tips)

• Jill Singer
• Division of Undergraduate Education
• Directorate for Education Human
  ResourcesNational Science Foundation
• Email jksinger_at_nsf.gov
• Sustainability Grant Writing Workshop
• CSU Chancellors Office
• January 29, 2009

2
Directorate for Education and Human Resources
(EHR)
3
Course, Curriculum, and 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 (replaces NSF08-546)
• Full proposal deadline May 21, 2009 For Type
  1 proposals from submitting organizations located
  in states or territories beginning with A through
  M (May 22, 2009 N through W)

4
Important CCLI Project Components

• 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 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

5
6
Project Types Scale, Scope, Stage,
Sustainability

• 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

6
7
Program Directors Notes (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

7
8
Program Directors Notes (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)

8
9
Program Directors Notes (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?

9
10
Ways CCLI Can Support UGR 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.

11
Writing the Proposal Steps to SuccessPreparing
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/awardsea
  rch/)
• 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

11
12
NSF Awards Searchhttp//www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/
13
Writing the Proposal Steps to SuccessWriting

• 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.

13
14
One of the ways to confuse the reviewers
14
15
Fatal Flaws

• Fatal Flaw 1
• My ideas are so great Im certain NSF wont 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 were 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
• Im sure they dont actually count the pages.
  No one will notice Im 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)

15
16
Fatal Flaws

• Fatal Flaw 4
• NSF should know what Ive 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
• Ill inflate my budget because NSF always ends
  up cutting it anyways
• Budget should directly reflect workplan
• Provide biographical sketches for all key
  personnel.

16
17
Some Common Reasons for Proposal Decline

• 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

17
18
What Happens to your 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
  proposals 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 Proposal (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 Inquiries

• Email undergrad_at_nsf.gov
• Phone [phone]
• Fax [phone]
• DUE Web Site
• http//www.nsf.gov/div/index.jsp?divDUE
• Jill Singer office 703-292-5323
• jksinger_at_nsf.gov