NSF Funding Levels, Priority Areas,

1
NSF Funding Levels, Priority Areas, Proposal
Development Tips
Presentation at University of San Francisco

• Grants Resource Center
• American Association of State Colleges and
  Universities

Daniel Riggle, Program Manager March 1, 2004
2
Budget Overview Program Priorities

• National Science Foundation
• Budget Highlights Priority Areas (FY 02 FY
  05)
• Selected NSF Programs Supporting Activities
  Involving Research Education or Research on
  STEM Education
• Focus on Course, Curriculum, Laboratory
  Improvement (CCLI) Program
• Mini-Proposal Development Workshop on CCLI

3
NSF Funding for FY 02 03

• FY 2002 Appropriations
• 4.789 billion (almost 40 million more that
  Presidents FY 02 Budget Request)
• FY 2003 Presidents Request (5.036 billion, 5
  increase)
• Nanoscale Science Engineering, 221 million
  (11 increase)
• Information Technology Research, 286 million (3
  increase)
• Mathematical Sciences, 60 million (100
  increase)
• Biocomplexity in the Environment, 79 million
  (36 increase)
• Learning for 20th Century Workforce, 185 million
  (27 increase)
• FY 03 Senate Appropriations Committee
  Recommendation
• 5.353 billion (325 million over Presidents
  Request)
• 4.131 billion for Research and Related
  Activities

4
FY 03 Omnibus Appropriations FY 04 Budget
Request

• FY 03 Omnibus Appropriations
• 5.3 billion (almost 536 million over FY 02
  level 316 million over FY 03 Request)
• 4 billion for research, 150 million for
  equipment construction, 909 million for
  Education and Human Resources (across NSF)
• FY 04 Presidents Request (5.48 billion, 5
  increase)
• Nanoscale Science Engineering, 249 million
  (12.5 increase)
• Information Technology Research, 303 million (6
  increase)
• Mathematical Sciences, 89 million (48 increase)
• Biocomplexity in the Environment, 100 million
  (36 increase)
• Workforce for the 21st Century 8.5 million (new,
  i.e., 21st Century)
• Human Social Dynamics, 24.25 million (142.5
  increase)

5
FY 04 Budget Request Priority Areas

• Mathematical Sciences Priority Area
• Fundamental Mathematical Statistical Sciences
• Interdisciplinary research linked to Mathematics
• Modeling managing uncertainty
• Modeling complex non-linear systems
• Critical Investments in Mathematics Education
• Workforce for the 21st Century
• Prepare scientists engineers to meet 21st
  Century challenges
• Attract students to SE fields broaden
  participation
• Biocomplexity in the Environment
• Microbial genome sequencing Ecology of
  infectious diseases
• Interdisciplinary research on the complex
  interplay of physical, human other biological
  systems, emphasis on new molecular,
  bioinformation, computational technologies
  methods
• Materials use and impact on society environment

6
More About FY 04 Priority Areas

• Information Technology (IT) Research
• Cyberinfrastructure
• Large-scale networking high-end computation
• Building safer more reliable information
  communications systems
• Integrating cutting-edge IT research with
  learning training
• Nanoscale Science Engineering
• Fundamental research educationbiologically-base
  d systems, creation of new materials, functional
  nanoscale structures, quantum computing,
  nanoscale processes in the environment
• Grand Challenges
• Centers Networks of Excellence
• Infrastructure
• Societal Educational Implications

7
More About FY 04 Priority Areas

• Human Social Dynamics
• Research on decision-making under uncertainty
• Creating new technology tools for social
  scientists
• Understanding large-scale transformation and
  agents of change
• Modeling human social interactions
• Spatial social science
• Other Priority Areas
• Math Science Partnership
• Homeland security anti-terrorism research
• Emphasis on physical sciences
• Climate Change Research Initiative
• NSF-wide participation broadening
  activitiesADVANCE, HBCU Program, EPSCoR, LSAMP,
  Partnerships for Innovation
• Plant Genome Research, STEP Science of Learning
  Centers

8
Omnibus Appropriations Act (H.R. 2673)

• Research Related Activities
• 4.2766 billion
• Up to 345 million shall remain available until
  expended for Polar research and operations
  support, and for reimbursement to other Federal
  agencies for operational and science support and
  logistical and other related activities for the
  United States Antarctic program the balance to
  remain available until September 30, 2005
• 90 million reserved for comprehensive research
  initiative on plant genomes for economically
  significant crops
• Major Research Equipment Facilities
  Construction
• 155.9 million available
• Education Human Resources (across NSF)
• 944.55 million

9
Committee Recommendations vs. Omnibus
Appropriations

• FY 04 Recommendations vs. Appropriations
• 5.585 billion (almost 275 million over FY 03
  level 104 million over FY 04 Bush
  request)--5.6 billion appropriated
• 4.22 billion for research related--4.3
  billion appropriated
• 150 million for equipment construction--155
  million approp.
• 975.8 million for Education and Human
  Resources--939 approp.
• Biological Sciences, 577.2 million--589 million
  appropriated
• CISE, 609 million--606 million appropriated
• Mathematical Physical Sciences, 1.085
  billion--1.1 billion appr.
• Engineering, 550 million--558 million
  appropriated
• Geosciences 692 million--715 million
  appropriated
• Social, Behavioral Economic Sciences, 273.6
  million--204 appr.
• Polar Programs, 68 million--343 million
  appropriated
• Integrative Activities, 157.4 million--144
  million appropriated

10
More Committee Recommendations vs. Omnibus
Appropriations Totals

• FY 04 Recommendations vs. Appropriations
• 90 million for Plant Genome Research--90
  million appropriated
• 25 million increase for CISE will fund
  Information Technology Research
  Cyberinfrastructure initiative(s)--225 million
  appropriated in total
• 275 million for multi-agency nanotechnology
  initiative (25 milllion over requested
  level)--255 million appropriated
• 115 million for Major Research
  Instrumentation--110 million approp.
• 10 million increase (double request) for
  Partnerships for Innovation ProgramN/A
• 100 million for EPSCoR (25 million over
  request)--95 million approp.
• 7.7 million increase for Advanced Technological
  EducationN/A
• Significant increases in HBCU-UP, Louis Stokes
  AMP, CREST, Alliances for Graduate Education
  the Professoriate, HBCU-Research University
  Science Technology (THRUST) Program(could be
  cut in FY 05)
• 18.3 million increase for Math Science
  Partnership--140 million for NSFs part but 150
  million to Department of Education

11
FY 05 Presidents Request for NSF

• FY 05 Request for all of NSF
• 5.745 billion (almost 167 million, or 3, more
  than FY 04 Request)
• FY 05 Priority Areas
• Strengthen NSF management to maximize
  effectiveness and performance.
• Improve the productivity of researchers and
  expand opportunities for students.
• Strengthen the nations performance with
  world-class instruments and facilities

12
Presidents NSF Request for FY 05

• FY 05 Request for Research Related Activities
• 4.452 billion
• Increases averaging 2 in most research
  directorates, except Social, Behavioral,
  Economic Sciences (up 10). Also, International
  SE (up 21)
• Education Human Resources Big Loser
• Nearly 168 million cut in FY 05
• Math Science Partnership appears slated for
  phase-out
• EPSCoR cut by over 10 million
• Elementary, Secondary Informal Education to
  lose almost 40 million
• Human Resource Development to be cut nearly 8
  million

13
Selected NSF Programs (with Recent Changes)

• Focusing on Combined Research Education or
  Research on STEM Education

14

• THE STEM PIPELINE
• Old view leaks at every step of the pipeline
  to the
• Ph. D., worse for minorities and women
• Enlightened view Pipeline delivering
  productive outputs
• at several junctures on the way to the PhD.
  Departure
• from the pipeline as a conscious decision,
  not by default.

Community College
K-12
4-year College
Graduate School
Ph.D.
Good jobs
Better jobs
Even better
M.S.
Return to pipeline encouraged and enabled.
Progression up the job ladder through life-long
learning, enabled by Information Technology
15
Teacher Professional Continuum

• Addresses critical issues needs regarding
  recruitment, preparation, enhancement,
  retention of science, technology, mathematics
  (STM) teachers for grades K-12
• Goals Improve quality coherence of the
  learning experiences that prepare STM teachers
  develop innovative resources that prepare
  support STM teachers school district
  administrators research develop models
  systems that support the teacher professional
  continuum research teacher learning its impact
  on teaching practice disseminate this research
  as well as innovative models and resources to a
  national audience
• Makes awards for (I) Research Studies, (II)
  Research Development of Educational Models
  Systems, (III) Professional Resources
  Development, (IV) Conferences and Symposia

16
Teacher Professional Continuum (cont.)

• Last proposal deadlines were
• Preliminary proposals for areas I, II, III were
  due by May 19, 2003 (no pre-proposal for area
  IV) full proposals were due by September 10,
  2003.
• See http//www.nsf.gov/pubsys/ods/getpub.cfm?nsf03
  534 for program announcement.

17
Informal Science Education Program

• Promotes public interest, understanding,
  engagement in science, technology, engineering,
  mathematics (STEM) through voluntary,
  self-directed, lifelong learning
• Supports such projects as the following
• Television programs, films, radio shows
• Exhibits educational programs at museums,
  science technology centers, aquaria, nature
  centers, zoos, and libraries
• Educational programs activities through
  community youth-based programs
• Last deadlines werePreliminary proposals due by
  March 3 August 15 full proposals due by May 30
  November 17, 2003. (Next announcement available
  in spring of 2004.)
• See http//www.nsf.gov/pubsys/ods/getpub.cfm?ods_k
  eynsf03511

18
Instructional Materials Development Program

• Development of new, innovative materials
• Revision of successful materials
• Development of Assessment tools
• Dissemination and Implementation Centers which
  provide Information on materials and their impact
  
• Last proposal deadlines were
• Required preliminary proposals were due by May 1,
  2003 full proposals were due by August 26, 2003
• See http//www.nsf.gov/pubsys/ods/getpub.cfm?ods_k
  eynsf03524 for last program announcement

19
National Science Foundation Division of
Undergraduate Education (DUE)
Programs in DUE

• Advanced Technological Education (ATE)
• Course, Curriculum, and Laboratory Improvement
  (CCLI)
• National Science, Technology, Engineering, and
  Mathematics Education Digital Library (NSDL)
• Computer Science, Engineering, and Mathematics
  Scholarship (CSEMS)
• Federal Cyber Service Scholarship for Service
  (SFS)
• NSF Directors Award for Distinguished Teaching
  Scholars
• Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics
  Teacher Preparation (STEMTP)
• Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics
  Talent Expansion Program (STEP)

20
Course, Curriculum, and Laboratory Improvement (
CCLI ) Program

• Goal To revitalize and improve the quality of
  STEM undergraduate education obtained by all
  students at all types of institutions.
• Tracks
• Educational Materials Development ( EMD )
• Proof of Concept
• Coalition Proof of Concept
• Full Development
• Adaptation and Implementation ( AI )
• National Dissemination ( ND )
• Assessment of Student Achievement in
  Undergraduate Education (ASA)

21
CCLI Award Information

• AI - Type I Up to 100K (single
  course)
• Up to 200K
  (comprehensive)
• Type II Up to 75K ( new)
• EMD - POC Up to 75K
• Joint-POC Up to 100K (
  new)
• Full development Up to
  500K
• ND - Up to 1M
• NEW AI requires non-federal match for
  equipment ONLY (change from match on the entire
  budget)

22
CCLI Proposal Deadlines (Expect new announcement
by March of 2004) EMD Formal Proposal Due June
18, 2003 ND Formal Proposal Due June 18,
2003 AI Formal proposal Due December 4,
2003 ASA Formal Proposal Due October 29,
2003
23
More on CCLI Tracks

• Adaptation and Implementation ( AI )
• Adapt high-quality materials effective
  educational practices developed elsewhere
• Provide opportunity to obtain needed
  instrumentation and equipment
• Educational and Materials Development ( EMD )
• Produce innovative materials of high quality and
  significance appropriate for national
  distribution
• National Dissemination ( ND )
• Disseminate exemplary materials through
  large-scale faculty development
• Assessment of Student Achievement (ASA)
• Develop disseminate assessment practices,
  materials (tools), measures to guide efforts
  that improve the effectiveness of courses,
  curricula, programs of study, and academic
  institutions in promoting student learning

24
More on CCLI Tracks

• Adaptation and Implementation ( AI )
• Adaptation of high-quality materials and
  effective educational practices developed
  elsewhere
• Opportunity to obtain needed instrumentation and
  equipment

25
CCLI AI Award Information

• Expected range of NSF/DUE support for AI
  Proposals
• AI -
• Type I single course Up to 100K
• comprehensive Up to 200K
• Type II Up to 75K
• NEW

26
Recently Added AI Track

• Type II
• identify challenges or barriers preventing
  curriculum reform
• explore exemplary STEM curricula, materials,
  and/or practices in order to begin significant
  curriculum reform
• include students in meaningful ways in the
  activities so that students are able to provide
  input

27
National Science Foundation Division of
Undergraduate Education
CCLI AI Submission Information AI Formal
proposal were due December 4, 2003 NEW AI
requires non-federal match for equipment ONLY
(change from match on the entire budget)
28
Course, Curriculum, and Laboratory Improvement
(CCLI) Program

• Goal To revitalize and improve the quality of
  STEM undergraduate education obtained by all
  students at all types of institutions.
• Tracks
• Adaptation and Implementation ( AI )
• Educational Materials Development ( EMD )
• Proof of Concept
• Full Development
• National Dissemination ( ND )
• Assessment of Student Achievement (ASA)

29
Educational Materials Development (EMD)

• Objective
• to support the development of educational
  materials that incorporate practices that are
  effective in improving learning of science,
  technology, engineering, or mathematics by
  undergraduates with diverse backgrounds and
  career aspirations

30
Two- Four-Year Institutions Coalitions
(Recently Added EMD Emphasis)

• Initial coalition Proof of Concept proposals
• Encourages joint projects in STEM disciplines
  from coalitions of two- and four- year
  institutions
• Proposals must involve BOTH two- and four-year
  faculty in the design , development , and
  implementation activities
• An additional 25K may be requested (100K
  total)

31
Educational Materials Development (EMD)

• Proof of Concept
• expected to demonstrate the scientific and the
  educational feasibility of an idea
• Outcomes
• Prototype that addresses a nationally recognized
  need and is based upon sound, effective pedagogy
• Pilot test that provides a credible evaluation of
  the prototype
• Report of the results of the evaluation
• Dissemination to the professional community about
  the prototype

32
Educational Materials Development (EMD)

• Full Development
• produce and evaluate significant new educational
  materials and pedagogical practices, and to
  promote their dissemination and effective
  implementation nationally

33
Educational Materials Development (EMD)

• Outcomes
• Innovative materials that incorporate effective
  teaching and learning strategies, and that are
  based upon prior experience with a prototype
• Credible evaluation of the materials or practices
  at different types of institutions serving
  students with diverse backgrounds and career
  goals
• Faculty at test sites and other potential users
  who are prepared to use the materials or practice
• Dissemination of information about the developed
  materials
• Self-sustaining national distribution

34
Educational Materials Development (EMD)

• Expected range of NSF/DUE support for EMD
  Proposals
• Proof-of-Concept 75K
• NEW - Coalitions between two-year colleges and
  four-year colleges/universities may receive 100K
• Full Development 500K
• Last Proposal Deadline June 18, 2003

35
Course, Curriculum, and Laboratory Improvement
(CCLI) Program

• Goal To revitalize and improve the quality of
  STEM undergraduate education obtained by all
  students at all types of institutions.
• Tracks
• Adaptation and Implementation ( AI )
• Educational Materials Development ( EMD )
• Proof of Concept
• Full Development
• National Dissemination ( ND )
• Assessment of Student Achievement (ASA)

36
National Dissemination (ND)

• Outcomes
• Materials for use by attending faculty that are
  appropriate for their needs
• Participation by faculty representative of the
  national demographic and institutional diversity
  within the included disciplines
• Follow-up activities to sustain faculty who
  participated in the professional development
  activities
• A network of faculty actively using the
  disseminated best practices in their courses and
  classrooms
• Evaluation protocols to assess the effectiveness
  of professional development activities and to
  improve their effectiveness

37
National Dissemination (ND)

• Expected range of NSF/DUE support for ND
  Proposals
• Up to 1,000,000 per year
• Last Proposal Deadlines
• Full Proposal June 18, 2003

38
Assessment of Student Achievement in
Undergraduate Education (ASA)

• USED TO BE SEPARATE PROGRAM NOW A PART OF CCLI
• Supports development and dissemination of
  assessment practices, materials (tools), and
  measures to guide efforts that improve the
  effectiveness of courses, curricula, programs of
  study, and academic institutions in promoting
  student learning in SMET. Also promotes the full
  integration of assessment with these educational
  efforts.
• Three tracks are as follows New
  Development--developing new assessment materials
  (tools) and practices for use in single or
  multiple undergraduate disciplines.
  Adaptation--adapting assessment materials and
  practices that have proven effective for one
  setting or audience for use in a new setting or
  with a different audience. Dissemination--dispersi
  ng effective assessment practices through
  workshops or Web-based materials that are
  thoroughly documented with detailed instructions.
• In FY 04, 3 million was available for 12 awards
• Proposals were due October 29, 2003.
• See http//www.nsf.gov/pubsys/ods/getpub.cfm?nsf03
  584

39
National Science Foundation Division of
Undergraduate Education
CCLI Example Projects (EMD)
An Environmentally-Benign (Green) Organic
Chemistry Curriculum (Award 0088986) University
of Oregon-Eugene P.I. James E. Hutchinson
Goal To introduce modern, green chemical
approaches, techniques, and thought processes to
large-enrollment organic chemistry teaching
laboratory Outcomes Green chemistry laboratory
textbook Workshops for teachers at all levels
(K-16) Web-centered database of green chemical
experiments
40
National Science Foundation Division of
Undergraduate Education
CCLI Example Projects (EMD)
Protein Explorer Interactive Web-Based Learning
and Access to 3D Protein Structure (Award
9980909) University of Massachusetts
Amherst P.I. Eric Martz
Goal To make 3D protein structure widely
accessible to students, educators, and
non-specialist researchers, and widely
understood. Outcomes Web-deliverable protein
structures Content, not technology,
outcome Discovery-based pedagogy Educators
guide http//www.proteinexplorer.org
41
National Science Foundation Division of
Undergraduate Education
CCLI Example Projects (ND)
A Series of Workshops in the Chemical Sciences
(Award 0089417) Georgia State University PI
Jerry C. Smith
Goals To provide for workshops to enhance the
content knowledge and pedagogical skills of
faculty involved in undergraduate
education Outcomes Workshops covering a variety
of topics held nationally For Information http/
/chemistry.gsu.edu/CWCS/
42
Criteria for Evaluation

• Reviewed on the basis of MERIT and not NEED
• Peer Reviewed
• Individually or by a Panel
• Both
• Criteria for Evaluation
• Intellectual Merit
• Broader Impacts
• Additional Criteria
• Discipline Specific, Know YOUR audience

43
Criteria for Evaluation

• What is the Intellectual Merit of the Activity?
• Qualifications of the investigator(s)
• Concepts are creative and original
• Activity is organized
• Advance knowledge and understanding
• Adequate resources to be successful

44
Criteria for Evaluation

• What are the Broader Impacts?
• Promote teaching, training, and/or learning
• Increase participation of underrepresented
  groups
• Enhance infrastructure for research and education
• Broad dissemination to enhance scientific and
  technological understanding
• Benefits to society
• Additional Criteria
• Integration of Research and Education
• Integrating diversity into NSF Programs,
  Projects, and Activities

45
Course, Curriculum, and Laboratory Improvement
(CCLI) Program

• What Makes a Good Project?
• Innovative
• Feasible
• Worthwhile
• Well-planned
• Sustainable

46
Course, Curriculum, and Laboratory Improvement
(CCLI) Program

• What Makes a Proposal Competitive?
• Original and/or good ideas
• Succinct, focused project plan
• Realistic amount of work
• Sufficient detail provided
• Cost effective
• High impact
• Knowledge and experience
• Evidence of potential effectiveness
• Likelihood project will be sustained
• Solid evaluation plan

47
Course, Curriculum, and Laboratory Improvement
(CCLI) Program
Fatal Flaws My ideas are so great Im certain
NSF wont care whether they fit the program
guideline. Trust us, we know what were
doing. 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.

48
Course, Curriculum, and Laboratory Improvement
(CCLI) Program
Fatal Flaws NSF should know what Ive done in
the past without my having to tell them. After
all, they paid for it. Evaluation will be
ongoing and consist of a variety of
methods. FastLane? Whats that?

49
Course, Curriculum, and Laboratory Improvement
(CCLI) Program

• Tips for Success
• Follow page and font-size limits
• Consult the program solicitation and the GPG
• Reference similar projects and appropriate
  information
• Include evaluation plan with timelines and
  benchmarks
• Speel check and grammer check
• Test drive FastLane
• Consult your Sponsored Research Officer (SRO)
• Contact NSF Program Director

50
What Did the Reviewers Say About Sample AI
Proposal from Murray State?
Reviews ranged from Excellent to Fair The
project is, in large part, adaptation of
techniques and approaches developed in the New
Traditions systemic reform project This
package of reforms, if carried through, will
certainly change the nature of chemistry
instruction at the introductory level an
adventuresome undertaking and may be somewhat of
a gamble as to whether or not it will generate
the desired outcomes. disagreement with
presupposition that this educational experiment
will solve the problems

51
What Did the Reviewers Say?
The authors are not able to provide sound and
convincing pedagogical and curricular reasons for
acquiring the equipment in the context of the
plan that they have described in the body of the
proposal. There are simply too many unanswered
questions to justify the excessive level of
funding that is requested. This is an
extensive yet focused proposal. It identifies a
problem (passive learning) and goes about
presenting a systematic solution to the
problem. likely to achieve the goal of
making courses more student-centered than
faculty-centered.

52
What Did the Reviewers Say?
Emphasis on writing as a learning tool nothing
proposed here is especially innovative.
Writing does not address certain crucial
aspects of skill in the laboratory. Will
emphasis on writing become a replacement for
analytical problem-solving skills Molecular
visualizations by computer are certainly to be
supported. Interfacing computers with
instruments makes sense, and has become standard
practice for some time now.

53
What Did the Reviewers Say?
This project will be hard to assess even great
improvements in teaching may not result in
improved enrollments or retention of material,
There is a detailed and quantitative
assessment plan based on standardized testing and
there is an historical basis data set. Even if
not all the components prove successful, there
should be some measurable gains. Capacity to
carry out project probably adequate.

54
Guides Related to NSF Funding

• For new experienced proposal writers
• Grant Proposal Guide (GPG) contains guidelines
  for preparing and submitting unsolicited and
  solicited proposals to NSF http//www.nsf.gov/cgi
  -bin/getpub?gpg
• A Guide for Proposal Writing http//www.nsf.gov/p
  ubsys/ods/getpub.cfm?nsf04016
• A Step-by-Step Guide for Prospective Principal
  Investigators http//www.nsf.gov/home/programs/gu
  ide.htm
• NSF Prospective New Awardee Guide
  http//www.nsf.gov/pubsys/ods/getpub.cfm?nsf03054
• FastLane NSFs electronic grants management
  mechanism (http//www.fastlane.nsf.gov/)

55
Websites Related to NSF Funding

• Research past NSF awards
• Search Awards https//www.fastlane.nsf.gov/a6/A6A
  wardSearch.htm
• Search criteria include program name, division or
  unit making award, keyword or acronym, personnel,
  and other information.
• FastLane Award Search https//www.fastlane.nsf.go
  v/a6/A6Start.htm
• Search criteria include a recent awards list,
  awards by institution, awards by state, awards by
  NSF program, and full-text search.
• Results appear on screen with name and contact
  information of Principal Investigator, amount of
  award, and abstract of project.
• Custom News Service (automatically posts notices
  released across NSF in the area(s) of interest
  that you designate)
• http//www.nsf.gov/home/cns/

56
Contact Us
1307 New York Avenue, NW, Fifth Floor Washington,
DC 20005-4701
Daniel Riggle Program Manager Phone
202/478-4710 Fax [phone] E-mail
riggled_at_aascu.org