Transcript Funding Opportunities - Humboldt State University

Overview of Funding Opportunities at the
National Science Foundation Division of
Undergraduate Education:
Advanced Technological Education (ATE)
Pamela Brown, NSF Program Director
Division of Undergraduate Education (DUE)
CUR Dialogues 2012
Washington, DC
February 24, 2012
1
NSF DUE Mission – Promote excellence in
undergraduate STEM education for all students
Each solicitation has its own objectives.
All proposals are judged on common
intellectual merit and broader
impacts. Some solicitations have
additional criteria.
The success of the NSF’s effort depends
on the peer review process.
Matching proposal goals and activities with those of
the solicitation is important for successful funding
3
The DUE web page – www.NSF.gov - provides
information about solicitation components and awards
 Information on past
awards is found by
clicking on the “Awards”
tab at the top of the page
4
1. Advanced Technological Education (ATE)
promotes workforce development in hightechnology fields, with leadership coming from
community colleges
• The Science and Advanced Technology Act of 1992 (SATA)
mandated the creation of ATE, with continuing
reauthorizations under the America Competes Act.
• Program focuses on the education of science and engineering
technicians for high-technology fields that drive the nation’s
economy.
• Grades 7-12, 2yr- and 4-yr institutions can be supported.
• Community colleges have leadership roles on all projects.
ATE’s objectives can be met through activities to
improve education and opportunities.
 Partnerships between academic institutions and
employers to promote improved technician education.
 Curriculum development, college faculty and secondary
school teacher professional development, career
pathways from secondary schools to two-year colleges
and to four-year institutions.
 Articulation agreements
 Educational research to advance knowledge related to
technician education
6
The ATE Program has several tracks
 Projects which focus on:
 Program Development, Implementation and
Improvement;
 Professional Development for Educators;
 Curriculum and Educational Materials Development;
 Teacher Preparation;
 Business and Entrepreneurial skills for students in
technician education programs;
 Leadership Capacity Building for faculty.
 Centers of Excellence – National, Regional, Resource:
 Targeted Research on Technician Education
Small Grants for Institutions New to the ATE Program
provide colleges with a chance to “get their foot in the
door.”
Simulate implementation, adaptation, and innovation in all areas
supported by ATE.
Broaden the base of participation of community colleges in ATE.
Strengthen the role of community colleges in meeting needs of
business and industry
 Available only to community college campuses that have not had
an ATE award within the last 10 years or never had one.
 Limited to $200,000 over 3 years
 Funding rate for FY10 was between 70-80% for this area
8
Collaboration between educational institutions
and industry is an important component of ATE
 Partnerships
 Internships
 Industry input driving curriculum
 Hire adjunct faculty from industry
 Skill standards
 Industry Advisory Board
 Career pathways
 Economic Development/WIB involvement (both state
and local)
9
The ATE solicitation (11-692) contains links to resources






ATE Centers: http://www.atecenters.org
Evalua|t|e Center: http://www.evalu-ate.org
ATE Central: http://atecentral.net/
ATE PI Guide: http://govpiguide.org/scenarios
www.teachingtechnicians.org (SCATE Center)
“Educating Biotechnicians”:
http://www.aacc.nche.edu/Resources/aaccprograms/ate/Documents/bi
otech_report.pdf
 “Preparing Energy Technicians for the 21st Century Workforce”:
http://www.ateec.org/store/catalog/Energy-General---PreparingEnergy-Technicians-for-the-21st-Century-Workforce400.html
ATE is NSF DUE’s largest program for community colleges
Noyce
1.2%
MSP
0.4%
STEP
10.9%
S-STEM
23.6%
ATE
63.7%
CCLI/TUES
0.3%
Highlights of The Review Process
All proposals must address Intellectual Merit and
Broader Impacts
12
Reviewing for the NSF is a good way to improve
grant writing skills
 Reviewers are solicited by program directors. You
can volunteer to review for a program; you will need
to submit a CV)
 ~5-6 reviewers/panel
 Reviewers receive ~12 proposals electronically 2 to 3
weeks before the panel.
 Reviewers electronically prepare reviews and assign
individual ratings (E,V, G,F, P) before the review panel
meets.
Reviewers rate proposals from Fair to Excellent and
prepare comments on strengths and weaknesses/concerns





Excellent (5)
Very Good (4)
Good (3)
Fair (2)
Poor (1)
Reviewer comments should align with the rating
Ratings may be changed after the panel discussion
Usually a rating of higher than 3.5 makes the proposal
competitive
Program directors make funding recommendations
Reviewer written comments include intellectual
merit, broader impacts and a summary statement
 Intellectual merit (IM)
 General summary of project (2-3
sentences)
 Describe Strengths
 Describe Weaknesses/concerns
 Broader impacts (BI)
 Describe Strengths
 Describe Weaknesses/concerns
 Summary statement---Again Describe….
 Overall strengths
 Overall concerns
 And a Rationale that justifies your rating
Reviewers meet to discuss the proposal and write a
panel summary
 Held Over Two Days in Washington DC
 Panel Chair (picked by program director ahead of time)
establishes order of proposal review process
 Proposals are discussed individually
 A “scribe” is designated to capture all of the points brought
up in discussion and produce a summary review – called the
“Panel Summary”
 The reviews and panel summaries are written to provide
guidance for declines and negotiating points for awards
Reviews and panel summaries are written for
both applicants and NSF program directors
 NSF program directors
 Informs recommendations relative to funding
 Guides pre-award negotiations
 Applicants
 If proposal is funded:
Provides suggestions for improving project
 If proposal is not funded:
 Provides information to guide a revision of the proposal

Competitive proposals share common features
 Original ideas. Potentially high impact.







Succinct, focused project plan. Sufficient detail provided.
Realistic amount of work – timeline and responsibility
delineated.
Cost effective – budget aligned with activities.
Demonstrated knowledge of field (literature survey) and
experience of PIs. Project builds on prior knowledge.
Rationale and evidence of potential effectiveness.
Likelihood the project will be sustained.
Solid evaluation plan including formative and summative
assessment.
18
Writing a good proposal requires time and
commitment
 Start EARLY
 Get acquainted with FASTLANE
 Read the Program Solicitation and follow the guidelines. Read
the Grant Proposal Guide (GPG).
 Learn about the recent DUE awards using the NSF Award
Search tool
 Become an NSF reviewer
 Contact (e-mail is best) a program officer to discuss your idea.
This may cause you to refine your idea and may prevent you
from applying to the wrong program
 Program Officers in DUE: Check the solicitations for names
and contact information. Outreach is part of our job!
Understanding the review process should help you to
prepare better proposals.
20
Thank you for your attention
For more information:
 DUE Web Site - http://www.nsf.gov/div/index.jsp?div=DUE
 Vet ideas with a program officer
 Volunteer to review proposals.
Opinions expressed in this presentation are those of the
presenter and are not official NSF policy