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.
Download
Report
Transcript 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.
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 Resources
National Science Foundation
Email: [email protected]
Sustainability Grant Writing Workshop
CSU Chancellor’s Office
January 29, 2009
1
Directorate for Education and
Human Resources (EHR)
2
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)
3
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
4
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
Project Types: Scale, Scope, Stage, &
Three levels of support
– Type 1, 2, and 3
Sustainability
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 STEM6
education
Program Director’s 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
Program Director’s 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
Program Director’s 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
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.
10
Writing the Proposal: Steps to Success
Preparing 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/)
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
NSF Awards Search:
http://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/
12
Writing the Proposal: Steps to Success
Writing
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
One of the ways to confuse the reviewers…
14
Fatal Flaws
Fatal 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)
15
Fatal Flaws
Fatal 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.
16
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
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 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
18
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.
19
Information and Inquiries
Email
Phone
Fax
[email protected]
703-292-8670
703-292-9015
DUE Web Site
http://www.nsf.gov/div/index.jsp?div=DUE
Jill Singer – office: 703-292-5323
[email protected]
20