bullet1   Education

This Map includes key word searches and relevant sources of funding in educational research with an emphasis on Math, Science, and Community. It is designed to provide an overview of the theories, practice, and resources available to educators in general. It is an organized starting point rather than a completed end product.


Any feedback on the effectiveness of this webpage would be appreciated:


» See document: http://carbon.cudenver.edu/~mryder/itcon.html

bullet2   Symbolic Analysis

bullet2   Foundational Texts

» See document: http://carbon.cudenver.edu/~mryder/itc_data/etexts.html

bullet2 Technology in Education

bullet2 Theories + Learning

  • Models
    » See document: http://www.funderstanding.com/about_learning.cfm
     
  • Learning Theories
    » See document: http://www.emtech.net/learning_theories.htm
     
  • How People Learn; Brain | Mind | Experience | School
    Executive Summary


    Learning is a basic, adaptive function of humans. More than any other species, people are designed to be flexible learners and active agents in acquiring knowledge and skills. Much of what people learn occurs without formal instruction, but highly systematic and organized information systems--reading, mathematics, the sciences, literature, and the history of a society--require formal training, usually in schools. Over time, science, mathematics, and history have posed new problems for learning because of their growing volume and increasing complexity. The value of the knowledge taught in school also began to be examined for its applicability to situations outside school.

    Science now offers new conceptions of the learning process and the development of competent performance. Recent research provides a deep understanding of complex reasoning and performance on problem-solving tasks and how skill and understanding in key subjects are acquired. This book presents a contemporary account of principles of learning, and this summary provides an overview of the new science of learning.

    FIVE THEMES THAT CHANGED CONCEPTIONS OF LEARNING  

    In the last 30 years, research has generated new conceptions of learning in five areas. As a result of the accumulation of new kinds of information about human learning, views of how effective learning proceeds have shifted from the benefits of diligent drill and practice to focus on students' understanding and application of knowledge.

    1. Memory and structure of knowledge Memory has come to be understood as more than simple associations; evidence describes the structures that represent knowledge and meaning. Knowing how learners develop coherent structures of information has been particularly useful in understanding the nature of organized knowledge that underlies effective comprehension and thinking.

    2. Analysis of problem solving and reasoning One of the most important influences on contemporary learning theory has been the basic research on expert learners. Learning theory can now account for how learners acquire skills to search a problem space and then use these general strategies in many problem-solving situations. There is a clear distinction between learned problem-solving skills in novice learners and the specialized expertise of individuals who have proficiency in particular subjects.

    3. Early foundations The development of creative methodologies for assessing infants' responses in controlled research settings has done much to illuminate early learning. Scientific studies of infants and young children have revealed the relationships between children's learning predispositions and their emergent abilities to organize and coordinate information, make inferences, and discover strategies for problem solving. As a result, educators are rethinking the role of the skills and abilities children bring with them to school to take advantage of opportunities for learning in school.

    4. Metacognitive processes and self-regulatory capabilities Individuals can be taught to regulate their behaviors, and these regulatory activities enable self-monitoring and executive control of one's performance. The activities include such strategies as predicting outcomes, planning ahead, apportioning one's time, explaining to one's self in order to improve understanding, noting failures to comprehend, and activating background knowledge.

    5. Cultural experience and community participation Participation in social practice is a fundamental form of learning. Learning involves becoming attuned to the constraints and resources, the limits and possibilities, that are involved in the practices of the community. Learning is promoted by social norms that value the search for understanding. Early learning is assisted by the supportive context of the family and the social environment, through the kinds of activities in which adults engage with children. These activities have the effect of providing to toddlers the structure and interpretation of the culture's norms and rules, and these processes occur long before children enter school.

    EXPERT PERFORMANCE  

    By definition, experts have developed particular ways to think and reason effectively. Understanding expertise is important because it provides insights into the nature of thinking and problem solving. It is not simply general abilities, such as memory or intelligence, nor the use of general strategies that differentiate experts from novices. Instead, experts have acquired extensive knowledge that affects what they notice and how they organize, represent, and interpret information in their environments. This, in turn, affects their abilities to remember, reason, and solve problems.

    Key scientific findings have come from studies of people who have developed expertise in areas such as chess, physics, mathematics, electronics, and history. The examples are important not because all school children are expected to become experts in these or any other areas, but because the study of expertise shows what the results of successful learning look like.

    Key conclusions:

      • Experts notice features and meaningful patterns of information that are not noticed by novices.
      • Experts have acquired a great deal of content knowledge that is organized, and their organization of information reflects a deep understanding of the subject matter.
      • Experts' knowledge cannot be reduced to sets of isolated facts or propositions but, instead, reflects contexts of applicability, i.e., it is "conditionalized."
      • Experts are able to retrieve important aspects of their knowledge with little attentional effort.
      • Though experts know their disciplines thoroughly, this does not guarantee that they are able to instruct others about the topic.
      • Experts have varying levels of flexibility in their approaches to new situations.

    TRANSFER OF LEARNING  

    Another aspect of effective learning is its durability--does the learning have long-term impact in the ways it influences other kinds of learning or performance? Research studies on the concept of transfer of learning comprise a vast literature that can be synthesized into the new science of learning.

    Key conclusions:

      • Skills and knowledge must be extended beyond the narrow contexts in which they are initially learned. For example, knowing how to solve a math problem in school may not transfer to solving math problems in other contexts.
      • It is essential for a learner to develop a sense of when what has been learned can be used--the conditions of application. Failure to transfer is often due to learners' lack of this type of conditional knowledge.
      • Learning must be guided by generalized principles in order to be widely applicable. Knowledge learned at the level of rote memory rarely transfers; transfer most likely occurs when the learner knows and understands underlying principles that can be applied to problems in new contexts.
      • Learners are helped in their independent learning attempts if they have conceptual knowledge. Studies of children's concept formation and conceptual development show the role of learners' mental representations of problems, including how one problem is similar and different from others and understanding the part-whole relationships of the components in the overall structure of a problem.
      • Learners are most successful if they are mindful of themselves as learners and thinkers. A learner's self-awareness as a learner and the role of appraisal strategies keep learning on target or help keep the learner asking if s/he understands. Learners can become independent learners who are capable of sustaining their own learning--in essence, this is how human beings become life-long learners.

    CHILDREN AS LEARNERS  

    While there are remarkable commonalties across learners of all ages, children differ from adult learners in many ways. Studies of young children offer a window into the development of learning, and they show a dynamic picture of learning as it unfolds over time. A fresh understanding of infant cognition and of how young children build on early learning predispositions also offers ideas on ways to ease their transition into formal school settings.

    Key findings:

      • Humans have a predisposition to learn in certain domains, and young children actively engage in making sense of their worlds. In particular domains, such as biological and physical causality, number, and language, infants and young children have strong predispositions to learn rapidly and readily. These biases toward learning support and may make early learning possible and pave the way for competence in early schooling.
      • Children lack knowledge and experience, but not reasoning ability. Although young children are inexperienced, they reason facilely with the knowledge they have.
      • Precocious knowledge may jump-start the learning process, but because of limited experience and undeveloped systems for logical thinking, children's knowledge contains misconceptions. Misinformation can impede school learning, so teachers need to be aware of the ways in which children's background knowledge influences what they understand. Such awareness on the part of teachers will help them anticipate children's confusion and recognize why the children have difficulties grasping new ideas.
      • Strategies for learning are important. Children can learn practically anything by sheer will and effort, but when required to learn about non-privileged domains, they need to develop strategies of intentional learning.
      • Children need to understand what it means to learn, who they are as learners, and how to go about planning, monitoring, and revising, to reflect upon their learning and that of others, and to learn to determine for themselves if they understand. These skills of metacognition provide strategic competencies for learning.
      • Children are both problem solvers and problem generators. They attempt to solve problems presented to them, and they seek novel challenges. They refine and improve their problem-solving strategies in the face of failure and often build on prior successes. They persist because success and understanding are motivating in their own right.
      • Adults help children make connections between new situations and familiar ones. Children's curiosity and persistence are supported by adults who direct children's attention, structure experiences, support learning attempts, and regulate the complexity and difficulty levels of information for children.

    Children, thus, exhibit capacities that are shaped by environmental experiences and the individuals who care for them. Developmental processes involve interactions between children's early competencies and the environmental supports--strengthening relevant capacities and pruning the early abilities that are less relevant to the child's community. Learning is promoted and regulated by both the biology and ecology of the child; learning produces development.

    COLLATERAL DEVELOPMENT OF MIND AND BRAIN

    Advances in neuroscience are confirming many theoretical hypotheses, including the important role of early experience in development. What is new, and therefore important for a new science of learning, is the convergence of evidence from a number of scientific fields. As developmental psychology, cognitive psychology, and neuroscience, to name but three, have contributed vast numbers of research studies, details about learning and development have converged to form a more complete picture of how intellectual development occurs. Clarification of some of the mechanisms of learning by neuroscience advanced with the advent of non-invasive imaging technologies, such as positron emission tomography (PET) and functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). These technologies enabled researchers to observe directly functions of human learning.

    The key finding is the importance of experience in building the structure of the mind by modifying the structures of the brain: development is not solely the unfolding of preprogrammed patterns. Some of the rules that govern learning are now known. One of the simplest rules is that practice increases learning and there is a corresponding relationship between the amount of experience in a complex environment and the amount of structural change in the brain.

    Key conclusions:

      • Learning changes the physical structure of the brain.
      • Structural changes alter the functional organization of the brain; in other words, learning organizes and reorganizes the brain.
      • Different parts of the brain may be ready to learn at different times.

    DESIGNS FOR LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS  

    Theoretical physics does not prescribe the design of a bridge, but surely it constrains the design of successful ones. Similarly, learning theory provides no simple recipe for designing effective learning environments, but it constrains the design of effective ones. New research raises important questions about the design of learning environments--questions that suggest the value of rethinking what is taught, how it is taught, and how it is assessed.

    A fundamental tenet of modern learning theory is that different kinds of learning goals require different approaches to instruction; new goals for education require changes in opportunities to learn. The design of learning environments is linked to issues that are especially important in the processes of learning, transfer, and competent performance. Those processes, in turn, are affected by the degree to which learning environments are student centered, knowledge centered, assessment centered, and community centered.

    Key conclusions:

      • Learner-centered environments Effective instruction begins with what learners bring to the setting; this includes cultural practices and beliefs, as well as knowledge of academic content. A focus on the degree to which environments are learner centered is consistent with the evidence showing that learners use their current knowledge to construct new knowledge and that what they know and believe at the moment affects how they interpret new information. Sometimes learners' current knowledge supports new learning; sometimes it hampers learning.

    People may have acquired knowledge yet fail to activate it in a particular setting. Learner-centered environments attempt to help students make connections between their previous knowledge and their current academic tasks. Parents are especially good at helping their children make connections. Teachers have a harder time because they do not share the life experiences of all of their students, so they have to become familiar with each student's special interests and strengths.

      • Knowledge-centered environments The ability to think and solve problems requires knowledge that is accessible and applied appropriately. An emphasis on knowledge-centered instruction raises a number of questions, such as the degree to which instruction focuses on ways to help students use their current knowledge and skills. New knowledge about early learning suggests that young students are capable of grasping more complex concepts than was believed previously. However, these concepts must be presented in ways that are developmentally appropriate by linking learning to their current understanding. A knowledge-centered perspective on learning environments highlights the importance of thinking about designs for curricula. To what extent do they help students learn with understanding versus promote the acquisition of disconnected sets of facts and skills? Curricula that are a "mile wide and an inch deep" run the risk of developing disconnected rather than connected knowledge.
      • Assessment to support learning Issues of assessment also represent an important perspective for viewing the design of learning environments. Feedback is fundamental to learning, but feedback opportunities are often scarce in classrooms. Students may receive grades on tests and essays, but these are summative assessments that occur at the end of projects. What are needed are formative assessments, which provide students with opportunities to revise and improve the quality of their thinking and understanding. Assessments must reflect the learning goals that define various environments. If the goal is to enhance understanding and applicability of knowledge, it is not sufficient to provide assessments that focus primarily on memory for facts and formulas.
      • Community-centered environments The fourth, important perspective on learning environments is the degree to which they promote a sense of community. Students, teachers, and other interested participants share norms that value learning and high standards. Norms such as these increase people's opportunities and motivation to interact, receive feedback, and learn. The importance of connected communities becomes clear when one examines the relatively small amount of time spent in school compared to other settings. Activities in homes, community centers, and after-school clubs can have important effects on students' academic achievement.

    EFFECTIVE TEACHING  

    Expertise of any kind involves more than a set of general problem-solving skills; it also requires well-organized knowledge of concepts and inquiry procedures. Various disciplines are organized differently and have their own methods of inquiry. For example, the evidence needed to support a set of historical claims is different from the evidence needed to prove a mathematical conjecture, and both of these differ from the evidence needed to test a scientific theory.

    Key conclusions:

      • Effective teachers need "pedagogical content knowledge"--knowledge about how to teach in particular disciplines, which is different from knowledge of general teaching methods.
      • Expert teachers know the structure of their disciplines and this provides them with cognitive roadmaps that guide the assignments they give students, the assessments they use to gauge student progress, and the questions they ask in the give and take of classroom life.

    In short, teachers' knowledge of the discipline and their knowledge of pedagogy interact. But knowledge of the discipline structure does not in itself guide a teacher. Expert teachers are sensitive to those aspects of the discipline that are especially hard and easy for new students to master. An emphasis on interactions between disciplinary knowledge and pedagogical knowledge directly contradicts a common misconception about what teachers need to know in order to design effective learning environments for their students. The misconception is that teaching consists only of a set of general methods, that a good teacher can teach any subject, and that content knowledge alone is sufficient.

    Teacher learning is relatively new as a research topic, so there is limited information about it. Nevertheless, the research that exists, generally in the form of rich case studies, provides important information about what kinds of learning opportunities teachers need in order to change their practices.

    Key findings:

      • Opportunities for teachers to continue their learning fall short when viewed from the perspective of being learner, knowledge, assessment, and community centered. Preservice programs often fail to provide the kinds of learning experiences that lead to learning for understanding or teaching for understanding.
      • Successful learning for teachers requires a continuum of coordinated efforts that range from preservice education to early mentored teaching to opportunities for lifelong development as professionals. Creating such opportunities represents a major challenge.

    NEW TECHNOLOGIES  

    A number of the features of new technologies are consistent with the principles of a new science of learning.

    Key conclusions:

      • Because many new technologies are interactive, it is now easier to create environments in which students can learn by doing, receive feedback, and continually refine their understanding and build new knowledge.
      • Technologies can help people visualize difficult-to-understand concepts, such as differentiating heat from temperature. Students are able to work with visualization and modeling software similar to the tools used in nonschool environments to increase their conceptual understanding and the likelihood of transfer from school to nonschool settings.
      • New technologies provide access to a vast array of information, including digital libraries, real-world data for analysis, and connections to other people who provide information, feedback, and inspiration, all of which can enhance the learning of teachers and administrators as well as students.

    There are many ways that technology can be used to help create such environments, both for teachers and for the students whom they teach. However, many issues arise in considering how to educate teachers to use new technologies effectively. What do they need to know about learning processes? About the technology? What kinds of training are most effective for helping teachers use high-quality instructional programs? What is the best way to use technology to facilitate teacher learning? Good educational software and teacher-support tools, developed with full understanding of principles of learning, have not yet become the norm.

    RESEARCH FOR THE FUTURE  

    It will take time and effort to communicate the new approaches to learning and teaching throughout the very decentralized U.S. education system. We suggest a number of ways to begin the process through a research agenda that follows from our conclusions. The research will have greatest potential for impact in education if it is implemented as a program of research, making educational research an integrative science.

    The Research Foundations of the Learning Sciences  

      • The committee recommends a commitment to basic research programs in cognition, learning, and teaching.

    Our report has shown the payoff from investing in research on such topics as the foundational role of learners' prior knowledge in acquiring new information; plasticity and adaptability of learning; the importance of social and cultural contexts in learning; understanding the conditions of transfer of learning; how the organizational structure of a discipline affects learning; how time, familiarity, and exploration impact fluency in learning; and many other topics. While these areas have produced an impressive body of research findings, the research needs to be continued. The framework has been constructed from the earlier research; details now need to be provided in order to advance the science of learning by refining the principles.

      • The committee recommends establishing new research programs in emerging areas, including technology, neurocognition, and sociocultural factors that mediate learning. Research is needed on the interrelations between learning and learning environments and between teaching and learning.

    This research will build on current findings in areas such as how children learn to apply their competencies as they encounter new information; how early competencies relate to later school learning; the conditions and experiences that support knowledge scaffolding; and how representational systems are challenged by new tools of technology, such as visual cognition and other types of symbolic thinking.

      • The committee recommends new assessment research to focus on improving and implementing formative assessment.

    Teachers need a variety of supports and learning opportunities for making their classrooms assessment centered in ways that support learning. Research questions that remain to be addressed include: How does a teacher use assessment? What skills do teachers need in order to be able to use formative assessments in ways that will improve their teaching? What kinds of supports do teachers need for learning and adopting innovative assessment processes?

    The Foundations for Science Learning

    The committee held a workshop on children's cognitive development and the ways in which cognitive science research has influenced science instruction in recent years. The workshop explored ways in which new research findings can facilitate new directions in areas of science and mathematics learning.

    Key questions:

      • How does the field "scale up" successful demonstrations of research-based curricula so that they can be implemented in many diverse settings under the guidance of many different kinds of teachers?
      • Which factors influence the conversion of research knowledge into effective instructional methods in real settings?
      • Do strategies that work for science education also work to improve instruction in other subject areas?
      • How can preschool children be assisted in developing representational structures so that there are bridges, rather than gaps, between early and later school learning?
      • How can collaborative learning environments be organized in ways that counteract societal stereotypes and tap diversity as a positive resource for learning?
      • Which kinds of assessments can effectively measure new kinds of science learning?
      • How do the features of a constructivist curriculum interact with other social factors in classrooms?
      • What is the impact of new technologies on school performance?

    Methodologies of the Learning Sciences  

    The research areas relevant to the science of learning are demonstratively broad, including cognitive development, cognitive science, developmental psychology, neuroscience, anthropology, social psychology, sociology, cross-cultural research, research on learning in subject areas such as science, mathematics, history, and research on effective teaching, pedagogy, and the design of learning environments. New technologies are needed for assessing learning in ways that track the growth of learning, not just the cumulation of facts. Developing effective research methodologies is particularly important for research from this diverse array of disciplines.

      • The committee recommends that government agencies and research foundations develop initiatives and mechanisms of support specifically aimed at strengthening the methodological underpinnings of learning sciences. Such mechanisms should include cross-field collaborations, internships, visiting scholar programs, training junior scholars in interdisciplinary approaches, and other procedures to foster collaborations for learning and developing new methodologies that can lead to more rigorous investigations in the science of learning.
      • The committee recommends research aimed at developing and standardizing new measures and methods. Studies should be conducted and validated with diverse populations. New statistical techniques should be developed for analyzing the complex systems of learning. New qualitative measurement techniques need to be developed.
      • The committee recommends new research that is focused on ways to integrate qualitative and quantitative methods across the learning sciences.

    Collaborations in the Science of Learning

    This book emphasizes the breadth of knowledge areas that affect learners and the significant advances that have been the direct result of collaborative research efforts across disciplines. That kind of collaboration is critical to further development of the learning sciences.

      • The committee recommends that government agencies and research foundations explicitly support a wide variety of interdisciplinary collaborations in the learning sciences. Such work should include teachers.

    The field of learning research needs to become more integrated in focus and draw together relevant fields for interdisciplinary collaborations. To this end, mechanisms are needed to prepare a new generation of learning scientists by supporting interdisciplinary training for students and scientists to work together. It is important to expand the research scope so that basic researchers and educational researchers can work together on basic and applied issues and to facilitate ways for teachers and researchers to work together. Fields such as neuroscience and cognitive science have made important advances through their joint efforts, but researchers had to learn the methodologies and techniques of each discipline before new research studies could be conducted. Efforts are now needed to direct training programs in order to foster such interdisciplinary learning.

      • The committee recommends establishing national databases to encourage collaboration.

    To capitalize on the new developments in information systems, research scientists of varying disciplines should be linked together, and teachers should be included in these virtual dialogues. In addition to electronic linkages through websites, scientists should begin to share databases with one another and work with national databases that they can access electronically.

    Databases that link physics researchers with classroom physics educators, for example, have the potential to bring the two sectors closer to the core issues of the field. Basic researchers often have a poor understanding of why learners fail to grasp basic concepts of the field; teachers often fail to see relationships of core concepts that, if better understood from the standpoint of theory, could facilitate their teaching. National databases can foster interdisciplinary collaboration and uses of cross-disciplinary data, promote broader exploration of testable questions across datasets, increase the quality of data by maintaining accurate and uniform records, and promote cost-effectiveness through the sharing of research data. Furthermore, national databases that are built from representative samples of the changing school population have the potential of broadening the scope and power of research findings.

    Technology Research to Enhance Learning

    Because many computer-based technologies are relatively new to classrooms, basic premises about learning with these tools need to be examined with respect to the principles of learning.

      • The committee recommends extensive evaluation research be conducted through both small-scale studies and large-scale evaluations to determine the goals, assumptions, and uses of technologies in classrooms and the match or mismatch of these uses with the principles of learning and the transfer of learning.

    Teachers' Professional Development  

    Much of what constitutes the typical approach to formal teacher professional development is antithetical to what promotes teacher learning.

      • The committee recommends research to explain how people learn to be effective teachers.



    » See document: http://books.nap.edu/html/howpeople1/
     
  • Learning Strategies Database
    » See document: http://muskingum.edu/~cal/database/database.html
     
  • Theory+Into+Practice
    The Theory Into Practice (TIP) database contains descriptions of over 50 theories relevant to human learning and instruction. Each description includes the following sections: overview, scope/application, example, principles, and references. Relationships between theories are identified by highlighted text within articles. These relationships can be connections between specific theories or to concepts that underlie a number of theories. The theories are also indexed according to content domain and type of learning.


    Theories were selected for inclusion in the database based upon their relevance to some aspect of human learning and instruction. All theories come from published literature (English language only). Theories that focus on animal learning, neuropsychology, learning disabilities or teaching strategies are not included. The database also does not include theories of learning that have limited scientific support (see Druckman & Swets, 1988; Druckman & Bjork, 1991) or are primarily philosophical in nature (e.g ., Dewey, Freire, Illich, Polanyi).


    In cases where there are a number of researchers associated with a theoretical framework, the version associated with the originator or most prominent researcher is presented. The descriptions of theories provided in each article, including the examples and principles, were developed from the analysis of secondary sources as well as the primary works of the theorists. These secondary sources include: Bugelski (1971), Hilgard & Bower (1971), Klausmeier & Goodwin (1975), Lefrancois (1995), Reigeluth (1983), Richey (1986), Sahakian (1976), and Snelbecker (1974).


    One important consideration to keep in mind when reading the articles is that theories change over time. The descriptions herein present theories at a particular stage of development (usually their most well-known or recent form). Furthermore, almost all of the theories discussed are substantial; the brief summaries provided only outline the basic ideas and implications. TIP is intended to be a guide that identifies theory relevant to particular instructional settings.


    » See document: http://tip.psychology.org/
     
  • Advantages | Disadvantages | Preparation
    » See document: http://www.adprima.com/teachmeth.htm
     
    • DIRECT TEACHING
      Advantages
      Disadvantages
      Preparation
      Very specific learning targets.
      Students are told reasons why content is important - helps to clarify lesson objective.
      Relatively easy to measure student gains.
      Is a widely accepted instructional method.
      Good for teaching specific facts and basic skills.
      Can stifle teacher creativity.
      Requires well-organized content preparation and good oral communication skills.
      Steps must be followed in prescribed order.
      May not be effective for higher-order thinking skills, depending on the knowledge base and skill of the teacher.
      Content must be organized in advance.
      Teacher should have information about student prerequisites for the lesson.




       
    • COOPERATIVE LEARNING
      Advantages
      Disadvantages
      Preparation
      Helps foster mutual responsibility.
      Supported by research as an effective technique.
      Students learn to be patient, less critical and more compassionate.
      Some students don't work well this way.
      Loners find it hard to share answers.
      Aggressive students try to take over.
      Bright students tend to act superior.
      Decide what skills or knowledge are to be learned.
      Requires some time to prepare students. to learn how to work in groups.




       
    • LECTURE
      Advantages
      Disadvantages
      Preparation
      Factual material is presented in a direct, logical manner.
      May provide experiences that inspire
      - useful for large groups.
      Proficient oral skills are necessary.
      Audience is often passive.
      Learning is difficult to gauge.
      Communication is one-way.
      Not appropriate for children below grade 4.
      There should be a clear introduction and summary.
      Effectiveness related to time and scope of content.
      Is always audience specific; often includes examples, anecdotes.




       
    • LECTURE WITH DISCUSSION
      Advantages
      Disadvantages
      Preparation
      Involves students, at least after the lecture.
      Students can question, clarify and challenge.
      Lecture can be interspersed with discussion.
      Time constraints may affect discussion opportunities.
      Effectiveness is connected to appropriate questions and discussion; often requires teacher to "shift gears" quickly.
      Teacher should be prepared to allow questions during lecture, as appropriate.
      Teacher should also anticipate difficult questions and prepare appropriate responses in advance.




       
    • PANEL OF EXPERTS
      Advantages
      Disadvantages
      Preparation
      Experts present different opinions.
      Can provoke better discussion than a one person discussion.
      Frequent change of speaker keeps attention from lagging.
      Personalities may overshadow content.
      Experts are often not effective speakers.
      Subject may not be in logical order.
      Not appropriate for elementary age students.
      Logistics can be troublesome.
      Teacher coordinates focus of panel, introduces and summarizes.
      Teacher briefs panel.




       
    • DISCUSSION

       

      Advantages
      Disadvantages
      Preparation
      Pools ideas and experiences from group
      Effective after a presentation, film or experience that needs to be analyzed
      Allows everyone to participate in an active process
      Not practical with more that 20 students
      A few students can dominate
      Some students may not participate
      Is time consuming
      Can get off the track
      Requires careful planning by teacher to guide discussion
      Requires question outline





       
    • SMALL GROUP DISCUSSION

      Video


       
    • CASE STUDIES
      Advantages
      Disadvantages
      Preparation
      Develops analytic and problem solving skills
      Allows for exploration of solutions for complex issues
      Allows student to apply new knowledge and skills
      Students may not see relevance to own situation
      Insufficient information can lead to inappropriate results
      Not appropriate for elementary level
      Case must be clearly defined
      Case study must be prepared




       
    • ROLE PLAYING
      Advantages
      Disadvantages
      Preparation
      Introduces problem situation dramatically
      Provides opportunity for students to assume roles of others and thus appreciate another point of view
      Allows for exploration of solutions
      Provides opportunity to practice skills
      Some students may be too self-conscious
      Not appropriate for large groups
      Some students may feel threatened
      Teacher has to define problem situation and roles clearly
      Teacher must give very clear instructions




       
    • WORKSHEET/SURVEYS

      Advantages
      Disadvantages
      Preparation
      Introduces problem situation dramatically
      Provides opportunity for students to assume roles of others and thus appreciate another point of view
      Allows for exploration of solutions
      Provides opportunity to practice skills
      Some students may be too self-conscious
      Not appropriate for large groups
      Some students may feel threatened
      Teacher has to define problem situation and roles clearly
      Teacher must give very clear instructions




       
    • GUEST SPEAKERS
      Advantages
      Disadvantages
      Preparation
      Personalizes topic
      Breaks down audience's stereotypes
      May not be a good speaker
      Contact speakers and coordinate
      Introduce speaker appropriately




       
    • VALUES CLARIFICATION
      Advantages
      Disadvantages
      Preparation
      Opportunity to explore values and beliefs
      Allows students to discuss values in a safe environment
      Gives structure to discussion
      Students may not be honest about their values.
      Students may be too self-conscious.
      Students may not be able to articulate their values in an effective way.
      Teacher must carefully prepare exercise
      Teacher must give clear instructions
      Teacher must prepare discussion




       
    • Video Tape Slides
      Advantages
      Disadvantages
      Preparation
      Develops analytic and problem solving skills
      Allows for exploration of solutions for complex issues
      Allows student to apply new knowledge and skills
      Students may not see relevance to own situation
      Insufficient information can lead to inappropriate results
      Not appropriate for elementary level
      Case must be clearly defined
      Case study must be prepared




       
    • Brainstorming
      Advantages
      Disadvantages
      Preparation
      Listening exercise that allows creative thinking for new ideas.
      Encourages full participation because all ideas are equally recorded.
      Draws on group's knowledge and experience.
      Spirit of cooperation is created.
      One idea can spark off other ideas.
      Can be unfocused.
      Needs to be limited to 5 - 7 minutes.
      Students may have difficulty getting away from known reality.
      If not managed well, criticism and negative evaluation may occur.
      Value to students depends in part on their maturity level.
      Teacher selects issue.
      Teacher must be ready to intervene when the process is hopelessly bogged doen.




       

bullet2 Architecture Understanding

» See document: http://www.funderstanding.com/theories.cfm

  • Influences
    » See document: http://www.funderstanding.com/influences.cfm
     
    • Complexity
      Complexity

      Characteristics of a complex system


      A complex system is emergent. In an emergent system, smaller parts comprise a larger system. This larger system has properties the smaller units lack. For example, the brain is made up of individual neurons that, when functioning together, are capable of tasks no single neuron can perform alone. The new properties only emerge when the neurons work together.


      A complex system is unpredictable.

      A complex system contains many iterations and feedback/feedforward loops.

      In a complex system, decision-making is decentralized.


      Learning is a typically a "complex" activity. Most learning systems contain a number of separate parts that must work together for learning to occur. For example, a typical learning system consists of students, a teacher, a content focus, and resources. This system operates according to a fixed plan--the students follow the teacher's "rules."


      Learning environments


      A learning environment can be emergent. Working together, a group of learners can collectively build their knowledge of a topic, for instance, the phases of the moon. To do so, each learner might research a particular lunar phase, then share what he or she has learned with the rest of the group. This way, the group amasses a body of knowledge that no one person could have acquired alone.

      A learning environment can be unpredictable. An exploration of the phases of the moon could result in the group considering whether planets also have phases.

      A learning environment can contain many iterations and feedback/feedforward loops. People learn by trial and error--in other words, they learn from their mistakes.

      Decision-making in a learning environment can be decentralized. Groups can really thrive when students control the learning process, rather than the instructor.


      It's quite possible that learning occurs best on the "edge of chaos," where order and chaos meet. To see for yourself, check out these two resources:

      Kevin Kelley's outstanding book, {HYPERLINK "http://www.hotwired.com/staff/kevin/oocontrolpress.html"} Out of Control , examines how we can use biological theories to help us construct complex systems.

      If you want to experience complexity in action, try "building" your own system with {HYPERLINK "http://www.maxis.com/"} SimCity . This software offers a fantastic way to learn about urban planning, while viewing many of the principles of complexity in action. Plus, it's a blast!



       
    • Neural Networks
      Neural Networks

      Computers are the ideal metaphor for the human mind. Cognitive scientists have long used the serial processor as their model for the brain because this type of computer excels in deductive reasoning.

      Researchers are also exploring whether parallel processors can serve as models for how the brain functions. Parallel processors are computers that excel at pattern recognition, or inductive thinking. Parallel processors that can handle many instructions at once are called neural networks (or nets). Neural nets excel at inductive tasks, such as pattern recognition, for which many commercial applications are now being developed.

      It's possible these researchers will conclude that the brain is not a linear tool, as originally suggested by the serial model, but that the parallel model of processing information more closely represents how the mind works. Maybe the ultimate model of the human brain would be one that combines both the serial and parallel analogies.






       
    • Systems Theory
      Systems Theory

      In The Fifth Discipline, author Peter Senge details five characteristics that comprise what he calls a "learning organization"--in other words, an organization which cultivates an effective learning environment. The five traits of a learning organization are:

        1. Systems Thinking--Senge defines this as examining the patterns that connect the larger system. This kind of thinking is intuitive. In fact, children pick it up almost instantly.
        2. Personal Mastery--The key to this trait is to continually clarify and deepen our personal vision, focus our energies, develop patience, and see reality objectively.
        3. Shared Vision--This occurs when a group collectively develops a "picture of the future." Shared vision is the sum of the personal visions of all participating individuals. It is not something a person can learn by rote; instead, it stems from a deep-seated belief.
        4. Team Learning--The group IQ is higher than that of the individual. Just like in complex systems, unexpected results that are greater than the sum of their parts will emerge. However, people have to communicate with each other for team learning to take effect.
        5. Mental Models--Senge attest that we must continually question the deeply ingrained assumptions, generalizations, and perceptions that influence how we comprehend and react to the world. Once we understand our biases, we can begin to examine and deconstruct them.



       
    • Architecture
      Architecture

       Consider the following quotes by Christopher Alexander, architect and author of The Timeless Way of Building. Do you see any connections between the design of buildings and the design of learning environments?


      "Behind all processes which allow us to make buildings live, there is a single common process...but though this method is precise, it cannot be used mechanically. Indeed, it turns out, in the end, that what this method does is simply free us from all method...It is a process which lies deep in us: and only needs to be released. But these are not mechanical rules. They require the nature of the designer, and of the learner, to be considered. This makes things always changing and different."


      "We find out that we already know how to make buildings live, but that the power has been frozen in us: that we have it, but are afraid to use it: that we are crippled by our fears, and crippled by the methods and the images which we use to overcome these fears. But we learn too, that this capacity in us is not accessible, until we first go through the discipline which teaches us to let go of our fears. It is instead a process which lies deep in us: and only needs to be released. It is a process which brings order out of nothing but ourselves; it cannot be attained, but it will happen of its own accord, if we will only let it."


      "At the human level of complexity, then, there is a distinction between systems which are true to their 'inner nature,' and those which aren't. Not all of us are equally true to our inner nature, or equally real, or equally whole. And exactly the same is true in those larger systems, outside us, which we call our world. Not all parts of the world are equally true to themselves, equally real, equally whole."



       
  • Theory
     
  • Patterns
    Patterns

    Christopher Alexander's work on {HYPERLINK "architecture.cfm"}     pattern languages  provides a framework for thinking about the design of houses. We believe the same thing is needed for the design of educational products. A pattern language is like grammar--each part contains different ways to define how we think about education. Funderstanding uses a pattern language to provide a structure to our design. Within this structure, we use the pattern language to express ourselves in a way that's easily understood by others. The major components of our grammar are outlined below.

    We apply the "grammatical rules" of our pattern language by starting with the broader issues and working our way down to the specifics. For example, when we confront a new challenge, we tackle the large groups first. Once we understand how the large groups operate, we determine what components of knowledge management are appropriate for them. Then we determine what needs to be done to seed a community of practice. Next we select the relevant learning styles. We don't always use all the components detailed below; however, we use some of them on every project. Because this process is a work-in-progress, we welcome your comments on it.

      1. Large groups
          • Knowledge management
          • User-contributed content
          • Intelligent agents
          • Expert view
      2. Small groups
          • Communities of practice
          • Multiple perspectives
      3. Individual learning styles
          • Just-in-time
          • Simulation
          • Tutorial
          • Assessment
      4. Intrapersonal skills
          • Brain-based learning
          • Cognitive psychology
          • Emotional Intelligence
            • Self-motivation
            • Mood management
            • Self-awareness



     

bullet2 Funding

  • Kellog
    Strategy 1: Mobilize youth, families, and communities to influence institutions and policies that impact learning and achievement for vulnerable children and youth.


    Strategy 2: Forge partnerships between education institutions and communities to promote learning, academic performance, and workforce preparation among vulnerable young people.


    » See document: http://www.wkkf.org/
     
    • Youth | Education
       Overview


      The W.K. Kellogg Foundation has a long history of supporting the education and development of young people. Following Mr. Kellogg's wishes, the Kellogg Foundation was founded as a child welfare foundation that focused its initial work in Michigan. Today, Youth and Education Programs work nationwide as an arm of one of the nation's largest private foundations dedicated to improving the lives of youth through education and healthy development.


       


      Through 2008, the Youth and Education team will focus on improving learning for young people especially those most vulnerable to poor achievement so children can enter school ready to learn, more adolescents are able to achieve, and young adults are prepared for meaningful work or further education.


       


      The Kellogg Foundation will employ a number of approaches in addressing this theme. One major approach will develop a more seamless educational pipeline, especially engaging post-secondary education institutions with communities to achieve mutually beneficial goals. Other programs will support partnerships among families, communities, and institutions including schools and state agencies so that they will work together for children.  


       


      Youth and Education 2001-2008


      Goal: Support healthy infant, child, and youth development by mobilizing, strengthening, and aligning systems that affect children's learning.


      Strategy 1: Mobilize youth, families, and communities to influence institutions and policies that impact learning and achievement for vulnerable children and youth.


          Initiative--SPARK: Supporting Partnerships to Assure Ready Kids


      Strategy 2: Forge partnerships between education institutions and communities to promote learning, academic performance, and workforce preparation among vulnerable young people.


          Initiative--New Options for Youth Through Engaged Institutions


       


      In addition to the goal, two strategies provide primary programming guidance. Each strategy is supported by an initiative as well as by individual grants that address the strategy in innovative ways. At this time, the Youth and Education team is not accepting proposals for the initiatives. However, the team is interested in programs that address the goal and strategies in creative ways. For more information, see Youth and Education General Grantmaking.


       


      In support of strategy 1 is the SPARK (Supporting Partnerships to Assure Ready Kids) initiative, which will encourage more seamless transitions to school for children in eight states and localities. SPARK targets children who are most vulnerable for being unprepared to enter school. Programs will mobilize partnerships of families, caregivers, communities, and states to better coordinate preschool and formal school settings. The goal of SPARK is to ensure both ready children and schools that are ready to receive them.


       


      The focal initiative for strategy 2 is called New Options for Youth Through Engaged Institutions. This initiative will support partnerships between communities and post-secondary education institutions to create innovative learning alternatives for vulnerable adolescents, ages 14-20, who do not succeed in traditional environments. The initiative is designed to find bold, new ways to help young people achieve higher levels of learning and prepare for meaningful work or post-secondary education.  


       


      The Youth and Education team develops and manages the strategic initiatives, which generally encompass 60 percent of total resources. The other 40 percent of grants encompass non-initiative work through strategic or goal-focused grants.


       


      During implementation of the strategies and initiatives, the Youth and Education team remains committed to completing the work of several "carryover" initiatives. While these obligations continue through varying periods of commitment, the Foundation will carry out this work with identified partners and projects. No new proposals are being accepted for these ongoing initiatives, which include ENLACE (Engaging Latino Communities for Education), Kellogg Youth Initiative Partnerships, Middle Start, and the Native American Higher Education Initiative.


      » See document: http://www.wkkf.org/Programming/Overview.aspx?CID=3
       
    • Grant Seeking


      Grantseeking

      What we fund

      The Foundation will consider requests that fall within our established or developing programming areas, as listed below. Most grants are awarded in the United States, Latin America and the Caribbean, and six southern Africa countries including Botswana, Lesotho, Mozambique, South Africa, Swaziland, and Zimbabwe. To be eligible for a grant, the organization or institution, as well as the purpose of the proposed project, must qualify under regulations of the United States Internal Revenue Service as a 501c3 organization. For information on Section 501c3 status, follow this link to the IRS.

      What we don't fund

      The Foundation generally does not make loans and does not provide grants for:


          * operational phases of established programs;

          * capital purposes (purchasing, remodeling, or furnishing of facilities and equipment, except as part of a programmatic effort);

          * separate budget line items labeled as "indirect or overhead costs";

          * conferences;

          * films, television, or radio programs unless they are an integral parts of a project or program already being funded;

          * endowments or development campaigns;

          * religious programs; or

          * individuals.


      Note: Research, planning or studies are sometimes funded only as part of a broader program or Foundation-funded project.

      Applying For A Grant


      We do not have pre-printed application forms, but encourage grant applicants to submit their requests electronically using the Foundation's online application/form. Grant applications are also accepted through the mail. The content of your initial contact should include certain pieces information. Please review the How to Apply for a Grant section and our Frequently Asked Questions to get an understanding of how we process grants and what information to send.

      Explore Current Grants by Programming Area

      Health  

      Food Systems and Rural Development

      Youth and Education

      Philanthropy and Volunteerism

      Greater Battle Creek

      Cross Programming Work: Devolution

      Southern Africa

      Latin America and the Caribbean



       
    • Process


      How to Apply for a Grant


          The Kellogg Foundation is able to fund only a very small percentage of the requests it currently receives. Many requests are declined, not because they are lacking in merit, but because they do not match our current programming interests or programming guidelines.


          The Kellogg Foundation does not have pre-printed application forms. We encourage grant applicants to submit their requests electronically using the Foundation's online form. Those who do not wish to apply electronically should submit a preproposal letter through the mail (address provided at the end of this section).  The preproposal should be up to five pages in length and contain the following minimal information:  


              * contact name

              * legal organization name (please spell out acronyms where possible)

              * complete street and mailing address

              * phone numbers and e-mail addresses (where possible)

              * grant purpose statement (40-50 words maximum)

              * total dollar amount requested

              * project activities, objectives, targeted audience(s), operational procedures, and time schedules (or anticipated duration of the proposed grant)

              * anticipated outcomes/impacts/sustainability  

              * personnel and financial resources available and needed


          Preproposals submitted electronically should use a Word/WordPerfect format or entered into our online form. Preproposals sent through the mail should be submitted on standard-size (8-1/2" x 11"), light-colored paper. If you choose to submit the preproposal via mail, please do not provide a plastic-bound or expensively produced document.


          Due to the large volume of materials received, please do not send the following: invoices, IRS information, board of directors or staff lists/job descriptions, resumes or staff bios, annual reports/publications, letters of support, news articles, photographs, videos, cassettes, CDs or books. At this preliminary stage, personal visits to the Foundation by prospective grantees are discouraged.


          The Foundation gives prompt consideration to all requests / applications. The initial review may take up to three months to complete. If the proposed project falls within the Foundation's Programming Interests and Guidelines and resources are available, the applicant may be asked to develop a more detailed proposal.


          Written requests / applications should be addressed to:


              Mrs. Deborah A. Rey

              Supervisor of Proposal Processing

              W.K. Kellogg Foundation

              One Michigan Avenue East

              Battle Creek, Michigan 49017-4058



      » See document: http://www.wkkf.org/Grants/Process.aspx
       
    • Online Application
      » See document: http://www.wkkf.org/Grants/Application.aspx
       
    • Tips | Resources


      Tips for Successful Grantseeking

      The W.K. Kellogg Foundation cannot fund every request and we realize that seeking funding can be time consuming and even frustrating. Here are a series of links that may inform your process.

      Listing of Resources on the World Wide Web

      The following links are provided as a courtesy only. They lead to nationally and internationally recognized funding organizations that are easily found on the World Wide Web. Please read our policy on offsite links.


          * Council of Foundations

          * Charity and Philanthropy at Yahoo (explore issues and causes)

          * The Foundation Center

          * GuideStar

          * Women & Philanthropy

          * National Science Foundation:  Also see:

            http://grants.nih.gov/grants/index.cfm

          * Association of Small Foundations

          * Forum of Regional Association of Grantmakers

          * Grantmakers for Effective Organizations

          * New Tithing Group

          * National Center for Family Philanthropy

          * The ePhilanthropy Foundation


      The Insider’s Guide to Grantmaking


      How Foundations Find, Fund and Manage Effective Programs


      A book by

      Joel J. Orosz.


      Author Joel Orosz not only introduces readers to the history, structure, and function of foundations in society, but also explores the complex role that program officers play in their day-to-day activities. He provides real-world advice on a myriad of tasks – from meeting with applicants and reviewing their proposals to assisting the funded project and managing foundation initiatives.


      He also asks critical questions about this growing and evolving profession. What kind of person should become a grantmaker? How does one avoid the seven temptations of philanthropy?


      Orosz is a program director in Philanthropy and Volunteerism at the W.K. Kellogg Foundation. He earned his Ph.D. in American history from Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio.


      Throughout the book, Orosz informs his lively, thoughtful discussions with his own considerable experience in grantmaking.


      Contents include:


          * Making Sense of the Grantmaking Universe

          * Grantmaking: The Human Factor

          * Building Relationships with Applicants

          * Reviewing Proposals

          * Declining Proposals

          * Responding to Proposals

          * Site Visits

          * Writing the Funding Document

          * Presenting the Funding Document

          * Managing the Project

          * Closing the Project

          * Leveraging Impact

          * Influencing Policy

          * Initiative-Based Grantmaking

          * The Ethics of Grantmaking

          * Epilogue: The Future of Formal Philanthropy


      The Insider’s Guide to Grantmaking is available in hardcover (276 pages). It can be ordered directly from the publisher.


      » See document: http://www.wkkf.org/Grants/Grantseeking_Resources.aspx
       
  • NSF
    » See document: http://www.nsf.gov/
     
    • Grant Policy Manual
      » See document: http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2002/nsf02151/start.htm
       
    • Proposal Guide
      # Introduction


         1. Overview

         2. The Proposal

            Proprietary or Privileged Information

         3. Who May Submit Proposals

            Categories of Proposers

         4. When to Submit Proposals

         5. How to Submit Proposals

               1. Electronic Requirements

                  Special Instructions for Proposals That Contain High Resolution Graphics or Other Graphics Where Exact Color Representations are Required for Proper Interpretation by the Reviewer

               2. Submission Instructions

               3. Acknowledgement of Proposal Receipt


      # Proposal Preparation Instructions


         1. Conformance with Instructions for Proposal Preparation

         2. Format of the Proposal

               1. Proposal Pagination Instructions

               2. Proposal Margin and Spacing Requirements

         3. Proposal Contents

               1. Single Copy Documents

                     1. Information About Principal Investigators/Project Directors and co-Principal Investigators/co-Project Directors

                     2. Deviation Authorization (if applicable)

                     3. List of Suggested Reviewers or Reviewers Not to Include

                     4. Proprietary or Privileged Information if applicable)

                     5. Proposal Certifications

                            * Certification for Authorized Organizational Representative or Individual Applicant

                            * Certification Regarding Conflict of Interest

                            * Drug-Free Workplace

                            * Debarment and Suspension

                            * Certification Regarding Lobbying

               2. Sections of the Proposal

                     1. Cover Sheet

                     2. Project Summary

                     3. Table of Contents

                     4. Project Description (Including Results from Prior NSF Support)

                           1. Content

                           2. Page Limitations and Inclusion of Universal Resource Locators (URLs) within the Project Description

                           3. Results from Prior NSF Support

                           4. Collaborations

                           5. Group Proposals

                           6. Proposals for Renewed Support

                     5. References Cited

                     6. Biographical Sketch(es)

                           1. Professional Preparation

                           2. Appointments

                           3. Publications

                           4. Synergistic Activities

                           5. Collaborators & Other Affiliations


                                  (a) Collaborators and Co-Editors

                                  (b) Graduate and Postdoctoral Advisors

                                  (c) Thesis Advisor and Postgraduate-Scholar Sponsor


                     7. Budget

                           1. Salaries and Wages (Lines A and B on the Proposal Budget)


                                  (a) Policies

                                  (b) Procedures

                                  (c) Confidential Budgetary Information


                           2. Fringe Benefits Line C on the Proposal Budget

                           3. Equipment (Line D on the Proposal Budget)

                           4. Travel (Line E on the Proposal Budget)


                                  (a) General

                                  (b) Domestic Travel

                                  (c) Foreign Travel


                           5. Participant Support (Line F on the Proposal Budget)

                           6. Other Direct Costs (Lines G1 through G6 on the Proposal Budget)


                                  (a) Materials and Supplies (Line G1 on the Proposal Budget)

                                  (b) Publication/Documentation/ Dissemination (Line G2 on the Proposal Budget)

                                  (c) Consultant Services (Line G3 on the Proposal Budget)

                                  (d) Computer Services (Line G4 on the Proposal Budget)

                                  (e) Subawards (Line G5 on the Proposal Budget)

                                  (f) Other (Line G6 on the Proposal Budget)


                           7. Total Direct Costs (Line H on the Proposal Budget)

                           8. Indirect Costs (also known as Facilities and Administrative Costs (F&A) for Colleges and Universities) (Line I on the Proposal Budget)

                           9. Total Direct and Indirect Costs (F&A)(Line J on the Proposal Budget)

                          10. Residual Funds

                          11. Amount of This Request

                          12. Cost Sharing

                          13. Unallowable Costs


                                  (a) Entertainment

                                  (b) Meals and Coffee Breaks

                                  (c) Alcoholic Beverages


                     8. Current and Pending Support

                     9. Facilities, Equipment and Other Resources

                    10. Special Information and Supplementary Documentation

                    11. Appendices

         4. Special Guidelines

               1. Small Grants for Exploratory Research (SGER) Proposals

               2. Facilitation Awards for Scientists and Engineers with Disabilities (FASED)

                     1. Requests as part of a competitive proposal submission

                     2. Supplemental Funding Requests to existing NSF grants

               3. Collaborative Proposals

                     1. Submission of a single proposal

                     2. Simultaneous submission of proposals from different organizations

               4. Proposals for Equipment

               5. Proposals Involving Vertebrate Animals

               6. Proposals Involving Human Subjects

               7. Proposals for Conferences, Symposia and Workshops

               8. Proposals to Support International Travel

               9. Proposals for Doctoral Dissertation Research


      # NSF Proposal Processing and Review


         1. Review Criteria

            What is the intellectual merit of the proposed activity?

            What are the broader impacts of the proposed activity?

         2. Administrative Corrections to FastLane Proposals

         3. Proposal File Updates

         4. Revisions to Proposals Made During the Review Process

         5. Award Recommendation

         6. Copies of Reviews


      # Withdrawals, Returns and Declinations


         1. Withdrawals

         2. Return Without Review

         3. Declinations

         4. Reconsideration

         5. Resubmission


      # The Award and Continued Support


         1. Standard and Continuing Grants

            Effective/Expiration Dates and Preaward Costs

         2. Additional Support

               1. Incremental Funding

               2. Renewal Proposals

                      * Traditional Renewal

                      * Accomplishment-Based Renewal

               3. Two-Year Extensions for Special Creativity

               4. Supplemental Funding

         3. No-Cost Extensions

               1. Grantee-Authorized Extension

               2. NSF-Approved Extension


      # Grant Administration Highlights


         1. General Requirements

         2. Prior Approval Requirements

         3. Transfer of PI

         4. Equipment

         5. Excess Government Property

         6. Suspension or Termination of Grants

         7. Grant Reports

               1. Annual and Final Project Reports

               2. Quarterly and Final Expenditure Reports

         8. Sharing of Findings, Data and Other Research Products

         9. Acknowledgement of Support and Disclaimer

        10. Release of Grantee Proposal Information

        11. Legal Rights to Intellectual Property


      Appendix A: Drug-Free Workplace Certification


      Appendix B: Debarment and Suspension Certification


      Appendix C: Definitions of Categories of Personnel


      Appendix D: Potentially Disqualifying Conflicts of Interest


      Privacy Act and Public Burden Statements


      » See document: http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2003/nsf032/start.htm
       
      • Intro
        Chapter I - Introduction


           1. OVERVIEW


              The Grant Proposal Guide (GPG) provides guidance for the preparation and submission of proposals to NSF. Some NSF programs have program solicitations that modify the general provisions of this Guide, and, in such cases, the guidelines provided in the solicitation must be followed. Contact with NSF program personnel prior to proposal preparation is encouraged.


              The Foundation considers proposals submitted by organizations on behalf of individuals or groups for support in most fields of research. Interdisciplinary proposals also are eligible for consideration.


              NSF does not normally support technical assistance, pilot plant efforts, research requiring security classification, the development of products for commercial marketing, or market research for a particular project or invention. Research with disease-related goals, including work on the etiology, diagnosis or treatment of physical or mental disease, abnormality, or malfunction in human beings or animals, is normally not supported. Animal models of such conditions or the development or testing of drugs or other procedures for their treatment also are not eligible for support. Research in bioengineering, with diagnosis or treatment-related goals, however, that applies engineering principles to problems in biology and medicine while advancing engineering knowledge is eligible for support. Bioengineering research to aid persons with disabilities also is eligible.


              The NSF Website provides the most comprehensive source of information on NSF Directorates (including contact information), programs and funding opportunities. Use of this Website by potential proposers is strongly encouraged. In addition, the NSF Custom News Service is an information-delivery system designed to keep potential proposers and other interested parties apprised of the issuance of new program announcements and solicitations (as well as other NSF publications and policies) through e-mail or the user's Web browser. Subscribers are informed each time new publications are issued that match their identified interests. The Custom News Service also is available on NSF's Website.


              Research proposals to the Biological Sciences Directorate (not proposals for conferences or workshops) cannot be duplicates of proposals to any other Federal agency for simultaneous consideration. The only exceptions to this rule are: (1) when the proposers and program officers at relevant Federal agencies have previously agreed to joint review and possible joint funding of the proposal; or (2) proposals for PIs who are beginning investigators (individuals who have not been a principal investigator (PI)1 or co-principal investigator (co-PI) on a Federally funded award with the exception of doctoral dissertation, postdoctoral fellowship or research planning grants). For proposers who qualify under this latter exception, the box for "Beginning Investigator" must be checked on the proposal Cover Sheet.

           2. THE PROPOSAL


              The proposal should present the (1) objectives and scientific, engineering, or educational significance of the proposed work; (2) suitability of the methods to be employed; (3) qualifications of the investigator and the grantee organization 2 ; (4) effect of the activity on the infrastructure of science, engineering and education; and (5) amount of funding required. It should present the merits of the proposed project clearly and should be prepared with the care and thoroughness of a paper submitted for publication. Sufficient information should be provided so that reviewers will be able to evaluate the proposal in accordance with the two merit review criteria established by the National Science Board. (See Chapter III for additional information on the NSF processing and review of proposals.)


              NSF expects strict adherence to the rules of proper scholarship and attribution. The responsibility for proper attribution and citation rests with authors of a proposal; all parts of the proposal should be prepared with equal care for this concern. Serious failure to adhere to such standards can result in findings of research misconduct. NSF policies and rules on research misconduct are discussed in Grant Policy Manual (GPM) Section 930 as well as in 45 CFR Part 689.


              The Metric Conversion Act of 1975, as amended, and Executive Order 12770 of 1991 encourage Federal agencies to use the Metric System (SI) in procurement, grants and other business-related activities. Proposers are encouraged to use the Metric System of weights and measures in proposals submitted to the Foundation. Grantees also are encouraged to use metric units in reports, publications and correspondence relating to proposals and awards.


              PROPRIETARY OR PRIVILEGED INFORMATION


              Patentable ideas, trade secrets, privileged or confidential commercial or financial information, disclosure of which may harm the proposer, should be included in proposals only when such information is necessary to convey an understanding of the proposed project. Such information must be clearly marked in the proposal and be appropriately labeled with a legend such as,


              "The following is (proprietary or confidential) information that (name of proposing organization) requests not be released to persons outside the Government, except for purposes of review and evaluation."


              Such information also may be included as a separate statement. If this method is used, the statement must be submitted electronically as a single-copy document in the Proposal Preparation module in the FastLane system. (See also Chapter II, Section C.1 for further information regarding submission of single-copy documents.)3


              The box for "Proprietary or Privileged Information" must be checked on the proposal Cover Sheet when the proposal contains such information. While NSF will make every effort to prevent unauthorized access to such material, the Foundation is not responsible or in any way liable for the release of such material. (See also Chapter VI, Section J, "Release of Grantee Proposal Information.")

           3. WHO MAY SUBMIT PROPOSALS


              Scientists, engineers and educators usually initiate proposals that are officially submitted by their employing organization. Before formal submission, the proposal may be discussed with appropriate NSF program staff. Graduate students are not encouraged to submit research proposals, but should arrange to serve as research assistants to faculty members. Some NSF divisions accept proposals for Doctoral Dissertation Research Grants when submitted by a faculty member on behalf of the graduate student. The Foundation also provides support specifically for women and minority scientists and engineers, scientists and engineers with disabilities, and faculty at primarily undergraduate academic institutions.


              CATEGORIES OF PROPOSERS


              Except where a program solicitation establishes more restrictive eligibility criteria, individuals and organizations in the following categories may submit proposals:


              1. Universities and colleges - US universities and two-and four-year colleges (including community colleges) acting on behalf of their faculty members.


              2. Non-profit, non-academic organizations - Independent museums, observatories, research laboratories, professional societies and similar organizations in the US that are directly associated with educational or research activities.


              3. For-profit organizations - US commercial organizations, especially small businesses with strong capabilities in scientific or engineering research or education. An unsolicited proposal from a commercial organization may be funded when the project is of special concern from a national point of view, special resources are available for the work, or the proposed project is especially meritorious. NSF is interested in supporting projects that couple industrial research resources and perspectives with those of universities; therefore, it especially welcomes proposals for cooperative projects involving both universities and the private commercial sector.


              4. State and Local Governments - State educational offices or organizations and local school districts may submit proposals intended to broaden the impact, accelerate the pace, and increase the effectiveness of improvements in science, mathematics and engineering education in both K-12 and post-secondary levels.


              5. Unaffiliated Individuals - Scientists, engineers or educators in the US and US citizens may be eligible for support, provided that the individual is not employed by, or affiliated with, an organization, and:

                  * the proposed project is sufficiently meritorious and otherwise complies with the conditions of any applicable proposal-generating document;


                  * the proposer has demonstrated the capability and has access to any necessary facilities to carry out the project; and


                  * the proposer agrees to fiscal arrangements that, in the opinion of the NSF Division of Grants & Agreements, ensure responsible management of Federal funds.


              Unaffiliated individuals should contact the appropriate program before preparing a proposal for submission.


              6. Foreign organizations - NSF rarely provides support to foreign organizations. NSF will consider proposals for cooperative projects involving US and foreign organizations, provided support is requested only for the US portion of the collaborative effort.


              7. Other Federal agencies - NSF does not normally support research or education activities by scientists, engineers or educators employed by Federal agencies or Federally Funded Research and Development Centers (FFRDCs). A scientist, engineer or educator, however, who has a joint appointment with a university and a Federal agency (such as a Veterans Administration Hospital, or with a university and a FFRDC) may submit proposals through the university and may receive support if he/she is a bona fide faculty member of the university, although part of his/her salary may be provided by the Federal agency. Under unusual circumstances, other Federal agencies and FFRDCs may submit proposals directly to NSF. Preliminary inquiry should be made to the appropriate program before preparing a proposal for submission.

           4. WHEN TO SUBMIT PROPOSALS


              Many NSF programs accept proposals at any time. Other programs, however, establish target dates, deadlines or submission windows for submission of proposals to allow time for their consideration by review panels that meet periodically. These target dates 4, deadlines 5, and submission windows 6 are published in specific program announcements and solicitations that can be obtained from the NSF Clearinghouse at pubs@nsf.gov or electronically through the NSF Website7. Unless otherwise stated in a program announcement or solicitation, proposals must be received by the specified date (and time, where indicated.) If the deadline date falls on a weekend, it will be extended to the following Monday; if the date falls on a holiday, it will be extended to the following business day. Inquiry about submission also may be made to the appropriate NSF program office.


              Proposers should allow up to six months for programmatic review and processing (see Chapter III for additional information on the NSF merit review process). In addition, proposers should be aware that the NSF Division of Grants and Agreements generally makes awards to academic institutions within 30 days after the program division makes its recommendation. Grants being made to organizations that have not received an NSF award within the preceding two years, or involving special situations (such as coordination with another Federal agency or a private funding source), cooperative agreements, and other unusual arrangements may require additional review and processing time. Proposals that are time sensitive (e.g., conference, group travel, and research involving ephemeral phenomena) only will be accepted for review if, in the opinion of the cognizant Program Officer, they are received in sufficient time to permit appropriate NSF review and processing to support an award in advance of the activity to be supported. Every effort is made to reach a decision and inform the proposer promptly. Until an award is made, NSF is not responsible for any costs incurred by the proposing organization.

           5. HOW TO SUBMIT PROPOSALS


              1. Electronic Requirements


              Proposals to NSF must be submitted electronically via the FastLane system 8. For proposers who cannot submit electronically, a deviation must be approved in advance of submission of the paper proposal in accordance with GPG Chapter II, Section A, Conformance with Instructions for Proposal Preparation.


              Upon receipt of the proposal by NSF, proposals are generally converted to hard copy for distribution to the reviewer community. The rationale for this step is that the wide variance of equipment available to reviewers may not, at this time, assure that an all-electronic review process would be successful or totally fair to proposers. In the near future, NSF envisions that it will be possible to avoid this printing step and send proposals out for review solely by electronic means.

              Special instructions for proposals that contain high-resolution graphics or other graphics where exact color representations are required for proper interpretation by the reviewer


              For cost and technical reasons, the Foundation cannot, at this time, reproduce proposals containing color. Therefore, PIs generally should not rely on colorized objects to make their arguments. PIs who must include in their project descriptions high-resolution graphics or other graphics where exact color representations are required for proper interpretation by the reviewer, must submit the required number of copies of the entire paper proposal, including a paper copy of the proposal Cover Sheet, for use in the review process. This submission is in addition to, not in lieu of, the electronic submission of the proposal via FastLane. Given that some NSF programs have converted to use of a primarily electronic review process, PIs are strongly encouraged to contact the cognizant program officer prior to submission of the paper copies of a proposal.


              Upon submission of the proposal, the proposing organization will be notified of the required number of paper copies of the proposal that must be submitted to NSF. The exact number of copies required will appear in an electronic message at the time of FastLane submission and will depend on the NSF Division selected. 9 Such proposals must be postmarked (or provide a legible proof of mailing date assigned by the carrier) within five working days following the electronic submission of the proposal.


              2. Submission Instructions


              A proposal needs to be submitted only once to NSF, even if the proposer envisions review by multiple programs. The submission of duplicate or substantially similar proposals concurrently for review by more than one program without prior NSF approval may result in the return of the redundant proposals. (See Chapter IV, Section B, Return Without Review, for further information.)


              In submission of a proposal for funding, the Authorized Organizational Representative (AOR) 10 is required to provide certain proposal certifications. (See Chapter II, Section C.1.e for listing.) This process can concurrently occur with submission of the proposal for those organizations where the individual authorized to submit a proposal to NSF also is a designated AOR, or as a separate function for those organizations that choose to keep the certification process separate from the submission function. For those organizations that designate separate authorities in FastLane for these functions, the AOR must provide the required certifications within 5 working days following the electronic submission of the proposal. 11


              A proposal may not be processed until NSF has received the complete proposal (including the electronic certifications from the AOR.)


              3. Proposal Receipt


              Once the proposal is submitted, PIs can access the number assigned to the proposal via the "Submitted Proposals" list in the FastLane Proposal Preparation module. If a proposal number is not reflected in the FastLane System, contact the FastLane Help Desk at (800) 673-6188, or (703) 292-8142 or by e-mail to fastlane@nsf.gov.


              When the proposal is assigned to an NSF program, the cognizant program information is available through the FastLane "Proposal Status Inquiry" function for PIs and through the "Recent Proposals" report for sponsored projects offices. Communications about the proposal should be addressed to the cognizant Program Officer with reference to the proposal number. Proposers are strongly encouraged to use FastLane to verify the status of their submission to NSF.



        » See document: http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2003/nsf032/032_1.htm
         
      • Preparation Instructions
        Chapter II - Proposal Preparation Instructions


        Each proposing organization that has not received an NSF grant within the previous two years should be prepared to submit basic organization and management information and certifications, when requested, to the Division of Grants and Agreements. The information required is contained in the NSF Prospective New Awardee Guide12, available electronically on the NSF Website. The information contained in this Guide will assist the organization in preparing documents that the National Science Foundation requires to conduct administrative and financial reviews of the organization. This Guide also serves as a means of highlighting the accountability requirements associated with Federal awards.


        To facilitate proposal preparation, Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) regarding proposal preparation and submission are available electronically on the NSF Website13.

        A. CONFORMANCE WITH INSTRUCTIONS FOR PROPOSAL PREPARATION


        It is important that all proposals conform to the instructions provided in the GPG. Conformance is required and will be strictly enforced unless a deviation has been approved. NSF may return proposals that are not consistent with these instructions without review. See Chapter IV.B, Return Without Review, for additional information. NSF must authorize any deviations from these instructions in advance. Deviations may be authorized in one of two ways:


           1. through specification of different requirements in an NSF solicitation; or


           2. by the written approval of the cognizant NSF Assistant Director/Office Head or designee. These deviations may be in the form of a "blanket deviation" for a particular program or programs or, in rare instances, an "individual" deviation for a particular proposal.


        Proposers may deviate from these instructions only to the extent authorized. Proposals must identify the deviation in one of the following ways as appropriate: (a) by identifying the solicitation number that authorized the deviation in the appropriate block on the proposal Cover Sheet; or, (b) for individual deviations, by identifying the name, date and title of the NSF official authorizing the deviation. 14 Further instructions are available on the FastLane Website.

        B. FORMAT OF THE PROPOSAL


        1. Proposal Pagination Instructions


        Proposers are advised that FastLane does not automatically paginate a proposal. Each section of the proposal that is uploaded as a file must be individually paginated before upload to FastLane.


        2. Proposal Margin and Spacing Requirements


        Proposals must have 2.5 cm margins at the top, bottom and on each side. The type size must be clear and readily legible, and conform to the following three requirements: 1) the height of the letters must not be smaller than 10 point; 2) type density must be no more than 15 characters per 2.5 cm; (for proportional spacing, the average for any representative section of text must not exceed 15 characters per 2.5 cm); and, 3) no more than 6 lines must be within a vertical space of 2.5 cm. The type size used throughout the proposal must conform to all three requirements. While line spacing (single-spaced, double-spaced, etc.) is at the discretion of the proposer, established page limits must be followed. (Individual program solicitations may eliminate this proposer option.)


        While the guidelines specified above establish the minimum type size requirements, PIs are advised that readability is of paramount importance and should take precedence in selection of an appropriate font for use in the proposal.

        C. PROPOSAL CONTENTS

        1. Single-Copy Documents


        Certain categories of information that are submitted in conjunction with a proposal are for "NSF Use Only." As such, the information is not provided to reviewers for use in the review of the proposal. With the exception of proposal certifications (which are submitted via the Authorized Organizational Representative function 15 ), these documents should be submitted electronically via the Proposal Preparation module in the FastLane system. A summary of each of these categories follows:

        a. Information About Principal Investigators/Project Directors and co-Principal Investigators/co-Project Directors


        NSF is committed to providing equal opportunities for participation in its programs and promoting the full use of the Nation's research and engineering resources. To aid in meeting these objectives, NSF requests information on the gender, race, ethnicity and disability status of individuals named as PIs/co-PIs on proposals and awards. Except for the required information about current or previous Federal research support and the name(s) of the PI/co-PI, submission of the information is voluntary, and individuals who do not wish to provide the personal information should check the box provided for that purpose.

        b. Deviation Authorization (if applicable)


        Instructions for obtaining a deviation from NSF proposal preparation instructions are provided in Chapter II, Section A, Conformance with Instructions for Proposal Preparation.


        The box for "Proprietary or Privileged Information" must be checked on the proposal Cover Sheet when the proposal contains such information. While NSF will make every effort to prevent unauthorized access to such material, the Foundation is not responsible or in any way liable for the release of such material. (See also Chapter VI, Section J, "Release of Grantee Proposal Information.")

        c. List of Suggested Reviewers or Reviewers Not to Include (optional)


        Proposers may include a list of suggested reviewers who they believe are especially well qualified to review the proposal. Proposers also may designate persons they would prefer not review the proposal, indicating why. These suggestions are optional. GPG Appendix D, Potentially Disqualifying Conflicts of Interest, contains information on conflicts of interest that may be useful in preparation of this list.


        The cognizant Program Officer handling the proposal considers the suggestions and may contact the proposer for further information. However, the decision whether or not to use the suggestions remains with the Program Officer.

        d. Proprietary or Privileged Information (if applicable)


        Instructions for submission of proprietary or privileged information are provided in Chapter I, Section B, The Proposal.

        e. Proposal Certifications


        With the exception of the Disclosure of Lobbying Activities (SF LLL) identified below, the procedures for submission of the proposal certifications differ from those used with other single-copy documents. The AOR must use the "Authorized Organizational Representative function" in the FastLane system to electronically sign and submit the proposal certifications. It is the proposing organization's responsibility to assure that only properly authorized individuals sign in this capacity. 16


        The required proposal certifications are as follows:


            * Certification for Authorized Organizational Representative or Individual Applicant: The AOR is required to complete certifications regarding the accuracy and completeness of statements contained in the proposal, as well as to certify that the organization (or individual) agrees to accept the obligation to comply with award terms and conditions.


            * Certification Regarding Conflict of Interest: The AOR is required to complete certifications stating that the institution 17 has implemented and is enforcing a written policy on conflicts of interest, consistent with the provisions of GPM Section 510; that, to the best of his/her knowledge, all financial disclosures required by the conflict of interest policy were made; and that conflicts of interest, if any, were, or prior to the institution's expenditure of any funds under the award, will be, satisfactorily managed, reduced or eliminated in accordance with the institution's conflict of interest policy. Conflicts that cannot be satisfactorily managed, reduced or eliminated must be disclosed to NSF.


            * Drug-Free Workplace: The AOR is required to complete a certification regarding the Drug-Free Workplace Act. See Appendix A for the full text of the Drug-Free Workplace Certification.


            * Debarment and Suspension: The AOR is required to complete a certification regarding Debarment and Suspension. See Appendix B for the full text of the Debarment and Suspension Certification.


            * Certification Regarding Lobbying: The AOR is required to complete a certification regarding lobbying restrictions. The Certification for Contracts, Grants, Loans and Cooperative Agreements is included in full text on the FastLane submission screen. This certification is applicable when the proposal exceeds $100,000. The box for "Disclosure of Lobbying Activities" must be checked on the proposal Cover Sheet, only if, pursuant to paragraph 2 of the certification, submission of the SF LLL is required." 18


        2. Sections of the Proposal


        The sections described below represent the body of a proposal submitted to NSF. With the exception of "Special Information and Supplementary Documentation" and "Appendices," all sections are required parts of the proposal. These documents must be submitted electronically via the Proposal Preparation module in the FastLane system. 19

        a. Cover Sheet


        Proposers are required to select the applicable program announcement, solicitation or program description. If the proposal is not submitted in response to a specific program announcement, solicitation, or program description, proposers should select "Grant Proposal Guide." Compliance with this requirement is critical to determining the relevant proposal processing guidelines. Proposers must then follow instructions for selection of an applicable NSF Division and Program(s) to which the proposal should be directed.


        A block is included for the proposer to enter its organization's Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number. The DUNS number is a nine-digit number assigned by Dun and Bradstreet Information Services. If the proposer does not have a DUNS number, it must contact Dun and Bradstreet by telephone directly at (800) 333-0505 to obtain one. A DUNS number will be provided immediately by telephone at no charge.


        Should the project be performed at a place other than where the award is to be made, that should be identified in the block entitled, "Name of Performing Organization."


        Examples are as follows:


        Grantee Organization


        Performing Organization


        Northern Virginia University


        Northern Virginia University Health Center


        Southern Virginia University

        Research Foundation


        Southern Virginia University


        The title of the project must be brief, scientifically or technically valid, intelligible to a scientifically or technically literate reader, and suitable for use in the public press. NSF may edit the title of a project prior to making an award.


        The proposed duration for which support is requested must be consistent with the nature and complexity of the proposed activity. Grants are normally awarded for up to three years but may be awarded for periods of up to five years. The Foundation encourages PIs to request awards for durations of three to five years when such durations are necessary for completion of the proposed work and when such durations are technically and managerially advantageous. Specification of a desired starting date for the project is important and helpful to NSF staff; however, requests for specific effective dates may not be met. Except in special situations, requested effective dates must allow at least six months for NSF review, processing and decision. Should unusual situations (e.g., a long lead time for procurement) create problems regarding the proposed effective date, the PI should consult his/her organization's sponsored projects office.


        The proposed duration for which support is requested must be consistent with the nature and complexity of the proposed activity. Grants are normally awarded for up to three years but may be awarded for periods of up to five years. The Foundation encourages PIs to request awards for durations of three to five years when such durations are necessary for completion of the proposed work and when such durations are technically and managerially advantageous. Specification of a desired starting date for the project is important and helpful to NSF staff; however, requests for specific effective dates may not be met. Except in special situations, requested effective dates must allow at least six months for NSF review, processing and decision. Should unusual situations (e.g., a long lead time for procurement) create problems regarding the proposed effective date, the PI should consult his/her organization's sponsored projects office.


        Some NSF program solicitations require submission of both a preliminary and full proposal as part of the proposal process. In such cases, the following instructions apply:


            * During the preliminary proposal stage, the proposing organization should identify the submission as a preliminary proposal by checking the block entitled, "Preliminary Proposal" on the proposal Cover Sheet;


            * During the full proposal submission stage, the proposing organization should identify in the block entitled, "Show Related Preliminary Proposal Number", the related preliminary proposal number assigned by NSF.


        Should any of the listed items on the proposal Cover Sheet apply to a proposal, the appropriate box(es) must be checked.


        Profit-making organizations must identify their status by completing each of the appropriate submitting organization boxes on the Cover Sheet, using the following guidelines:


        a. A small business must be organized for profit, independently owned and operated (not a subsidiary of or controlled by another firm), have no more than 500 employees, and not be dominant in its field. The appropriate box also must be checked when the proposal involves a cooperative effort between an academic institution and a small business.


        b. A minority business must be: (i) at least 51 percent owned by one or more minority or disadvantaged individuals or, in the case of a publicly owned business, have at least 51 percent of the voting stock owned by one or more minority or disadvantaged individuals; and (ii) one whose management and daily business operations are controlled by one or more such individuals.


        c. A woman-owned business must be at least 51 percent owned by a woman or women, who also control and operate it. "Control" in this context means exercising the power to make policy decisions. "Operate" in this context means being actively involved in the day-to-day management.

        b. Project Summary


        The proposal must contain a summary of the proposed activity suitable for publication, not more than one page in length. It should not be an abstract of the proposal, but rather a self-contained description of the activity that would result if the proposal were funded. The summary should be written in the third person and include a statement of objectives and methods to be employed. It must clearly address in separate statements (within the one-page summary): (1) the intellectual merit of the proposed activity; and (2) the broader impacts resulting from the proposed activity. (See Chapter III for further descriptive information on the NSF merit review criteria.) It should be informative to other persons working in the same or related fields and, insofar as possible, understandable to a scientifically or technically literate lay reader.

        c. Table of Contents


        A Table of Contents is automatically generated for the proposal by the FastLane system. The proposer cannot edit this form.

        d. Project Description (including Results from Prior NSF Support)

        (i) Content


        All proposals to NSF will be reviewed utilizing the two merit review criteria described in greater length in Chapter III.


        The Project Description should provide a clear statement of the work to be undertaken and must include: objectives for the period of the proposed work and expected significance; relation to longer-term goals of the PI's project; and relation to the present state of knowledge in the field, to work in progress by the PI under other support and to work in progress elsewhere.


        The Project Description should outline the general plan of work, including the broad design of activities to be undertaken, and, where appropriate, provide a clear description of experimental methods and procedures and plans for preservation, documentation, and sharing of data, samples, physical collections, curriculum materials and other related research and education products. It must describe as an integral part of the narrative, the broader impacts resulting from the proposed activities, addressing one or more of the following as appropriate for the project: how the project will integrate research and education by advancing discovery and understanding while at the same time promoting teaching, training, and learning; ways in which the proposed activity will broaden the participation of underrepresented groups (e.g., gender, ethnicity, disability, geographic, etc.); how the project will enhance the infrastructure for research and/or education, such as facilities, instrumentation, networks, and partnerships; how the results of the project will be disseminated broadly to enhance scientific and technological understanding; and potential benefits of the proposed activity to society at large. Examples illustrating activities likely to demonstrate broader impacts are available electronically on the NSF Website. 20

        (ii) Page Limitations and Inclusion of Universal Resource Locators (URLs) within the Project Description


        Brevity will assist reviewers and Foundation staff in dealing effectively with proposals. Therefore, the Project Description (including Results from Prior NSF Support, which is limited to five pages) may not exceed 15 pages. Visual materials, including charts, graphs, maps, photographs and other pictorial presentations are included in the 15-page limitation. PIs are advised that the project description must be self-contained and are cautioned that URLs (Internet addresses) that provide information necessary to the review of the proposal should not be used because reviewers are under no obligation to view such sites.


        Conformance to the 15-page limitation will be strictly enforced and may not be exceeded unless a deviation has been specifically authorized. (Chapter II, Section A, Conformance with Instructions for Proposal Preparation, contains information on deviations.)

        (iii) Results from Prior NSF Support


        If any PI or co-PI identified on the project has received NSF funding in the past five years, information on the award(s) is required. Each PI and co-PI who has received more than one award (excluding amendments) must report on the award most closely related to the proposal. The following information must be provided:


        (a) the NSF award number, amount and period of support;


        (b) the title of the project;


        (c) a summary of the results of the completed work, including, for a research project, any contribution to the development of human resources in science and engineering;


        (d) publications resulting from the NSF award;


        (e) a brief description of available data, samples, physical collections and other related research products not described elsewhere; and


        (f) if the proposal is for renewed support, a description of the relation of the completed work to the proposed work.


        Reviewers will be asked to comment on the quality of the prior work described in this section of the proposal. Please note that the proposal may contain up to five pages to describe the results. Results may be summarized in fewer than five pages, which would give the balance of the 15 pages for the Project Description.

        (iv) Collaborations


        Any substantial collaboration with individuals not included in the budget should be described and documented with a letter from each collaborator, which should be provided in the supplementary documentation section of the FastLane Proposal Preparation module.

        (v) Group Proposals


        A group proposal is one submitted by 3 or more investigators whose activities are combined into one administrative unit. 21 In general, group proposals that contain up to ten pages of overall project description (including overall progress under the appropriate prior award) plus up to five pages (per person) of individual project descriptions will be acceptable. In addition, PIs who intend to submit a group proposal that uses the page limitations identified above are strongly encouraged to contact the cognizant Program Officer prior to submission.

        (vi) Proposals for Renewed Support


        A proposal for renewed support may be either a "traditional" proposal in which the proposed work is documented and described as fully as though the proposer were applying for the first time; or, an "Accomplishment-Based Renewal" (ABR) proposal, in which the project description is replaced by copies of no more than six reprints of publications resulting from the research supported by NSF during the preceding three to five year period, plus a brief summary of plans for the proposed support period. (See Chapter V, Section B.2 for additional information on preparation of Renewal Proposals.)

        e. References Cited


        Reference information is required. Each reference must include the names of all authors (in the same sequence in which they appear in the publication), the article and journal title, book title, volume number, page numbers, and year of publication. If the document is available electronically, the Website address also should be identified. 22 Proposers must be especially careful to follow accepted scholarly practices in providing citations for source materials relied upon when preparing any section of the proposal.


        While there is no established page limitation for the references, this section must include bibliographic citations only and must not be used to provide parenthetical information outside of the 15-page project description.

        f. Biographical Sketch(es)


        A biographical sketch (limited to two pages) is required for each individual identified as senior project personnel. (See Appendix C for the definition of Senior Personnel.) The following information must be provided in the order and format specified below:

        (i) Professional Preparation


        A list of the individual's undergraduate and graduate education and postdoctoral training as indicated below:


        Undergraduate Institution(s)


        Major


        Degree & Year


        Graduate Institution(s)


        Major


        Degree & Year


        Postdoctoral Institution(s)


        Area


        Inclusive Dates (years)

        (ii) Appointments


        A list, in reverse chronological order, of all the individual's academic/professional appointments beginning with the current appointment.

        (iii) Publications


        A list of: (i) up to 5 publications most closely related to the proposed project; and (ii) up to 5 other significant publications, whether or not related to the proposed project. Each publication identified must include the names of all authors (in the same sequence in which they appear in the publication), the article and journal title, book title, volume number, page numbers, and year of publication. If the document is available electronically, the Website address also should be identified.


        For unpublished manuscripts, list only those submitted or accepted for publication (along with most likely date of publication). Patents, copyrights and software systems developed may be substituted for publications. Additional lists of publications, invited lectures, etc., must not be included. Only the list of 10 will be used in the review of the proposal.

        (iv) Synergistic Activities


        A list of up to five examples that demonstrate the broader impact of the individual's professional and scholarly activities that focus on the integration and transfer of knowledge as well as its creation. Examples could include, among others: innovations in teaching and training (e.g., development of curricular materials and pedagogical methods); contributions to the science of learning; development and/or refinement of research tools; computation methodologies, and algorithms for problem-solving; development of databases to support research and education; broadening the participation of groups underrepresented in science, mathematics, engineering and technology; and service to the scientific and engineering community outside of the individual's immediate organization.

        (v) Collaborators & Other Affiliations


        (a) Collaborators and Co-Editors. A list of all persons in alphabetical order (including their current organizational affiliations) who are currently, or who have been collaborators or co-authors with the individual on a project, book, article, report, abstract or paper during the 48 months preceding the submission of this proposal. Also include those individuals who are currently or have been co-editors of a journal, compendium, or conference proceedings during the 24 months preceding the submission of the proposal. If there are no collaborators or co-editors to report, this should be so indicated.


        (b) Graduate and Postdoctoral Advisors. A list of the names of the individual's own graduate advisor(s) and principal postdoctoral sponsor(s), and their current organizational affiliations.


        (c) Thesis Advisor and Postgraduate-Scholar Sponsor. A list of all persons (including their organizational affiliations), with whom the individual has had an association as thesis advisor, or with whom the individual has had an association within the last five years as a postgraduate-scholar sponsor. The total number of graduate students advised and postdoctoral scholars sponsored also must be identified.


        The information in section 5 of the biographical sketch is used to help identify potential conflicts or bias in the selection of reviewers. See GPG Appendix D, Potentially Disqualifying Conflicts of Interest for additional information on reviewer conflicts.


        For the personnel categories listed below, the proposal also may include information on exceptional qualifications that merit consideration in the evaluation of the proposal.


        (i) Postdoctoral associates


        (ii) Other professionals


        (iii) Students (research assistants)


        For equipment proposals, the following must be provided for each auxiliary user:


        (i) Short biographical sketch; and


        (ii) List of up to five publications most closely related to the proposed acquisition.

        g. Budget


        Each proposal must contain a budget for each year of support requested and a cumulative budget for the full term of requested NSF support, unless a particular program solicitation stipulates otherwise. Completion of the budget does not eliminate the need to document and justify the amounts requested in each category. A budget justification of up to three pages is authorized to provide the necessary justification and documentation.


        The proposal may request funds under any of the categories listed so long as the item and amount are considered necessary to perform the proposed work and are not precluded by specific program guidelines or applicable cost principles.


        A full discussion of the budget and the allowability of selected items of cost is contained in the following sections, the GPM, as well as other NSF program solicitations. Allowability of costs is determined in accordance with OMB Circulars regarding Cost Principles available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars/index.html.

        (i) Salaries and Wages (Lines A and B on the Proposal Budget)

        (a) Policies


        As a general policy, NSF recognizes that salaries of faculty members and other personnel associated directly with the project constitute appropriate direct costs and may be requested in proportion to the effort devoted to the project.


        NSF regards research as one of the normal functions of faculty members at institutions of higher education. Compensation for time normally spent on research within the term of appointment is deemed to be included within the faculty member's regular organizational salary. Grant funds may not be used to augment the total salary or rate of salary of faculty members during the period covered by the term of faculty appointment or to reimburse faculty members for consulting or other time in addition to a regular full-time organizational salary covering the same general period of employment. Exceptions may be considered under certain NSF science and engineering education program solicitations for weekend and evening classes or for administrative work done as overload. (See GPM Section 611.)


        Summer salary for faculty members on academic-year appointments is limited to no more than two-ninths of their regular academic-year salary. This limit includes summer salary received from all NSF-funded grants.


        These same principles apply to other types of non-academic organizations, such as research institutes. Since their employment periods are usually annual, salary must be shown under "calendar months." For such persons, "summer salary" is normally inappropriate under an NSF grant.


        Sometimes an independent institute or laboratory proposes to employ college or university faculty members on a part-time basis. In such cases, the general intent of the policies above apply, so that an individual's total income will not be augmented in ways that would not be possible under a grant to an academic institution.


        In most circumstances, particularly for institutions of higher education, salaries of administrative or clerical staff are included as part of indirect costs (also known as Facilities and Administrative Costs (F&A) for Colleges and Universities). Salaries of administrative or clerical staff may be requested as direct costs, however, for a project requiring an extensive amount of administrative or clerical support and where these costs can be readily and specifically identified with the project with a high degree of accuracy. The circumstances for requiring direct charging of these services must be clearly described in the budget justification. Such costs, if not clearly justified, may be deleted by NSF.

        (b) Procedures


        The names of the PI(s), faculty, and other senior personnel and the estimated number of full-time-equivalent academic-year, summer, or calendar-year person-months for which NSF funding is requested and the total amount of salaries per year must be listed. For postdoctoral associates and other professionals, the total number of persons for each position must be listed, with the number of full-time-equivalent person-months and total amount of salaries per year. For graduate and undergraduate students, secretarial, clerical, technical, etc., whose time will be charged directly to the project, only the total number of persons and total amount of salaries per year in each category is required. Salaries requested must be consistent with the organization's regular practices. The budget justification should detail the rates of pay by individual for senior personnel, postdoctoral associates, and other professionals.


        The budget may request funds for support of graduate or undergraduate research assistants to help carry out the proposed research. Compensation classified as salary payments must be requested in the salaries and wages category. Any direct costs requested for tuition remission must be listed in the "Other" category under "Other Direct Costs."

        (c) Confidential Budgetary Information


        The proposing organization may request that salary data on senior personnel not be released to persons outside the Government during the review process. In such cases, the item for senior personnel salaries in the proposal may appear as a single figure and the person-months represented by that amount omitted. If this option is exercised, senior personnel salaries and person-months must be itemized in a separate statement, and forwarded to NSF in accordance with the instructions specified in Chapter I, Section B, Proprietary or Privileged Information. This statement must include all of the information requested on the proposal budget for each person involved. NSF will not forward the detailed information to reviewers and will hold it privileged to the extent permitted by law. The information on senior personnel salaries will be used as the basis for determining the salary amounts shown in the grant budget. The box for "Proprietary or Privileged Information" must be checked on the proposal Cover Sheet when the proposal contains confidential budgetary information. 23

        (ii) Fringe Benefits (Line C on the Proposal Budget)


        If the grantee's usual accounting practices provide that its contributions to employee benefits (social security, retirement, etc.) be treated as direct costs, NSF grant funds may be requested to fund fringe benefits as a direct cost.

        (iii) Equipment (Line D on the Proposal Budget)


        Equipment is defined as an item of property that has an acquisition cost of $5,000 or more (unless the organization has established lower levels) and an expected service life of more than one year. Items of needed equipment must be listed individually by description and estimated cost, including tax, and adequately justified. Allowable items ordinarily will be limited to research equipment and apparatus not already available for the conduct of the work. General-purpose equipment, such as a personal computer, is not eligible for support unless primarily or exclusively used in the actual conduct of scientific research. (See also GPG Chapter VI, Section D, Equipment, for further information on title to equipment.)

        (iv) Travel (Line E on the Proposal Budget)

        (a) General


        Travel and its relation to the proposed activities must be specified and itemized by destination and cost. Funds may be requested for field work, attendance at meetings and conferences, and other travel associated with the proposed work, including subsistence. In order to qualify for support, however, attendance at meetings or conferences must enhance the PI's ability to perform the work, plan extensions of it, or disseminate its results.


        Allowance for air travel normally will not exceed the cost of round-trip, economy airfares. (See also GPM Section 614.) Persons traveling under NSF grants must travel by US-flag carriers, if available. 24

        (b) Domestic Travel


        For budget purposes, domestic travel includes travel in the US, its possessions, Puerto Rico, and travel to Canada and Mexico.

        (c) Foreign Travel


        For budget purposes, travel outside the areas specified above is considered foreign. The proposal must include relevant information, including countries to be visited (also enter names of countries on the proposal budget), dates of visit, if known, and justification for any foreign travel planned in connection with the project.


        Travel support for dependents of key project personnel may be requested only when all of the following conditions apply:


        (i) the individual is a key person who is essential to the research on a full-time basis;


        (ii) the individual's residence away from home and in a foreign country is for a continuous period of six months or more and is essential to the effective performance of the project; and


        (iii) the dependent's travel allowance is consistent with the policies of the organization administering the grant.

        (v) Participant Support (Line F on the Proposal Budget)


        This budget category refers to costs of transportation, per diem, stipends and other related costs for participants or trainees (but not employees) in connection with NSF-sponsored conferences, meetings, symposia, training activities and workshops. 25 (See Chapter II, Section D.7) Generally, indirect costs (F&A) are not allowed on participant support costs. The number of participants to be supported must be entered in the parentheses on the proposal budget. These costs also must be justified in the budget justification section of the proposal. Some programs, such as Research Experiences for Undergraduates have special instructions for treatment of participant support.

        (vi) Other Direct Costs (Lines G1 through G6 on the Proposal Budget)


        Any costs charged to an NSF grant must be reasonable and directly allocable to the supported activity. The budget must identify and itemize other anticipated direct costs not included under the headings above, including materials and supplies, publication costs, computer services and consultant services. Examples include aircraft rental, space rental at research establishments away from the grantee organization, minor building alterations, payments to human subjects, service charges, tuition remission, and construction of equipment or systems not available off the shelf. Reference books and periodicals may be charged to the grant only if they are specifically required for the project.

        (a) Materials and Supplies (Line G1 on the Proposal Budget)


        The proposal budget must indicate the general types of expendable materials and supplies required, with their estimated costs. The breakdown should be more detailed when the cost is substantial.

        (b) Publication/Documentation/Dissemination (Line G2 on the Proposal Budget)


        The proposal budget may request funds for the costs of documenting, preparing, publishing or otherwise making available to others the findings and products of the work conducted under the grant. This generally includes the following types of activities: reports, reprints, page charges or other journal costs (except costs for prior or early publication); necessary illustrations; cleanup, documentation, storage and indexing of data and databases; development, documentation and debugging of software; and storage, preservation, documentation, indexing, etc., of physical specimens, collections or fabricated items.

        (c) Consultant Services (Line G3 on the Proposal Budget)


        Anticipated consultant services must be justified and information furnished on each individual's expertise, primary organizational affiliation, normal daily compensation rate, and number of days of expected service. Consultants' travel costs, including subsistence, also may be included. Payment for a consultant's services, exclusive of expenses, may not exceed the consultant's normal rate or the daily maximum rate established annually by NSF, whichever is less. 26

        (d) Computer Services (Line G4 on the Proposal Budget)


        The cost of computer services, including computer-based retrieval of scientific, technical and educational information, may be requested. A justification based on the established computer service rates at the proposing organization must be included. The proposal budget also may request costs, which must be shown to be reasonable, for leasing of computer equipment. Special purpose computers or associated hardware and software, other than general purpose PCs, may be requested as items of equipment and justified in terms of their necessity for the activity proposed.

        (e) Subawards 27 (Line G5 on the Proposal Budget)


        Except for the procurement of such items as commercially available supplies, materials, equipment or general support services allowable under the grant, no significant part of the research or substantive effort under an NSF grant may be contracted or otherwise transferred to another organization without prior NSF authorization. The intent to enter into such arrangements must be disclosed in the proposal. At a minimum, the disclosure must include a clear description of the work to be performed, and the basis for selection of the subawardee (except for collaborative/joint arrangements) and a separate budget for each subaward.

        (f) Other (Line G6 on the Proposal Budget)


        Any other direct costs not specified in Lines G1 through G5 must be identified on Line G6. Such costs must be itemized and justified in the budget justification.

        (vii) Total Direct Costs (Line H on the Proposal Budget)


        The total amount of direct costs requested by the proposer, to include Lines A through G, must be entered on Line H.

        (viii) Indirect Costs (also known as Facilities and Administrative Costs (F&A) for Colleges and Universities) (Line I on the Proposal Budget)


        The applicable indirect cost rate(s) negotiated by the organization with the cognizant Federal negotiating agency must be used in computing indirect costs (F&A) for a proposal. If an organization has no established indirect cost rate, it should contact the Cost Analysis/Audit Resolution Branch of NSF's Division of Acquisition and Cost Support. An organization may obtain guidelines for submitting rate proposals from that Branch, telephone (703) 292-8244. Within Government guidelines, unless otherwise indicated in a specific program solicitation, it is NSF policy that grantees are entitled to reimbursement from grant funds for indirect costs (F&A) allocable to the NSF share of allowable direct costs of a project, except grants:


            * solely for the support of travel, equipment, construction of facilities, or doctoral dissertations;


            * for participant support costs;


            * to foreign grantees; and


            * to individuals (i.e., Fellowship awards).


        (ix) Total Direct and Indirect Costs (F&A) (Line J on the Proposal Budget)


        The total amount of direct and indirect costs (F&A) (sum of Lines H and I) must be entered on Line J.

        (x) Residual Funds (Line K on the Proposal Budget)


        This line is used only for budgets for incremental funding requests on continuing grants. Grantees must provide a rationale for residual funds in excess of 20% as part of the annual project report.

        (xi) Amount of This Request (Line L on the Proposal Budget)


        The total amount of funds requested by the proposer will be the same as the amount entered on Line J unless the Foundation disapproves the carry-over of residual funds. If disapproved, Line L will be equal to Line J minus Line K.

        (xii) Cost Sharing (Line M on the Proposal Budget)


        In accordance with Congressional requirements (see GPM 330), NSF requires that each grantee share in the cost of research projects resulting from unsolicited proposals. The grantee may meet the statutory cost sharing requirement by choosing either of two alternatives:


        (a) by cost sharing a minimum of one percent on the project; or


        (b) by cost sharing a minimum of one percent on the aggregate costs of all NSF-supported projects requiring cost sharing.


        The statutory cost sharing referenced above is not required for grants that provide funds solely for the following purposes 28 (not considered to be support of "research"), although such awards may be subject to other cost sharing requirements identified in a specific solicitation:


            * international travel;


            * construction, improvement or operation of facilities;


            * acquisition of research equipment;


            * ship operations;


            * education and training;


            * publication, distribution and translation of scientific data and information;


            * symposia, conferences and workshops; and


            * special studies authorized or required by Subsections 3a(5) through 3a(7) of the NSF Act, as amended.


        For research proposals submitted solely in response to the Grant Proposal Guide, only the statutory cost sharing amount (1%) is required. Such amounts should not be entered on Line M of the proposal budget. If organizational or other commitments in excess of NSF's statutory requirement are voluntarily included in the proposal, the amount of these contributions must be included on Line M. The sources and amounts must be included in the budget justification. Any amount listed on Line M shall be included as a condition of the award, should an award ultimately be made.


        Proposals submitted in response to NSF solicitations may be subject to special cost sharing requirements. NSF-required cost sharing is considered an eligibility rather than a review criterion. Any cost sharing proposed in excess of an NSF required level/amount will not be considered in the merit review process. Proposers are advised that all cost sharing commitments, if incorporated into the award, are subject to audit.


        The estimated value of any in-kind contributions should be included on Line M. An explanation of the source, nature, amount and availability of any proposed cost sharing also must be provided in the budget justification. 29 It should be noted that contributions derived from other Federal funds or counted as cost sharing toward projects of another Federal agency may not be counted towards meeting the specific cost sharing requirements of the NSF grant. Failure to provide the level of cost sharing reflected in the approved grant budget may result in termination of the NSF grant, disallowance of grant costs and/or refund of grant funds to NSF.

        (xiii) Unallowable Costs


        Proposers should be familiar with the complete list of unallowable costs that is contained in the applicable cost principles. Because of their sensitivity, the following categories of unallowable costs are highlighted:

        (a) Entertainment


        Costs of entertainment, amusement, diversion and social activities and any costs directly associated with such activities (such as tickets to shows or sporting events, meals, lodging, rentals, transportation and gratuities) are unallowable. Expenses of grantee employees who are not on travel status are unallowable. This includes cases where they serve as hosts or otherwise participate at meals that are primarily social occasions involving speakers or consultants. Costs of employees on travel status are limited to those allowed under the governing cost principles for travel expenses. (See GPM Section 614.)

        (b) Meals and Coffee Breaks


        No NSF funds may be spent on meals or coffee breaks for intramural meetings of an organization or any of its components, including, but not limited to, laboratories, departments and centers.

        (c) Alcoholic Beverages


        No NSF funds may be spent on alcoholic beverages.

        h. Current and Pending Support


        This section of the proposal calls for required information on all current and pending support for ongoing projects and proposals, including subsequent funding in the case of continuing grants. All current project support from whatever source (e.g., Federal, State, local or foreign government agencies, public or private foundations, industrial or other commercial organizations) must be listed. The proposed project and all other projects or activities requiring a portion of time of the PI and other senior personnel must be included, even if they receive no salary support from the project(s). The total award amount for the entire award period covered (including indirect costs) must be shown as well as the number of person-months per year to be devoted to the project, regardless of source of support. Similar information must be provided for all proposals already submitted or submitted concurrently to other possible sponsors, including NSF. Concurrent submission of a proposal to other organizations will not prejudice its review by NSF. Note the Biological Sciences Directorate exception to this policy, however, delineated in Chapter I, Section A, Overview.


        If the project now being submitted has been funded previously by a source other than NSF, the information requested in the paragraph above must be furnished for the last period of funding.

        i. Facilities, Equipment and Other Resources


        This section of the proposal is used to assess the adequacy of the organizational resources available to perform the effort proposed. Proposers must describe only those resources that are directly applicable.

        j. Special Information and Supplementary Documentation


        Except as specified below, special information and supplementary documentation must be included as part of the project description (or part of the budget justification), if it is relevant to determining the quality of the proposed work. Information submitted in the following areas is not considered part of the 15-page project description limitation. This Special Information and Supplementary Documentation section also is not considered an appendix. Specific guidance on the need for additional documentation may be obtained from the organization's sponsored projects office or in the references cited below.


            * Rationale for performance of all or part of the project off-campus or away from organizational headquarters. (GPM Section 633)


            * Documentation of collaborative arrangements of significance to the proposal through letters of commitment. (GPG Chapter II, Section D.3)


            * Environmental impact statement for activities that have an actual or potential impact on the environment. ( GPM Section 830)


            * Work in foreign countries. Some governments require nonresidents to obtain official approval to carry out investigations within their borders and coastal waters under their jurisdiction. PIs are responsible for obtaining the required authorizations and for advising NSF that they have been obtained or requested. Advance coordination should minimize disruption of the research. ( GPM Section 763 and GPM 715)


            * Research in the Antarctic and Greenland. ( GPM Section 763)


            * Research in a location designated, or eligible to be designated, a registered historic place. (GPM Section 840) Where applicable, the box for "Historic Places" must be checked on the proposal Cover Sheet.


            * Research involving field experiments with genetically engineered organisms. (GPM Section 712)


            * Documentation regarding research involving the use of human subjects, hazardous materials, vertebrate animals, or endangered species. (GPM Section 710, GPG Chapter II, Sections D.5 and D.6) Where applicable the box for "Human Subjects" and "Vertebrate Animals" must be checked on the proposal Cover Sheet.


            * Projects that involve technology utilization/transfer activities, that require a management plan, or that involve special reports or final products.


            * Special components in new proposals or in requests for supplements, such as Facilitation Awards for Scientists and Engineers with Disabilities (FASED), Research Opportunity Awards or Research Experiences for Undergraduates. (See GPG Chapter II, Section D.2 for information on FASED, and for the other programs identified, consult the relevant program solicitation.)


            * Research in Undergraduate Institutions. (See program solicitation for information.)


            * Research Experiences for Undergraduates. (See program solicitation for REU site proposals for further information.)


        In addition, the supplementary documentation section should alert NSF officials to unusual circumstances that require special handling, including, for example, proprietary or other privileged information in the proposal, matters affecting individual privacy, required intergovernmental review under E.O. 12372 (Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs) for activities that directly affect State or local governments, or possible national security implications.

        k. Appendices


        All information necessary for the review of a proposal must be contained in Sections A through I of the proposal. Appendices may not be included unless a deviation has been authorized. Chapter II, Section A. Conformance with Instructions for Proposal Preparation, contains further information.

        D. SPECIAL GUIDELINES

        1. Small Grants for Exploratory Research (SGER) Proposals


        Proposals for small-scale, exploratory, high-risk research in the fields of science, engineering and education normally supported by NSF may be submitted to individual programs. Such research is characterized as:


            * preliminary work on untested and novel ideas;


            * ventures into emerging research ideas;


            * application of new expertise or new approaches to "established" research topics;


            * having a severe urgency with regard to availability of, or access to data, facilities or specialized equipment, including quick-response research on natural disasters and similar unanticipated events; or


            * efforts of similar character likely to catalyze rapid and innovative advances.


        Investigators are strongly encouraged to contact the NSF program(s) most germane to the proposal topic before submitting an SGER proposal. This will facilitate determining whether the proposed work meets the guidelines described above and availability and appropriateness for SGER funding, or whether the work is more appropriate for submission as a fully reviewed proposal. The project description must be brief (two to five pages) and include clear statements as to why the proposed research should be considered particularly exploratory and high risk, the nature and significance of its potential impact on the field, and why an SGER grant would be a suitable means of supporting the work.


        Brief biographical information is required for the PI and co-PI(s) only, and must list no more than five significant publications or other research products. The box for "Small Grant for Exploratory Research" must be checked on the proposal Cover Sheet.


        These proposals will be subject to internal NSF merit review only. Renewed funding of SGER awards may be requested only through submission of a non-SGER proposal that will be subject to full merit review. The maximum SGER award amount will not exceed $100,000. Although the maximum award amount is $100,000, the award amount usually will be substantially less than a given program's average award amount. The project's duration will normally be one year, but may be up to two years.


        At the discretion of the Program Officer, and with the concurrence of the Division Director, a small fraction of especially promising SGER awards may be extended for a period of six additional months and supplemented with up to $50,000 in additional funding. The SGER award extensions will be possible for awards of two-year initial duration as well as for those of shorter initial duration. Requests for extensions must be submitted one to two months before the expiration date of the initial award. A project report and outline of proposed research, not to exceed five pages, must be included.

        2. Facilitation Awards for Scientists and Engineers with Disabilities (FASED)


        As part of its effort to promote full utilization of highly qualified scientists, mathematicians, and engineers, and to develop scientific and technical talent, the Foundation has the following goals:


            * to reduce or remove barriers to participation in research and training by physically disabled individuals by providing special equipment and assistance under awards made by NSF; and


            * to encourage disabled individuals to pursue careers in science and engineering by stimulating the development and demonstration of special equipment that facilitates their work performance.


        Individuals with disabilities eligible for facilitation awards include principal investigators, other senior project personnel, and graduate and undergraduate students. The cognizant NSF Program Officer will make decisions regarding what constitutes appropriate support on a case-by-case basis. The specific nature, purpose, and need for equipment or assistance should be described in sufficient detail in the proposal to permit evaluation by knowledgeable reviewers.


        There is no separate program for funding of special equipment or assistance. Requests are made in conjunction with regular competitive proposals, or as a supplemental funding request to an existing NSF award. Specific instructions for each type of request are provided below.

        a. Requests as part of a competitive proposal submission


        Funds may be requested to purchase special equipment, modify equipment or provide services required specifically for the work to be undertaken. Requests for funds for equipment or assistance that compensate in a general way for the disabling condition are not permitted. For example, funds may be requested to provide: prosthetic devices to manipulate a particular apparatus; equipment to convert sound to visual signals, or vice versa, for a particular experiment; access to a special site or to a mode of transportation (except as defined below); a reader or interpreter with special technical competence related to the project; or other special-purpose equipment or assistance needed to conduct a particular project. Items, however, such as standard wheel chairs, prosthetics, hearing aids, TDD/text-phones, or general readers for the blind would not be supported because the need for them is not specific to the proposed project. Similarly, ramps, elevators, or other structural modifications of research facilities are not eligible for direct support under this program.


        There is no maximum funding amount that has been established for such requests. It is expected, however, that the cost (including equipment adaptation and installation) will not be a major component of the total proposed budget for the project. Requests for funds for special equipment or assistance to facilitate the participation of individuals with disabilities should be included in the proposed budget for the project and documented in the budget justification. The specific nature, purpose and need for such equipment or assistance should be described in sufficient detail in the Project Description to permit evaluation of the request by knowledgeable reviewers.

        b. Supplemental Funding Requests to existing NSF grants


        Supplemental funds for special equipment or assistance to facilitate participation in NSF-supported projects by persons with disabilities may be provided under existing NSF grants. Normally, title is vested in the grantee organization for equipment purchased in conjunction with NSF-supported activities. In accordance with the Grant Conditions, the grantee organization guarantees use of the equipment for the specific project during the period of work funded by the Foundation, and assures its use in an appropriate manner after project completion. In instances involving special equipment for persons with disabilities, the need for such may be unique to the individual. In such cases, the grantee organization may elect to transfer title to the individual to assure appropriate use after project completion.


        Supplemental requests should be submitted electronically by using the "Supplemental Funding Request" function in FastLane and should include a brief description of the request, and a budget and budget justification. Requests must be submitted at least two months before funds are needed. Funding decisions will be made on the basis of the justification and availability of program funds with any resultant funding provided through a formal amendment of the existing NSF grant.

        3. Collaborative Proposals


        A collaborative proposal is one in which investigators from two or more organizations wish to collaborate on a unified research project. Collaborative proposals may be submitted to NSF in one of two methods: as a single proposal, in which a single award is being requested (with subawards administered by the lead organization); or by simultaneous submission of proposals from different organizations, with each organization requesting a separate award. In either case, the lead organization's proposal must contain all of the requisite sections as a single package to be provided to reviewers (that will happen automatically when procedures below are followed.) All collaborative proposals must clearly describe the roles to be played by the other organizations, specify the managerial arrangements, and explain the advantages of the multi-organizational effort within the project description. PIs are strongly encouraged to contact the cognizant NSF Program Officer prior to submission of a collaborative proposal.

        a. Submission of a single proposal


        The single proposal method allows investigators from two or more organizations who have developed an integrated research project to submit a single, focused proposal. A single investigator bears primary responsibility for the administration of the grant and discussions with NSF, and, at the discretion of the organizations involved, investigators from any of the participating organizations may be designated as co-PIs.


        By submission of the proposal, the organization has determined that the proposed activity is administratively manageable. NSF may request a revised proposal, however, if it considers that the project is so complex that it will be too difficult to review or administer as presented. (See Chapter II, Section C.2.g.(vi)(e) for additional instructions on preparation of this type of proposal.)

        b. Simultaneous submission of proposals from different organizations


        In many instances, simultaneous submission of proposals that contain the same project description from each organization might be appropriate. For these proposals, the project title must begin with the words "Collaborative Research:" The lead organization's submission will include a proposal Cover Sheet, project summary, project description, references cited, biographical sketches, budgets and budget justification, current and pending support, and facilities, equipment and other resources for their organization. Non-lead organization submissions will include all of the above for their organization except the project summary, project description, and references cited which are the same for all collaborating organizations. FastLane will combine the proposal submission for printing or electronic viewing.


        To submit the collaborative proposal, the following process must be completed: 30


        (i) Each non-lead organization must assign their proposal a proposal PIN. This proposal PIN and the temporary proposal ID generated by FastLane when the non-lead proposal is created must be provided to the lead organization before the lead organization submits its proposal to NSF.


        (ii) The lead organization must then enter each non-lead organization(s) proposal PIN and temporary proposal ID into the FastLane lead proposal by using the "Link Collaborative Proposals" option found on the FastLane "Form Preparation" screen.


        Given that such separately submitted collaborative proposals constitute a "single" proposal submission to NSF, it is imperative that the proposals be submitted within a reasonable timeframe to one another. Failure to submit all components of the collaborative proposal on a timely basis may impact the review of the proposal.

        4. Proposals for Equipment


        Proposals for specialized equipment may be submitted by an organization for: (1) individual investigators; (2) groups of investigators within the same department; (3) several departments; (4) organization(s) participating in a collaborative or joint arrangement; (5) any components of an organization; or (6) a region. One individual must be designated as PI. Investigators may be working in closely related areas or their research may be multidisciplinary.


        Note: Many organizations within NSF have formal instrumentation programs that may include special guidelines such as cost sharing or other requirements. It is important to use the applicable guidelines in these competitions. The appropriate program should be consulted.


        Instrumentation and equipment proposals must follow the format of research proposals. Each potential major user must describe the project(s) for which the equipment will be used. These descriptions must be succinct, not necessarily as detailed as in an individual research proposal, and must emphasize the intrinsic merit of the activity and the importance of the equipment to it. A brief summary will suffice for auxiliary users.


        Equipment to be purchased, modified or constructed must be described in sufficient detail to allow comparison of its capabilities with the needs of the proposed activities. Equipment proposals also must describe comparable equipment already at the proposing organization(s) and explain why it cannot be used. This includes comparable government-owned equipment that is on-site.


        Equipment proposals must discuss arrangements for acquisition, maintenance and operation, including:


            * overall acquisition plan;


            * biographical sketch of the person(s) who will have overall responsibility for maintenance and operation and a brief statement of qualifications, if not obvious;


            * description of the physical facility, including floor plans or other appropriate information, where the equipment will be located;


            * statement of why the equipment is severable or non-severable from the physical facility;


            * annual budget for operation and maintenance of the proposed equipment, indicating source of funds, and particularly related equipment; and


            * brief description of other support services available and the annual budget for their operation, maintenance and administration.


        The terms of a grant require that special-purpose equipment purchased or leased with grant funds be subject to reasonable inventory controls, maintenance procedures and organizational policies that enhance its multiple or shared use on other projects, if such use does not interfere with the work for which the equipment was acquired.


        If the government retains title, those items must be included in the annual inventory submitted to the NSF Property Administrator. 31 Equipment proposals must include the information described above within the 15-page project description. These proposals normally compete with proposals for research or education projects.

        5. Proposals Involving Vertebrate Animals


        For proposals involving the use of vertebrate animals 32 , sufficient information must be provided within the 15-page project description to enable reviewers to evaluate the choice of species, number of animals to be used, and any necessary exposure of animals to discomfort, pain, or injury.


        Consistent with the requirements of the Animal Welfare Act [7 U.S.C. 2131 et seq] and the regulations promulgated thereunder by the Secretary of Agriculture [9 CFR, 1.1-4.11], NSF requires that proposed projects involving use of any vertebrate animal for research or education be approved by the submitting organization's Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) before an award can be made. For this approval to be accepted by NSF, the organization must have a current Institutional Animal Welfare Assurance established with the Public Health Service (PHS).


        If the organization does not have such an Assurance in place, then approval of the project by the IACUC of an organization with a current PHS Assurance will be acceptable, if the IACUC agrees to provide the required oversight of facilities and activities during the award. Alternatively, the submitting organization may create its own IACUC by establishing a single-project Institutional Animal Welfare Assurance with NSF. In any case, IACUC approval must be received prior to an award. Proposers with questions regarding this requirement should contact the cognizant NSF Program Officer.


        The box for "Vertebrate Animals" must be checked on the proposal Cover Sheet with the IACUC approval date (if available) identified in the space provided. If IACUC approval has not been obtained prior to submission, the proposer should indicate "Planned" in the space provided for the approval date.


        These same rules apply to awards to individuals (fellowships) for activities that involve use of vertebrate animals. The "Vertebrate Animals" box should be checked on the proposal Cover Sheet. Evidence of IACUC approval can be provided in a letter giving the date of IACUC approval with the appropriate organizational signature. 33

        6. Proposals Involving Human Subjects


        Projects involving research with human subjects must ensure that subjects are protected from research risks in conformance with the relevant Federal policy known as the Common Rule (Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects, 45 CFR 690). All projects involving human subjects either must have approval from the organization's Institutional Review Board (IRB) before issuance of an NSF award, or affirm that the IRB has declared the research exempt from continued oversight, in accordance with the applicable subsection of section 101(b) of the Common Rule. The box for "Human Subjects" must be checked on the proposal Cover Sheet with the IRB approval date (if available) or exemption subsection from the Common Rule identified in the space provided. Additional information, including Frequently Asked Questions and Vignettes, for use in interpreting the Common Rule for Behavioral and Social Science Research, is available on the NSF Website at: http://www.nsf.gov/bfa/dga/policy/guidance.htm#human.

        7. Proposals for Conferences, Symposia and Workshops


        NSF supports conferences, symposia and workshops in special areas of science and engineering that bring experts together to discuss recent research or education findings or to expose other researchers or students to new research and education techniques. NSF encourages the convening in the US of major international conferences, symposia and workshops. Conferences will be supported only if equivalent results cannot be obtained at regular meetings of professional societies. Although requests for support of conferences, symposia and workshops ordinarily originate with educational institutions or scientific and engineering societies, they also may come from other groups. Shared support by several Federal agencies, States or private organizations is encouraged. Because proceedings of such conferences normally should be published in professional journals, requests for support may include publication costs. Requests should generally be made at least a year in advance of the scheduled date. Conferences or meetings, including the facilities in which they are held, funded in whole or in part with NSF funds, must be accessible to participants with disabilities.


        A conference, symposium or workshop proposal (that complies with the page and font size instructions in Chapter II, Section B, Format of the Proposal) must contain the following elements:


            * Cover Sheet;


            * Summary of one page or less indicating the objectives of the project;


            * Statement of the need for such a gathering and a list of topics;


            * Recent meetings on the same subject, including dates and locations;


            * Names of the chairperson and members of organizing committees and their organizational affiliations;


            * Information on the location and probable date(s) of the meeting and the method of announcement or invitation;


            * Statement of how the meeting will be organized and conducted, how the results of the meeting will be disseminated and how the meeting will contribute to the enhancement and improvement of scientific, engineering and/or educational activities;


            * A plan for recruitment of and support for speakers and other attendees, that includes participation of groups underrepresented in science and engineering (e.g., underrepresented minorities, women, and persons with disabilities);


            * Estimated total budget for the conference, together with an itemized statement of the amount of support requested from NSF (the NSF budget may include participant support for transportation (when appropriate), per diem costs, stipends, publication and other conference-related costs. (Note: participant support costs must be excluded from the indirect cost base.) See Chapter II, Section C.2.g.(v); and


            * Support requested or available from other Federal agencies and other sources. (Chapter II, Section C.2.h should be consulted to prepare this portion of the proposal.)


        For additional coverage on allowability of costs associated with meetings and conferences, proposers should consult GPM Section 625.

        8. Proposals to Support International Travel


        Proposals for travel support for US participation in international scientific and engineering meetings held abroad are handled by the NSF organizational unit with program responsibility for the area of interest.


        Group travel awards are encouraged as the primary means of support for international travel. A university, professional society or other non-profit organization may apply for funds to enable it to coordinate and support US participation in one or more international scientific meeting(s) abroad. Proposals submitted for this purpose should address the same items as those indicated for conferences, symposia, and workshops (see Section 7 above), with particular attention to plans for composition and recruitment of the travel group. Information on planned speakers should be provided where available from the conference organizer.


        Group travel proposals may request support only for the international travel costs of the proposed activity. However, in addition, group travel proposals also may include as compensation for the grantee, a flat rate of $50 per traveler for general administrative costs of preparing announcements, evaluating proposals and handling travel arrangements customarily associated with this type of project. (See GPM Section 765.)


        Group travel grantees are required to retain supporting documentation that funds were spent in accordance with the original intent of the proposal. Such documentation may be required in final reports and is subject to audit.


        » See document: http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2003/nsf032/032_2.htm
         
      • Proposal Processing | Review
        Chapter III - NSF Proposal Processing and Review


        Proposals received by the NSF Proposal Processing Unit are assigned to the appropriate NSF program for acknowledgement and, if they meet NSF requirements, for review. All proposals are carefully reviewed by a scientist, engineer, or educator serving as an NSF Program Officer, and usually by three to ten other persons outside NSF who are experts in the particular fields represented by the proposal. Proposers are invited to suggest names of persons they believe are especially well qualified to review the proposal and/or persons they would prefer not review the proposal. These suggestions may serve as one source in the reviewer selection process at the Program Officer's discretion. Program Officers may obtain comments from assembled review panels or from site visits before recommending final action on proposals. Senior NSF staff further review recommendations for awards.


           1. REVIEW CRITERIA


              The National Science Board approved revised criteria for evaluating proposals at its meeting on March 28, 1997 (NSB 97-72). All NSF proposals are evaluated through use of the two merit review criteria. In some instances, however, NSF will employ additional criteria as required to highlight the specific objectives of certain programs and activities. For example, proposals for large facility projects also might be subject to special review criteria outlined in the program solicitation.


              On July 8, 2002, the NSF Director issued Important Notice 127, Implementation of new Grant Proposal Guide Requirements Related to the Broader Impacts Criterion. This Important Notice reinforces the importance of addressing both criteria in the preparation and review of all proposals submitted to NSF. NSF continues to strengthen its internal processes to ensure that both of the merit review criteria are addressed when making funding decisions.


              In an effort to increase compliance with these requirements, the January 2002 issuance of the GPG incorporated revised proposal preparation guidelines relating to the development of the Project Summary and Project Description. Chapter II of the GPG specifies that Principal Investigators (PIs) must address both merit review criteria in separate statements within the one-page Project Summary. This chapter also reiterates that broader impacts resulting from the proposed project must be addressed in the Project Description and described as an integral part of the narrative.


              Effective October 1, 2002, NSF will return without review proposals that do not separately address both merit review criteria within the Project Summary. It is believed that these changes to NSF proposal preparation and processing guidelines will more clearly articulate the importance of broader impacts to NSF-funded projects.


              The two NSB-approved merit review criteria are listed below. The criteria include considerations that help define them. These considerations are suggestions, and not all will apply to any given proposal. While proposers must address both merit review criteria, reviewers will be asked to address only those considerations that are relevant to the proposal being considered and for which he/she is qualified to make judgments.


              What is the intellectual merit of the proposed activity?


              How important is the proposed activity to advancing knowledge and understanding within its own field or across different fields? How well qualified is the proposer (individual or team) to conduct the project? (If appropriate, the reviewer will comment on the quality of prior work.) To what extent does the proposed activity suggest and explore creative and original concepts? How well conceived and organized is the proposed activity? Is there sufficient access to resources?


              What are the broader impacts of the proposed activity? 34


              How well does the activity advance discovery and understanding while promoting teaching, training, and learning? How well does the proposed activity broaden the participation of underrepresented groups (e.g., gender, ethnicity, disability, geographic, etc.)? To what extent will it enhance the infrastructure for research and education, such as facilities, instrumentation, networks, and partnerships? Will the results be disseminated broadly to enhance scientific and technological understanding? What may be the benefits of the proposed activity to society?


              NSF staff will give careful consideration to the following in making funding decisions:


              Integration of Research and Education


              One of the principal strategies in support of NSF's goals is to foster integration of research and education through the programs, projects and activities it supports at academic and research institutions. These institutions provide abundant opportunities where individuals may concurrently assume responsibilities as researchers, educators, and students, and where all can engage in joint efforts that infuse education with the excitement of discovery and enrich research through the diversity of learning perspectives.


              Integrating Diversity into NSF Programs, Projects, and Activities


              Broadening opportunities and enabling the participation of all citizens, women and men, underrepresented minorities, and persons with disabilities, are essential to the health and vitality of science and engineering. NSF is committed to this principle of diversity and deems it central to the programs, projects, and activities it considers and supports.

           2. ADMINISTRATIVE CORRECTIONS TO PROPOSALS


              NSF recognizes that minor, non-content-related errors may occur in proposal development and that these errors may not be discovered until after the proposal submission to NSF. To enable organizations to correct such errors, FastLane provides a 60-minute "grace period," that begins immediately following proposal submission. This grace period does not extend the proposal deadline (e.g., if a proposal deadline is 5:00 p.m. proposer's local time, the proposal must be submitted by 5:00 p.m., and administrative corrections are allowed until 6:00 p.m., proposer's local time). During this grace period, authorized sponsored project office personnel are authorized to make administrative corrections to proposal Cover Sheet and Budget data. These corrections do not include changes to identified PIs, co-PIs, or other senior project personnel. Access to the Administrative Corrections utility is via the Research Administration module on the FastLane Website through use of the "Submit Proposals/Supplements/File Updates/Withdrawals" function.

           3. PROPOSAL FILE UPDATES


              It is the


        » See document: http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2003/nsf032/032_3.htm
         
      • Withdrawals | Returns| Declinations
        Chapter IV - Withdrawals, Returns and Declinations


           1. WITHDRAWALS


              A proposal may be withdrawn at any time before a funding recommendation is made by the cognizant NSF Program Officer. Proposals must be electronically withdrawn via the FastLane Electronic Proposal Withdrawal System. This module in Fastlane automates the proposal withdrawal process and provides a mechanism that will help organizations to more effectively manage their proposal portfolio, as well as to help eliminate the submission of duplicate proposals to NSF. The Electronic Proposal Withdrawal System includes three processes:

                  * Principal Investigator's Proposal Withdrawal allows a PI to initiate a proposal withdrawal and forward it to the organization's sponsored projects office (or equivalent) for submission to NSF.


                  * Sponsored Projects Office (SPO) Proposal Withdrawal allows an authorized individual in the organization's sponsored projects office (or equivalent) to initiate a proposal withdrawal for submission to NSF.


                  * Proposal Submission Duplicate Withdrawal prevents a SPO official from submitting a new proposal if a duplicate (a proposal from the same organization with the same title and same PI and co-PIs) already has been submitted to NSF within the last two weeks prior to the current submission. If these conditions are met, the system will allow the authorized SPO official to either withdraw the previous duplicate and then proceed with the submission of the new proposal, or to modify the new proposal so it is different from the previous proposal.


              Principal Investigators can access the Proposal Withdrawal utility via the "Submitted Proposals" screen under the FastLane Proposal Preparation Functions module. 36 Authorized individuals in the organization's sponsored projects office (or equivalent) can initiate or review a proposal withdrawal using the "Submit Proposals/Supplements/File Updates/Withdrawals" module via the FastLane "Research Administration Functions". 37


              In cases where NSF already has made a funding decision, proposals will not be permitted to be withdrawn via the electronic proposal withdrawal system. When a PI or SPO representative attempts to prepare a proposal withdrawal for such a proposal, a message will be displayed to contact the cognizant NSF Program Officer for further assistance.


              NSF must be notified if any funding for the proposed project is received from another source or sponsor. If it is brought to NSF's attention that funding for a proposal to NSF has been accepted from another sponsor, NSF will send a withdrawal confirmation to the PI and the SPO without waiting for the official withdrawal notification.


              If a proposal withdrawal is submitted for a proposal that is part of a collaborative effort, regardless of whether the organization is the lead or non-lead, the electronic proposal withdrawal system will withdraw that proposal along with the other remaining proposals that are identified as part of the collaborative effort. If the remaining organizations in the collaborative determine that the project can still proceed, a new collaborative proposal must be submitted.


              Copies of reviews received by NSF before a proposal is withdrawn will be provided to the PI. NSF provides notice of a withdrawal, return, declination, or reconsideration to both the PI and the SPO.

           2. RETURN WITHOUT REVIEW


              Proposals may not be considered by NSF for the following reasons.


              The proposal:


              1. is inappropriate for funding by the National Science Foundation;


              2. is submitted with insufficient lead-time before the activity is scheduled to begin;


              3. is a full proposal that was submitted by a proposer that has received a "not invited" response to the submission of a preliminary proposal;


              4. is a duplicate of, or substantially similar to, a proposal already under consideration by NSF from the same submitter;


              5. does not meet NSF proposal preparation requirements, such as page limitations, formatting instructions, and electronic submission, as specified in the Grant Proposal Guide or program solicitation 38 ;)


              6. is not responsive to the GPG or program announcement/solicitation;


              7. does not meet an announced proposal deadline date (and time, where specified); or


              8. was previously reviewed and declined and has not been substantially revised.

           3. DECLINATIONS


              A PI whose proposal for NSF support has been declined generally will receive information and an explanation of the reason(s) for declination (via paper or e-mail form) along with copies of the reviews considered in making the decision. If that explanation does not satisfy the PI, he/she may request additional information from the cognizant NSF Program Officer or Division Director.

           4. RECONSIDERATION


              If the explanation provided does not satisfy the PI, he/she may request that the cognizant NSF Assistant Director or Office Head reconsider the action to determine whether the proposal received a fair and reasonable review, both substantively and procedurally. A PI whose proposal has not been accepted because it is inappropriate for consideration by NSF also may request reconsideration of this determination. The request for reconsideration must be in writing and must be received within 90 days after the date of the declination letter or return. If the proposing organization is still not satisfied after reconsideration by the responsible Assistant Director/Office Head, it may, within 60 days after the determination by the Assistant Director/Office Head, request further reconsideration by the NSF Deputy Director. Consult GPM Section 900 for additional information on the NSF reconsideration process, including the categories of actions that are subject to the NSF reconsideration policy.

           5. RESUBMISSION


              A declined proposal may be resubmitted, but only after it has undergone substantial revision. Resubmittals that have not clearly taken into account the major comments or concerns resulting from the prior NSF review may be returned without review. The Foundation will treat the revised proposal as a new proposal, subject to the standard review procedures.



        » See document: http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2003/nsf032/032_4.htm
         
      • Award | Continued Support
        Chapter V - The Award and Continued Support


           1. STANDARD AND CONTINUING GRANTS


              NSF awards two types of grants:


              Standard Grants, in which NSF agrees to provide a specific level of support for a specified period of time with no statement of NSF intent to provide additional future support without submission of another proposal, and


              Continuing Grants, in which NSF agrees to provide a specific level of support for an initial specified period of time, usually a year, with a statement of intent to provide additional support of the project for additional periods, provided funds are available and the results achieved warrant further support.


              NSF grants are electronically signed by an NSF Grants Officer, and transmitted to the organization via e-mail. An NSF grant consists of:


              1. the award, which includes any special provisions applicable to the grant and any numbered amendments thereto;


              2. the budget that indicates the amounts, by categories of expense, on which NSF has based its support (or otherwise communicates any specific approvals or disapprovals of proposed expenditures);


              3. the proposal referenced in the award;


              4. the applicable grant conditions 39 , such as Grant General Conditions (NSF GC-1) or Federal Demonstration Partnership (FDP) Terms and Conditions; and


              5. any NSF issuance that may be incorporated by reference in the award.


              In addition to the e-mail notification, grantees can access their NSF awards via FastLane. Sponsored projects offices are able to view, print and/or download NSF awards for their organizations.


              Effective/Expiration Dates and Preaward Costs. The grant period begins on the effective date specified in the award or, in its absence, the date of the award, and runs until the expiration date indicated. Expenditures within the 90-day period preceding the effective date of the grant may be authorized by the grantee organization. Such expenditures, however, are made at the grantee's risk. Expenditures after the scheduled expiration date of the grant only may be made to honor documented commitments made on or before the expiration date. PIs should consult their business offices for details.

           2. ADDITIONAL SUPPORT


              1. Incremental Funding


              Incremental funding for continuing grants within the total duration of the project is based on NSF review of project reports and does not require submission of a new proposal. NSF must receive an annual project report for each increment of funding at least three months prior to the end of the current funding period. See Chapter VI, Section G.1 for information on NSF's electronic reporting system.


              2. Renewal Proposals


              Renewal proposals are requests for additional funding for a support period subsequent to that provided by a standard or continuing grant. Renewal proposals compete with all other pending proposals and must be submitted at least six months before additional funding is required or consistent with an established deadline, target date or submission window. In preparing a renewal proposal, proposers should assume that reviewers will not have access to previous proposals.


              All proposals for renewed support of research projects, from academic institutions only, must include information on human-resources development at the postdoctoral, graduate and undergraduate levels as part of Results from Prior NSF Support. 40 This may involve, but is not limited to, the role of research in student training, course preparation and seminars (particularly for undergraduates). Special accomplishments in the development of professional scientists and engineers from underrepresented groups should be described. Graduate students who participated in the research should be identified by name. This requirement does not apply to non-academic organizations.


              PIs are encouraged to discuss renewal proposals with the program prior to submission of a proposal. Unless precluded by individual program requirements, PIs can choose either of the following two formats for preparation of a renewal proposal. Both types of renewal proposals must be submitted electronically via the NSF FastLane system.

                  * Traditional Renewal. The "traditional" renewal proposal is developed as fully as though the proposer were applying for the first time. It covers all the information required in a proposal for a new project, including results from the prior work. The 15-page limitation on the project description applies.


                  * Accomplishment-Based Renewal. In an "Accomplishment-Based Renewal" (ABR) proposal, the Project Description (including the Results from Prior NSF Support) is replaced with the following items:


                        o copies of no more than six reprints 41 of publications resulting from the research supported by NSF (including research supported by other sources that is closely related to the NSF-supported research) during the preceding three to five year period. Of the six publications, two preprints (accepted for publication) may be included;


                        o information on human resources development at the postdoctoral, graduate and undergraduate levels; and


                        o a brief summary (not to exceed four pages) of plans for the proposed support period.


              All other information required for NSF proposal submission remains the same.


              It must be clearly indicated in the proposal that it is an ABR submission and the box for "Accomplishment-Based Renewal" must be checked on the proposal Cover Sheet. ABR proposals may not be submitted for consecutive renewals.


              3. Two-Year Extensions for Special Creativity


              A program officer may recommend the extension of funding for certain research grants beyond the initial period for which the grant was awarded for a period of up to two years. The objective of such extensions is to offer the most creative investigators an extended opportunity to attack adventurous, "high-risk" opportunities in the same general research area, but not necessarily covered by the original/current proposal. Awards eligible for such an extension are generally three-year continuing grants. Special Creativity Extensions are initiated by the NSF program officer based on progress during the first two years of a three-year grant; PIs will be informed of such action a year in advance of the expiration of the grant. Documentation necessary for processing of special creativity extensions should be submitted electronically via the "Supplemental Funding Request" function in FastLane.


              4. Supplemental Funding


              In unusual circumstances, small amounts of supplemental funding and up to six months of additional support may be requested to assure adequate completion of the original scope of work. The grantee must submit a request for supplemental funding at least two months before funds are needed. Requests for supplemental funding may be initiated in the FastLane system by using the "Supplemental Funding Request" function. 42 Such requests must include a summary of the proposed work, a brief justification, and a budget for the requested funds.


              Program officers may make decisions regarding whether or not to recommend a small supplement without merit review of the supplemental request. Requests for larger supplements, or for more than six months, may require additional merit review. Supplemental funding requests will not be approved for such purposes as defraying costs associated with increases in salaries or additional indirect cost reimbursement. Grantees should contact the cognizant NSF Program Officer prior to submitting a request for supplemental funding.

           3. NO-COST EXTENSIONS


              1. Grantee-Authorized Extension


              Grantees may authorize a one-time extension of the expiration date of the grant of up to 12 months if additional time beyond the established expiration date is required to assure adequate completion of the original scope of work within the funds already made available. This one-time extension may not be exercised merely for the purpose of using the unliquidated balances. The grantee shall notify NSF, providing supporting reasons for the extension and the revised expiration date, at least ten days prior to the expiration date specified in the grant to ensure accuracy of NSF's grant data. All grantee-authorized extension notifications must be submitted via the FastLane system. For grantee-authorized extensions, no amendment will be issued.


              2. NSF-Approved Extension


              If additional time beyond the extension provided by the grantee is required and exceptional circumstances warrant, a formal request must be submitted to NSF. The request must be submitted to NSF at least 45 days prior to the expiration date of the grant. The request must explain the need for the extension and include an estimate of the unobligated funds remaining and a plan for their use. As indicated above, that unobligated funds may remain at the expiration of the grant is not in itself sufficient justification for an extension. The plan must adhere to the previously approved objectives of the project. All requests for NSF-approved extensions must be submitted via the FastLane system. Any NSF-approved no-cost extension will be issued by an NSF Grants Officer in the form of an amendment to the grant specifying a new expiration date. Grantees are cautioned not to make new commitments or incur new expenditures after the expiration date in anticipation of a no-cost extension.



        » See document: http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2003/nsf032/032_5.htm
         
      • Grant Admin Highlights
        Chapter VI - Grant Administration Highlights


        The administration of grants is governed by the actual conditions of the grant. (See Chapter V, Section A, Standard and Continuing Grants) for additional information regarding the contents of an NSF grant.) The following information highlights frequently asked grant administration questions.


        For additional information about the award and administration of NSF grants, proposers and grantees may refer to the NSF Grant Policy Manual. Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) regarding grant administration are available on the Division of Grants & Agreements Website at: http://www.nsf.gov/bfa/dga/faq.htm.


        The grantee organization has primary responsibility for general supervision of all grant activities and for notifying NSF of significant problems relating to research misconduct or administrative matters. The PI is responsible for the conduct of the research or educational work, the publication of results, and is expected to provide technical leadership to the project whether or not any salary is provided from grant funds.


        NSF grants are electronically signed by an NSF Grants Officer, and transmitted to the organization via e-mail. An NSF grant consists of:


           1. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS


              Grants for financial assistance are subject to certain statutory and other general requirements, such as compliance with the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, and other laws and regulations prohibiting discrimination; prohibition of research misconduct; Drug-Free Workplace requirements; restrictions on lobbying; patent and copyright requirements; cost sharing; and the use of US-flag carriers for international travel. These are identified in the GPM and are summarized in the NSF Grant Conditions.

           2. PRIOR APPROVAL REQUIREMENTS


              During the performance of a project, it may be appropriate for funds to be reallocated to support advancement of the project. Grantees have broad discretion to rebudget within the cost and administrative principles. Unless otherwise stated in the grant or as noted below, the grantee is authorized to transfer funds among various budget categories for allowable expenditures without prior NSF approval.


              Prior written authorization from NSF is required only for the following:


              1. transfer of the project effort;


              2. change in objectives or scope;


              3. change in PI or co-PI;


              4. a substantial change in PI effort;


              5. reduction in a cost sharing amount identified on Line M of the grant budget;


              6. reallocation of funds budgeted for participant support; or


              7. renovation/alteration (construction) activities costing $25,000 or more.


              Changes in participant support costs require only Program Officer approval; all the other changes listed above require Program Officer and Grants Officer approval. (See also GPM Exhibit III-1, which highlights grantee notifications to, and requests for approval from, NSF.) All requests for prior approval to NSF must be submitted electronically via the NSF FastLane system.

           3. TRANSFER OF PI


              If a PI plans to leave an organization during the course of a grant, the organization has the prerogative to nominate a replacement PI, request that the grant be terminated, or transfer the grant (via NSF) to the PI's new organization. Replacement PIs are subject to NSF approval. In those cases where a particular PI's participation is integral to a given project and the PI's original and new organizations agree, a grant transfer request shall be submitted via the Notification and Request module in the FastLane system. 43


              The transfer request shall include:


              1. a brief summary of progress to date;


              2. a description of work yet to be accomplished;


              3. a budget, including total estimated disbursements to date (transfer amount will be automatically calculated, based on the amount entered in total estimated disbursements.) The original organization is responsible for including in the total estimated disbursements, any anticipated costs yet to be incurred against the original award. The transfer request cannot be submitted to NSF unless the original organization's Federal Cash Transactions Report (FCTR) for the most recent quarter has been received by NSF and the expenditures posted in the Financial Accounting System. The new organization is responsible for entering the appropriate budget line items prior to submission to NSF, and,


              4. additional information for certain types of proposals, such as those that involve human subjects or vertebrate animals. Such proposals may require supplementary documents be submitted in conjunction with the transfer request. The capability exists within FastLane to provide such additional documents.


              Special terms and conditions, as appropriate, cited in the original award automatically will convey to the new grantee organization. Note that if the PI's original award was submitted in response to a program solicitation that required cost sharing as part of the award, this cost sharing requirement also must addressed by the new organization in the budget portion of the transfer request. The cost sharing will be reflected as a condition in the award at the new grantee organization.


              Upon transfer of the grant to the new organization, any monetary discrepancies must be resolved between the original and the new grantee, and NSF will not intervene in any disputes between the two organizations regarding the transferred amount.


              See GPM 312.8 for additional information on PI transfers.

           4. EQUIPMENT


              Title to equipment purchased or fabricated by an academic institution or other non-profit organization with NSF grant funds normally vests in the grantee organization. Title to equipment acquired through an NSF grant by a small business or other commercial organization normally will vest in the Government. When title to specialized equipment purchased with grant funds vests in the grantee organization and the PI moves to another non-profit organization, NSF encourages transfer of the equipment to the new organization provided it is not required at the organization holding title, the cost of the transfer (shipping charges, freight, etc.) is not excessive, and the PI continues the project at the new location.

           5. EXCESS GOVERNMENT PROPERTY


              As a means of providing additional support and conserving supply and equipment funds, NSF may sponsor the transfer of a limited quantity of excess Government-owned scientific equipment to an NSF grantee. To learn more about the NSF Grantee Excess Property Program, grantees should refer to GPM Section 546 or write to:


              National Science Foundation

              Property & Records Section, DAS, Room 295

              4201 Wilson Boulevard

              Arlington, VA 22230


              Before transfer of excess Government equipment can be authorized, justification must be provided to NSF by the grantee that the equipment will further the objectives of an active NSF grant. The NSF grant numbers must be cited.

           6. SUSPENSION OR TERMINATION OF GRANTS


              NSF grants may be suspended or terminated in accordance with the procedures contained in the Grant Conditions. 44 Grants may also be terminated by mutual agreement. Termination by mutual agreement shall not affect any commitment of grant funds that, in the judgment of NSF and the grantee, had become firm before the effective date of the termination. (See GPM Section 910.)

           7. GRANT REPORTS


              1. Annual and Final Project Reports


              For all multi-year grants (including both standard and continuing grants), the PI must submit an annual project report to the cognizant Program Officer at least 90 days before the end of the current budget period. (Some programs or awards require more frequent project reports).


              Within 90 days after expiration of a grant, the PI also is required to submit a final project report. Failure to provide final technical reports delays NSF review and processing of pending proposals for that PI. PIs should examine the formats of the required reports in advance to assure availability of required data.


              PIs are required to use NSF's electronic project-reporting system, available through FastLane, for preparation and submission of annual and final project reports. Such reports provide information on project participants (individual and organizational); activities and findings; publications; and, other specific products and contributions.


              2. Quarterly and Final Expenditure Reports


              Quarterly and final expenditure information is provided by grantees through the Federal Cash Transaction Report, SF 272. The report must be submitted by the grantee's financial officer through the Financial Administration functions in FastLane. Contact the Division of Financial Management for additional information at (703) 292-8280.

           8. SHARING OF FINDINGS, DATA AND OTHER RESEARCH PRODUCTS


              NSF advocates and encourages open scientific communication. NSF expects significant findings from supported research and educational activities to be promptly submitted for publication with authorship that accurately reflects the contributions of those involved. It expects PIs to share with other researchers, at no more than incremental cost and within a reasonable time, the data, samples, physical collections and other supporting materials created or gathered in the course of the work. It also encourages grantees to share software and inventions, once appropriate protection for them has been secured, and otherwise act to make the innovations they embody widely useful and usable.


              NSF program management will implement these policies, in ways appropriate to field and circumstances, through the proposal review process; through award negotiations and conditions; and through appropriate support and incentives for data cleanup, documentation, dissemination, storage and the like. Adjustments and, where essential, exceptions may be allowed to safeguard the rights of individuals and subjects, the validity of results and the integrity of collections, or to accommodate legitimate interests of investigators.

           9. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF SUPPORT AND DISCLAIMER


              An acknowledgment of NSF support and a disclaimer must appear in publications (including Web pages) of any material, whether copyrighted or not, based on or developed under NSF-supported projects:


              "This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. (grantee must enter NSF grant number)."


              NSF support also must be orally acknowledged during all news media interviews, including popular media such as radio, television and news magazines.


              Except for articles or papers published in scientific, technical or professional journals, the following disclaimer must be included:


              "Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation."

          10. RELEASE OF GRANTEE PROPOSAL INFORMATION


              A proposal that results in an NSF award will be available to the public on request, except for privileged information or material that is personal, proprietary or otherwise exempt from disclosure under law. Appropriate labeling in the proposal aids identification of what may be specifically exempt. (See Chapter I, Section B, The Proposal.) Such information will be withheld from public disclosure to the extent permitted by law, including the Freedom of Information Act. Without assuming any liability for inadvertent disclosure, NSF will seek to limit disclosure of such information to its employees and to outside reviewers when necessary for merit review of the proposal, or as otherwise authorized by law.


              Portions of proposals resulting in grants that contain descriptions of inventions in which either the Government or the grantee owns a right, title, or interest (including a non-exclusive license) will not normally be made available to the public until a reasonable time has been allowed for filing patent applications. NSF will notify the grantee of receipt of requests for copies of funded proposals so the grantee may advise NSF of such inventions described, or other confidential, commercial or proprietary information contained in the proposal.


              A proposal that does not result in an NSF grant will be retained by NSF for a prescribed time (currently five years), but will be released to the public only with the consent of the proposer or to the extent required by law.

          11. LEGAL RIGHTS TO INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY


              NSF normally allows grantees to retain principal legal rights to intellectual property developed under its grants. This policy provides incentive for development and dissemination of inventions, software and publications that can enhance their usefulness, accessibility and upkeep. It does not, however, reduce the responsibility of researchers and organizations to make results, data and collections available to the research community.



        » See document: http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2003/nsf032/032_6.htm
         
    • Writing Guide
      Table of Contents


       


      A GUIDE FOR PROPOSAL WRITING


       


      NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


      DIRECTORATE FOR EDUCATION AND HUMAN RESOURCES


      Division of Undergraduate Education


       


       


      Notices from the National Science Foundation


       


      The Foundation provides awards for research and education in the sciences and engineering. The awardee is wholly responsible for the conduct of such research and preparation of the results for publication. The Foundation, therefore, does not assume responsibility for the research findings or their interpretation.


      The Foundation welcomes proposals from all qualified scientists and engineers and strongly encourages women, minorities, and persons with disabilities to compete fully in any of the research and education related programs described here. In accordance with federal statutes, regulations, and NSF policies, no person on grounds of race, color, age, sex, national origin, or disability shall be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subject to discrimination under any program or activity receiving financial assistance from the National Science Foundation.


      Facilitation Awards for Scientists and Engineers with Disabilities (FASED) provide funding for special assistance or equipment to enable persons with disabilities (investigators and other staff, including student research assistants) to work on NSF projects. See the program announcement or contact the program coordinator at (703) 306-1636.


      The National Science Foundation has TDD (Telephonic Device for the Deaf) capability, which enables individuals with hearing impairment to communicate with the Foundation about NSF programs, employment, or general information. To access NSF TDD dial (703) 306-0090; for FIRS, 1-800-877-8339.


      Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance: CFDA 47.076


       


       


      Table of Contents

      Introduction


      Program Information


      Review Process


      Criteria for Evaluation


      Intellectual Merit

      Broader Impacts

      Additional Questions Relevant to Teacher Collaboratives


      Advice To Proposal Writers


      Step 1 - Before You Write


      Getting Started

      Gathering Background Information

      Looking at the Program Announcement

      Thinking About the Target Audience

      Building Coalitions

      Other Considerations


      Step 2 - Writing the Proposal


      Writing the Proposal Narrative

      Including Budget Information

      Writing the Credentials of the PI and Other Staff

      Including Evaluation and Dissemination Information

      Letters of Commitment

      Project Summary and Project Data Form


      Step 3 - Before Sending Your Proposal to NSF


      Learning More About the Review Process

      Getting Advice

      Before Finishing the Proposal

      Little Things That Can Make a Difference


      Step 4 - Awards and Declinations


      If The Grant is Awarded

      If Your Proposal is Not Funded

      A Final Note


      Proposal Evaluation Form (Form Not Available)


       


      A GUIDE FOR PROPOSAL WRITING


       


      Introduction


      The staff of the Division of Undergraduate Education (DUE) at the National Science Foundation (NSF) often provide informal guidance to proposers. Staff members give workshops on proposal writing, answer questions by phone and e-mail, and talk to potential awardees at professional meetings and at NSF. The following is the essence of the advice often given to inquirers. These suggestions for improving proposals were collected from a variety of sources, including NSF Program Directors, panel reviewers, and successful grantees. Ultimately, proposals are peer reviewed in panels consisting of colleagues in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology disciplines or related fields, and the success in obtaining funding depends in great measure on reviewers’ judgements and their written reviews.


      "What makes a good proposal?" A good proposal stems from a good concept. The best proposals are those to which the reviewers respond, "Of course, I wish I had thought of that!"


      The most important thing is a project that will benefit undergraduate education and directly improve student opportunities to learn. That said, however, the proposal must be written in sufficient detail to allow reviewers to understand:


          * what the project hopes to accomplish;

          * if the project personnel have the necessary expertise to accomplish the goals and objectives;

          * the potential of the project to improve undergraduate education;

          * the national impact and cost effectiveness of the project; and

          * evaluation and dissemination plans.


      Carefully read the Program Announcement. The Program Announcement gives the most current information available. It provides for all DUE programs: (a) a rationale, (b) an overview, (c) detailed program information, (d) facts about preparation and submission of both preliminary and formal proposals, (e) review criteria, (f) special forms that should be submitted with proposals, and (g) advice to proposal writers. This is the best possible guide for preparing proposals to DUE programs and should be read carefully and followed precisely. There are no hidden agendas. Proposals are funded in a competitive system based on merit and promise.


      While this Guide may provide valuable information for proposal writing in general, it was specifically prepared for programs in the Division of Undergraduate Education (DUE). Because programs, priorities, technologies, funding levels, and many other details change, advice in this Guide will also change with time. Following the advice given here certainly does not guarantee funding although we hope it will help applicants write better and more competitive proposals. Another factor that must be considered is that NSF receives many more proposals that are worthy of funding than there are funds to support. National priorities and the desire for a balanced portfolio of projects influence what is ultimately funded.


      We hope that you find this Guide informative. NSF, together with creative partners, make an important difference in undergraduate science, mathematics, engineering, and technology education.


       


      Program Information


      Following is a list of grant publications with a short description. For those that are published annually, no NSF publication numbers are shown since they will change. The documents are available on the NSF Web page which can be accessed at http://www.nsf.gov.


          * The Guide to Programs provides background information about all of the Foundation’s activities in education and research as well as the instructions to obtain individual program announcements. This can be ordered by contacting the NSF Publication Clearinghouse, P.O. Box 218, Jessup, MD 20794-0218. Copies may be requested via voice mail: phone at (301) 947-2722, fax (301) 953-3848 or via e-mail ( pubs@nsf.gov).


          * Proposers also can consult the publication Grant Proposal Guide and DUE’s Program Announcement and Guidelines (see below) for additional guidance. They are also available from the Forms and Publication Unit.


          * The DUE publication Undergraduate Education Science, Mathematics, Engineering and Technology: Program Announcement and Guidelines (hereafter, Program Announcement) describes each program and indicates the exact format for the preparation of the grant proposal and the criteria for evaluation. DUE also regularly publishes information about recently awarded grants.


      Information specific to undergraduate programs can be accessed by e-mail (undergrad@nsf.gov) or by phone at 703-306-1666. You can also get information fast via the World Wide Web (www.nsf.gov.)


          * NSF has also published the User-Friendly Handbook for Project Evaluation (NSF 93-152), FOOTPRINTS: Strategies for Non-Traditional Program Evaluation (NSF 95-41), and User-Friendly Handbook for Mixed Method Evaluations (NSF 97-153) which proposers may wish to obtain.


       


      Review Process


      NSF awards grants on a competitive basis. In selecting proposals to be supported, NSF is assisted by reviewers who are scientists, engineers, mathematicians, technologists, and educators in related disciplines. These reviewers are drawn primarily from two- and four-year colleges and universities, secondary schools, industry, foundations, and professional societies and associations, as appropriate for the program being reviewed. The reviewers are chosen based on their demonstrated ability to assess the merits of a proposal based on the criteria for evaluation shown in the next section. Faculty writing proposals are advised to contact NSF program officers to learn the general demographics of the reviewers for the program for which they are submitting proposals.


      The majority of proposals submitted to DUE are considered by panels of peer reviewers. The purpose of the review is to provide NSF with a written critique and an individual rating from each reviewer as well as a summary analysis by the panel. Each panelist writes his or her own review for all proposals assigned to the panel. Reviewers are asked to provide a detailed evaluation of both the merits and the shortcomings of each proposal and to provide a rating. The Proposal Evaluation Form which is used for comments is attached. The panel then convenes as a group to discuss the proposals. This gives each reviewer the benefit of an informed discussion upon which to base a decision. Following these discussions, panelists complete their individual reviews and one panel member writes a summary of the discussion for each proposal. Reviews are used by NSF Program Directors to inform funding decisions; and anonymous copies are sent to all proposers.


      Reviewers are charged with safeguarding the confidentiality of proposals and are asked not to copy, quote, or otherwise use material from any proposal. Reviews are not disclosed to persons outside NSF except to the principal investigator. At the end of the review process, the principal investigator is sent the written verbatim reviews with the reviewers’ names and affiliations omitted. Reviews are forwarded whether the proposal is funded or not. All reviews are confidential. NSF releases abstracts and other information about funded proposals only.


       


      Criteria for Evaluation


      Proposals to NSF are evaluated for merit on the basis of two general criteria. The criteria are described in Chapter III, Section A, of the Grant Proposal Guide and are printed on the NSF Proposal Evaluation Form (NSF Form 1). These criteria, as they relate to education, are defined below. In addition to the suggestions listed in the "Advice for Proposal Writers" section, special attention should be paid to the criteria and questions specified below. These criteria are given to the review panels as guidance for evaluating program proposals. Some programs include additional criteria for their programs. See the DUE Program Announcement for this information about DUE programs.


      I. Intellectual Merit


      What is the intellectual merit of the proposed activity? This criterion is used to assess the importance of the proposed activity to advancing knowledge and understanding within the context of undergraduate science, mathematics, engineering, and technology (SMET) education. This criterion also relates to the quality, currency, and significance of the scientific/technical content and related instructional activity, the capability of the Principal Investigator(s), the extent to which the proposed activity applies innovative approaches or explores creative concepts, the technical soundness and organization of the proposed approach, and the adequacy of the institutional resources available. Typical questions raised in the review process include:


          * Does the project address a major challenge facing SMET undergraduate education?


          * Are the goals and objectives, and the plans and procedures for achieving them, innovative, well-developed, worthwhile, and realistic?


          * Does the project have potential for improving student learning of important principles of science, mathematics, engineering, or technology?


          * Is the project informed by research in teaching and learning, current pedagogical issues, what others have done, and relevant literature?


          * Does the project provide for effective assessment of student learning, which reflects the proposed educational objectives and practices?


          * Does the project design consider the background, preparation, and experience of the target audience?


          * Does the project have the potential to provide fundamental improvements in teaching and learning through effective uses of technology?


          * Is the project led by and supported by the involvement of capable faculty (and where appropriate, practicing scientists, mathematicians, engineers, technicians, teachers, and student assistants), who have recent and relevant experience in education, in research, or in the workplace?


          * Is the project supported by adequate facilities and resources, and by an institutional and departmental commitment?


       


      II. Broader Impacts


      What are the broader impacts of the proposed activity? This criterion relates to the extent to which the activity advances discovery and understanding while promoting teaching and learning, how well it broadens participation of underrepresented groups (e.g., based on gender, ethnicity, disability, geography, etc.), the extent to which it enhances the infrastructure for research and education (e.g., facilities, instrumentation, networks, partnerships), the degree to which it plans broad dissemination to enhance scientific and technological understanding, and the benefits of the activity to society. Typical questions raised in the review process include:


          * To what extent will the results of the project contribute to the knowledge base of activities that enhance student learning?


          * Are the proposed course, curriculum, faculty or teacher professional development, experiential learning, or laboratory activities integrated into the institution’s academic program?


          * Are plans for evaluation of the project appropriate and adequate for the project’s size and scope?


          * Are the results of the project likely to be useful at similar institutions?


          * What is the potential for the project to produce widely used products which can be disseminated through commercial or other channels? Are plans for producing, marketing and distributing these products and communication of results appropriate and adequate?


          * For ATE projects, does the project address the current and future needs of industry for technicians? Does the project enhance the current status of technician education?


          * Will the project result in solid content and pedagogical preparation of faculty and teachers of science, mathematics, engineering, and technology?


          * Does the project effectively address one or more of the following objectives:

                o ensure the highest quality education for those students planning to pursue SMET careers?

                o increase the participation of women, underrepresented minorities, and persons with disabilities?

                o provide a foundation for scientific, technological, and workplace literacy?

                o develop multi- and interdisciplinary courses and curricula, that are aligned with SMET standards, as appropriate?


      Additional Questions Relevant to NSF Collaboratives for Excellence in Teacher Preparation (CETP):


      I. Intellectual Merit


          * Is the rationale for selecting particular activities or components for development or adaptation clearly articulated?


          * As appropriate, is there evidence of collaboration among faculty and departments in the sciences, mathematics, technology, education, and/or engineering?


          * For multi-institutional projects, is there significant evidence of participation and commitment by the member institutions including school personnel (teachers, supervisors, administrators) in proposal preparation and in the planning and implementation of the project?


          * Is there demonstrated leadership from the science, mathematics, and/or engineering faculty in close collaboration with the science and mathematics education faculty? Does the institutional structure and culture promote the requisite collaboration between the institutions, departments and faculties involved?


          * Is there integration of mathematics and science, use of advanced technologies, applications to engineering and technology, and/or new methods of student assessment appropriate to the teaching methodologies?


          * Does the project contain exemplary mentoring and field experiences (e.g., student teaching, laboratory research opportunities, support for novice teachers)?


          * Are there strategies for recruiting, supporting, and graduating high-quality prospective mathematics and science teachers, particularly from underrepresented groups including persons with disabilities?


          * Are there creative plans to maintain continuing relationships with graduates of the proposed Collaborative program to encourage their retention in science and mathematics teaching?


      II. Broader Impacts


          * Is the evidence for institutional support clear and compelling?


          * Will the project contribute to the preparation of preK-12 teachers who are: knowledgeable in, and comfortable with science, mathematics, and technology; confident in their abilities in these disciplines; and able to effectively use a variety of pedagogical approaches and technology to improve student learning?


          * Does the proposal indicate how the project relates to a teacher preparation program? Is there significant redesign of activities, including discipline courses, which serve prospective teachers as part of the audience, and are these activities integrated into the curriculum and institutional requirements?


          * Will the project result in increased involvement of mathematics, science and, as appropriate, engineering and technology departments and their faculty in the preparation of prospective teachers?


          * Is there evidence that programs initiated by the collaborative entity will become established within the participating science, mathematics, education and/or engineering departments and the sponsoring institution or institutions? Are there effective mechanisms included to promote the incorporation of successful models or results into statewide practice and policy?


          * Is there significant cost sharing by the institution or each of the institutions within the Collaborative?


          * Is there cognizance of and cooperation with other programs in the region (Local Systemic Change [LSC], State Systemic Initiative [SSI], Urban Systemic Initiative [USI], Rural Systemic Initiative [RSI], Alliances for Minority Participation [AMP], and large systemic efforts in preK-12 curriculum reform) designed to improve the teaching of math and science?


          * Are adequate systems provided to facilitate the collection of baseline and subsequent data to measure program impact?


       


      ADVICE TO PROPOSAL WRITERS


      The following steps are provided to help the proposal writer understand the steps that go into preparing a proposal and to share some advice that others have found useful.


       


      Step 1 - Before You Write


      Getting Started


      NSF grants provide funds based on merit, not on need.


      A good proposal begins with a clear idea of the goals and objectives of the project—for example, creating a course or curriculum, improving a laboratory by teaching new concepts directly, teaching new material to undergraduate faculty, or preparing future technicians or K-12 teachers in a more effective way.


      In addition, a good project begins with a sense of why it will be a significant improvement over current practice.


      Envision what improvements your project will make, and then ask yourself what activities and course(s) must be developed, what instruments will be needed, or what coalitions must be formed to make the desired improvements. Focusing first on the goals and objectives helps ensure that the activities are designed to reach those goals.


      After the goals and associated activities are well defined, consider what resources (e.g., people, time, equipment, technical support) will be necessary as part of the request to NSF. A better proposal is likely to result if the goals and activities are clear before resources are considered.


      Your project should be innovative within its context. It should not be designed merely to bring your institution up to the level of other similar institutions, nor should it be used to fill program deficiencies that have been caused by changing student registration patterns.


      Projects should explore teaching and learning methods that use equipment, scientific knowledge, or teaching techniques in effective ways; perhaps by adapting techniques to a new context or by teaching in a novel or attractive way.


      In addition, more extensive projects, such as Advanced Technological Education (ATE) Centers and Collaboratives for Excellence in Teacher Preparation (CETP), must show clearly that they can initiate important changes in the teaching of undergraduate science, mathematics, engineering, or technology for a significant segment of the community.


      Mention what work has been done in preparation for the project, and describe specific attempts that have been made to try the proposed improvement on a small scale. Evidence of preliminary work demonstrates planning and commitment to the project and often indicates the project’s potential for success.


      When the proposal requests significant funds for equipment, it is helpful to consider alternatives and explain why the instruments chosen are particularly suitable for the project and why others, especially less expensive ones, are less suitable.


      Get advice from people who have been successful in the proposal process. (See the Getting Advice Section listed in Step 3 and consider these activities early in the process.)


      Gathering Background Information


      When writing a proposal, look for previously awarded NSF projects or work supported in other ways that are similar. The relationship of the proposed project to work of others should be described. In addition, the proposal must give appropriate attention to the existing relevant knowledge base, including awareness of current literature. Results of previous projects may have been presented at professional meetings or published in journals, and NSF regularly publishes abstracts of its recently awarded grants. Information can also be obtained from NSF’s World Wide Web site, <http://www.nsf.gov/>.


      When you find a funded project that is similar, call the principal investigator, discuss his/her project, and ask him/her to send or e-mail you a copy of the grant proposal. You will then be better able to see how that project is outlined and developed and how it meets certain needs on that particular campus and in the broader community. Clearly you will wish to use this only as guidance and should not copy the project. There will be differences in what is needed in each new project.


      Feel free to call a DUE Program Director (current number 703-306-1666) when unsure about any details or procedure.

      Looking at the Program Announcement


      Identify the program or programs that best fit what you hope to accomplish.


      Read the Program Announcement guidelines carefully and consider what is requested. Each program’s section of that announcement specifies requirements for that program and information that is used to review the proposal.


      The Program Announcement clearly spells out requirements, including format requirements. All parts of the proposal should conform to the requirements, i.e., target dates, font size, page limits, program objectives, budget limits, matching funds, etc. The proposal should be concise and not exceed any text restrictions.


      The review criteria are particularly important to consider in writing the proposal. Keep in mind that different programs may have special emphases for review. These will be mentioned in the Program Announcement. You should consider, if appropriate, how your project might address these areas.


      In some cases, programs have specific requirements that differ from the general requirements. When there are differences, the guidelines closest to the program should be followed (i.e., follow the program guidelines provided in the DUE Program Announcement). For example, the DUE Program Announcement calls for double line spacing while the NSF Grant Proposal Guide leaves line spacing to the discretion of the proposer. In that case, you should use double line spacing.


      Thinking About the Target Audience


      The target audience of the grant should be clearly explained in terms of demographic characteristics, size, and special characteristics or problems/challenges faced by the group. The project design should be developed in a manner which will effectively assist the target group in addressing those special problems or challenges. The disparity between the educational sophistication of the project and the educational naiveté of the audience (e.g., a software package which is primarily being used for research that is proposed to be used in a developmental mathematics class) is usually noted by the reviewers and can be one reason for declination of funding.


      One of the goals of the Foundation is to increase the participation in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology of women, underrepresented minorities, and persons with disabilities. If your project is going to provide learning opportunities for women, underrepresented minorities, and persons with disabilities, explain exactly how this is going to be done. The proposal should explicitly identify components that will result in increased participation by and/or success of these groups. There must be a focused plan, explaining in detail how your project will accomplish this.


      Building Coalitions


      When several departments, several institutions, or constituencies outside the academic community are involved in the project, it is important to have these groups involved in the planning and to obtain letters of commitment to the project.


      When faculty or teacher enhancement activities or industry partners are included, involve these potential participants in the planning of project activities.


      Where appropriate in terms of the project’s size and its potential for national impact, consider designing the project with an advisory board of outside experts to provide additional levels of expertise and experience and to help widely disseminate the project results.


      Even in smaller projects, an advisory board of outside experts from the college or local community can provide additional levels of expertise and experience.


      Build consensus on your idea within your own department and institution. If the courses are taught by different faculty members, reviewers may be more receptive if the proposal is submitted jointly by several members of the department or institution rather than by a single faculty member. It is often valuable to include a letter of support from the department chair or other individuals to establish institutional support.


      Include information about where the project fits in the context of the institution’s academic program. As appropriate, show how your project is part of an overall plan to improve education by your institution and other institutions.


      Discuss involving other institutions in your proposal either as partners in the endeavor or as test sites.


      Other Considerations


      Organize a good working team. Distribute duties and develop a firm schedule of activities needed to prepare the proposal in time to meet the proposal deadline.


      Schedule proposal writing and information gathering activities over a reasonable time and carefully manage the schedule. Consider scheduling the writing in small, regular amounts of time. The effort needed to write a proposal might, at first sight, seem insurmountable. By proceeding a step at a time, you will be able to accomplish the task.


      Remember to allow enough time to have the proposal revised by a third party if needed and to obtain all the necessary internal and external support letters and permissions. Consider having one person write the final proposal to assure consistency.


      Typically a final version of a proposal will have gone through several drafts and revisions. Don’t plan on writing a final version in a first draft.


      Invest time running a pilot program and preparing preliminary versions of curricular materials prior to the actual writing of the proposal.


      The proposal should be written so that, if funded, it can serve as a blueprint for executing the plan.


       


      Step 2 - Writing the Proposal


      Writing the Proposal Narrative


      A good proposal is always readable, well-organized, grammatically correct, and understandable.


      Be explicit in your narrative about how the program will make an improvement. This narrative must contain specifics including details of experiments and/or applications, both to show that planning has been done and to help reviewers understand why the particular application you propose is better than other ideas. You and your colleagues should think through several iterations of the definition of the project.


      The narrative should be specific about the proposed activities. Reviewers want details of the project’s organization, the course content, laboratory and other inquiry-based experiments, and participant activities, both to show that groundwork has been laid and to help them understand why the particular ideas you propose are better than others.


      Careful writing should allow you to describe, in the limited space available, enough about your project to give the reviewers a clear idea of exactly what you plan to do and why your plan is a good one. How would the project improve education at your institution and how might it be emulated at other similar institutions? How will your plan ultimately improve students’ understanding of concepts in science, mathematics, engineering, or technology? How will you know it has been done?


      You must demonstrate in the narrative that you have a broad knowledge of current scholarship and activities in your field and how this is relevant to your project’s design. This knowledge should include current research in teaching and learning practices. However, do not focus entirely on this aspect and fail to adequately describe the components of your project.


      The project description/narrative of the proposal should be written by the person or persons in the science, engineering, or mathematics departments who will be the principal investigator(s). The submitting institution’s sponsored research office or grant administration expert can assist in some areas of the proposal writing, e.g., with budgets or grammar, but usually do not have the scientific qualifications or classroom experience to describe the project in an appropriately technical or pedagogical manner.


      It is helpful to reviewers to see that you have devised a time frame. This will show that you have done adequate planning and are realistic about the program’s implementation.


      Include examples that illustrate, for example, the innovative activities or exercises that students will be doing. Reviewers usually respond to projects that include an emphasis on active learning and student directed inquiry.


      In most cases, it is well to describe your plans to continue the project and institutionalize courses and curriculum beyond the funding period.


      Including Budget Information


      The budget request should be realistic for the project and reflect the goals of the project. It must also be consistent with the requirements of the particular NSF program. It should request sufficient resources needed to carry out the project, but it should not be excessively high.


      Budget information should be complete and unambiguous. Carefully review your budget to ensure that ineligible items do not appear in the budget and that adequate attention has been given to cost sharing. Consult the Program Announcement for eligible and ineligible items. Most reviewers and all Program Directors look carefully at the proposed budgets to find evidence of careful reflection and realistic project planning.


      Institutional and other leveraged commitments toward the budget is one way to demonstrate institutional support of the project. Institutional and other contributions in terms of matching funds or released time are usually looked upon by reviewers as a positive sign of institutional commitment.


      Some programs require specific cost-sharing. For example, for proposals in the Adaptation and Implementation track of DUE’s Course, Curriculum, and Laboratory Improvement program, cost-sharing from non-Federal sources equal to or greater than the requested NSF funds is required for the entire budget. In addition, a specific 1:1 or greater match is required on equipment requests. Cost-sharing information must be included on line M of the budget form, and if the proposal is awarded becomes a condition of the award. Remember that cost-sharing is subject to audit. (For more information, see the Grant Proposal Guide and the DUE Program Announcement.)


      Make sure that your budget narrative reflects both your official NSF budget pages and the needs of the project.


      Cost of the project must be realistic. Many budget requests are out-of-line with others submitted to the program. Look at the Program Announcement for average size of awards and the award range.


      Budgets are often negotiated as a proposal is being considered; but a clear, realistic budget request strengthens a proposal.


      Writing the Credentials of the PI and Other Staff


      When writing up the credentials of faculty for the grant proposal, each biographical sketch should be written with the proposal in mind and should display the unique background of the principal investigator(s) which will be valuable in working on the proposed project.


      Carefully follow program guidelines about format and length of biographical sketches.


      Be sure that the roles of all personnel, especially the principal investigators, are described in the proposal itself. Having the roles of the principal investigators and other personnel discussed within the narrative is important so that reviewers can understand their involvement, leadership, and commitment to the project.


      If your project involves industry, consider having a co-principal investigator representing industry.


      Including Evaluation and Dissemination Information


      A good evaluation plan appropriate to the scale of the project will provide information as the project is developing and will determine how effectively the project has achieved its goals. The effects of formative evaluation should be described. Also include how you intend to evaluate the final project and how you will determine whether this project met your scientific and pedagogical expectations.


      Discuss how you plan to collect and analyze data on the project’s impact (i.e., number of students or faculty affected.)


      Describe why the proposed project is a good way to improve education at your institution and how it might be emulated at other similar institutions.


      Explain in detail how you will disseminate information on the success and content of your project to other scientists and educators. In general, setting up a Web page about the project is not considered sufficient.


      For projects which are creating instructional materials, include information on potential commercial publication. What products—text, software, CD ROMS, manuals, or other publications—might result, and what plans are in place to distribute them effectively?


      Projects which include plans for commercial publication are encouraged by NSF. Authors who submit such proposals should demonstrate that NSF funding is necessary to create the work, make the product available earlier, or better serve the community.


      When extensive utilization of educational technology is expected, how will the student learning outcomes be evaluated? What are the plans to ensure that electronic dissemination will lead to broad implementation of material so provided, and that such material will be subjected to continued scrutiny for editorial quality and currency of content?


      Consider the value that an outside evaluator may add to your project.


      Letters of Commitment


      Include letters of commitment from your department chair and other appropriate administrators.


      If your project involves other people or groups not on your campus (e.g., K-12 teachers, consultants, or other colleges), include letters of commitment and support from appropriate individuals.


      Include letters of commitment with specific contributions from the participants' supporting institutions. These should make specific commitments and not just be generic support of good will. Uniquely phrased letters of commitment from different institutions are better than nearly identical letters from the institutions to be served.


      Project Summary and Project Data Form


      The project summary (abstract) is the first thing that reviewers and NSF staff read. It should be written clearly and concisely. In the space allotted, it should outline the problem, the objectives and the expected outcomes, project activities, and the audience to be addressed. Project directors use the summary to choose reviewers for the proposal. It is also the reviewers’ introduction to the project. NSF publishes an abstract of the project (both in hard copy and electronically) should it be funded. Considerable effort and thought should be spent in preparing a well-written summary.


      The numbers given on the Project Data Form concerning student impact should be as accurate as possible. Reviewers look for discrepancies in enrollment data and the projected numbers of students. They look for reasonable expectations in those numbers.


       


      Step 3 - Before Sending Your Proposal to NSF


      Learning More About the Review Process


      To gain expertise in NSF’s proposal review system, volunteer to serve on a program review panel yourself. Each Division compiles names of appropriate individuals who can serve as reviewers. Contact the pertinent division for a form to fill out to volunteer for reviewer status.


      Encourage your professional organization to form a committee to help members review their proposals before submitting them to NSF.


      Getting Advice


      Consider asking someone who has served on an NSF program review panel to assess your proposal.


      If possible, have someone not connected with the proposal read and comment on a draft of your proposal—with sufficient time allowed for changes prior to the submission of your proposal. This person can help identify omissions or inconsistent logic before reviewers see the proposal.


      Some programs require a preliminary proposal. Check the Program Announcement and with NSF staff.


      When working on a proposal or award for several years, you may be transferred from one Program Director to another. Many Program Directors come to NSF from colleges and universities for one or two-year assignments and then return to their schools at the end of their rotational assignments.


      Before Finishing the Proposal


      When a checklist is provided in the Program Announcement, use it to ensure that all needed information, signatures, and/or administrative details are included.


      Look again at the goals and objectives and at your written plans and procedures for achieving the goals. Check to see that the goals are well-developed and realistic and that your plans are innovative and appropriate.


      Consider using graphics to make your point stronger and clearer.


      A time line to show when different components of your project are to take place can be particularly effective.


      Include a table of contents. This makes it easy for reviewers to locate important sections of your proposal.


      Little Things That Can Make a Difference


      Use a spell checker before submitting the proposal.


      Proofread carefully.


      Be sure to follow the directions given in the Program Announcement. In particular, follow any specific requirements such as page limitations.


      In general avoid abbreviations. For example, use laboratory, not lab and mathematics, not math.


      The first time you use an acronym, write out what it stands for and put the acronym in parentheses. For example, American Mathematical Association of Two-Year Colleges (AMATYC). After that you can use the acronym.


      Make sure all your references are correct.


       


      Step 4 - Awards and Declinations


      If The Grant is Awarded


      If the proposal is successful, make the best possible use of the funds awarded. Situations may arise that require changes in your plans to accomplish the goals of the project. Within broad limits described in the grant conditions (reference GC-1, FDP III, and NSF’s Grant Policy Manual) and within the overall budget, such changes may be possible. Consult your institution’s sponsored research office or grant administration office for guidance.


      In addition, let others know about your project. This may include providing advice or assistance to faculty developing similar projects. It clearly includes disseminating products and results. Make sure that other scientists and educators learn about your activities through correspondence, telephone conversations, presentations, and publications. Finally, reference the National Science Foundation as well as the sponsoring Division and/or program in all presentations and publications.


      If Your Proposal is Not Funded


      If the proposal is not funded, consider the reviews of the panel and the comments from NSF staff objectively and seriously. Consult NSF staff if necessary and, unless the feedback indicates otherwise, submit a revised or new proposal the following year. Many awards made in the programs have been for proposals that were revised thoughtfully and resubmitted after having been declined initially.


      Your institution may have a strong enough commitment to the project to provide funding. You may also discover other funding avenues open to you. If you have contacts with business and industry in your community, a company in the private sector may be interested in helping fund your project. Often, institution grant officers have directories that include the names of other foundations and their funding priorities.


      A Final Note


      The National Science Foundation is looking for proposals of programs that will improve the quality of education in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology at all levels. It seeks to support the best science, mathematics, engineering, and technology education activities that meet the needs of target audiences. It is in our mutual best interest to have your proposal be of the highest quality.


      We hope that you have found this Guide helpful and encourage you to contact a Program Director at NSF for additional information.


       


      Proposal Evaluation Form


      (Form Not Available)


       


      NSF 98-91

      (Replaces NSF 97-83)


      » See document: http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/1998/nsf9891/nsf9891.htm
       
    • Programs
      # Crosscutting Investment Strategies   [Crosscutting Investment Strategies PDF 186KB]


          * NSF Priority Areas

          * Human Resource and Career Development

          * Crosscutting Research, Instrumentation, and Partnering Programs


      # Directorate for Biological Sciences (BIO)   [BIO PDF 175KB]


          * Division of Biological Infrastructure (DBI)

          * Division of Environmental Biology (DEB)

          * Division of Integrative Biology and Neuroscience (IBN)

          * Division of Molecular and Cellular Biosciences (MCB)

          * Plant Genome Research Program


      # Directorate for Computer and Information Science and Engineering (CISE)   [CISE PDF 229KB]


          * Crosscutting Programs and Activities

          * Division of Computer-Communications Research (C-CR)

          * Division of Information and Intelligent Systems (IIS)

          * Division of Advanced Computational Infrastructure and Research (ACIR)

          * Division of Advanced Networking Infrastructure and Research (ANIR)

          * Division of Experimental and Integrative Activities (EIA)


      # Directorate for Education and Human Resources (EHR)   [EHR PDF 233KB]


          * Math and Science Partnership (MSP)

          * Division of Educational System Reform (ESR)

          * Division of Elementary, Secondary, and Informal Education (ESIE)

          * Division of Graduate Education (DGE)

            Division of Human Resource Development (HRD)

          * Division of Research, Evaluation, and Communication (REC)

          * Division of Undergraduate Education (DUE)

          * Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR)


      # Directorate for Engineering (ENG)   [ENG PDF 274KB]


          * Crosscutting Programs and Activities

          * Division of Bioengineering and Environmental Systems (BES)

          * Division of Chemical and Transport Systems (CTS)

          * Division of Civil and Mechanical Systems (CMS)

          * Division of Design, Manufacture, and Industrial Innovation (DMII)

          * Division of Electrical and Communications Systems (ECS)

          * Division of Engineering Education and Centers (EEC)


      # Directorate for Geosciences (GEO)   [GEO PDF 293KB]


          * Crosscutting Programs and Activities

          * Education and Outreach Activities

          * Division of Atmospheric Sciences (ATM)

          * Division of Earth Sciences (EAR)

          * Division of Ocean Sciences (OCE)


      # Directorate for Mathematical and Physical Sciences (MPS)   [MPS PDF 196KB]


          * Office of Multidisciplinary Activities (OMA)

          * Division of Astronomical Sciences (AST)

          * Division of Mathematical Sciences (DMS)

          * Division of Physics (PHY)

          * Division of Chemistry (CHE)

          * Division of Materials Research (DMR)


      # Office of Polar Programs (OPP)   [OPP PDF 108KB]


          * Antarctic Sciences (Office of Polar Programs)

          * Arctic Sciences (Office of Polar Programs)

          * Crosscutting Programs (Foundation-wide)


      # Directorate for Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences (SBE)   [SBE PDF 155KB]


          * Crosscutting Programs and Activities

          * Division of Behavioral and Cognitive Sciences (BCS)

          * Division of Social and Economic Sciences (SES)

          * Division of Science Resources Statistics (SRS)

          * Office of International Science and Engineering (INT)




      » See document: http://www.nsf.gov/od/lpa/news/publicat/nsf03009/toc.htm
       
      • ESIE
        Directorate for Education and Human Resources
        Division of Elementary, Secondary, and Informal Education

        Science, mathematics, and technology (SMT) education, preK through grade 12 (preK-12), lays the foundation of knowledge and skills needed by future researchers, educators, and technologists; students pursuing post-secondary education in other disciplines; and individuals directly entering the technological workforce. The Division of Elementary, Secondary, and Informal Education (ESIE) supports the National Science Foundation's mission of providing leadership and promoting development of the infrastructure and resources needed to improve preK-12 SMT education throughout the United States.

        ESIE's comprehensive and coherent research-based program portfolio develops the nation's capacity to support high quality SMT education. Innovative instructional materials and student assessments as well as new models for the delivery of teacher professional development, contribute to SMT classroom environments that enable all students to achieve their full potential. Moreover, ESIE's informal learning opportunities via media, exhibit, and community-based programs increase scientific and technological literacy, as well as develop life-long learning skills that benefit students of all ages. All ESIE programs contribute to development of a knowledge base that informs practice and partnerships that leverage expertise and other resources of major education stakeholders nationwide, including higher education, state and local education agencies, school districts, informal science education institutions, and industry.



        » See document: http://www.nsf.gov/od/lpa/news/publicat/nsf03009/ehr/esie.htm
         
      • Eligible Programs
        1. Teacher Enhancement (TE)

        The TE Program develops models for strengthening the teacher workforce by expanding and deepening understanding of content, pedagogy, and instructional technologies; by heightening awareness and deepening understanding of the diverse learning needs of students; by grounding continued professional development in the context of school structure and organization; and by developing a cadre of teachers and administrators who can effectively lead the reform of SMT education.

        Eligibility Requirements for TE

        The TE Program has special eligibility requirements beyond the standard NSF requirements. For more information, see program solicitation and guidelines {HYPERLINK "http://www.nsf.gov/pubsys/ods/getpub.cfm?ods_key=nsf0160"} NSF 01-60 .

        2. Centers for Learning and Teaching (CLT)

        The CLT's address critical issues and national needs of the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) instructional workforce through meaningful partnerships among educational stakeholders, especially Ph.D.-granting institutions, school systems, and informal education organizations. Its goals are to rebuild and diversify the national infrastructure for STEM education; enhance the content knowledge and instructional skills of K-16 STEM educators; and provide substantial opportunities for research into the nature of learning and teaching.

        Eligibility Requirements for CLT

        The CLT Program has special eligibility requirements beyond the standard NSF requirements. For more information, see program solicitation {HYPERLINK "http://www.nsf.gov/pubsys/ods/getpub.cfm?ods_key=nsf02038"} NSF 02-038 .

        3. Instructional Materials Development (IMD)

        The IMD Program develops high quality, research-based instructional and assessment materials for students that enhance knowledge, thinking skills, and problem-solving abilities of all students, as well as incorporate recent advances in disciplinary content, research on teaching and learning, and instructional technologies. IMD materials are intended to be implemented nationwide and address learning in diverse settings.

        Eligibility Requirements for IMD

        The IMD Program has special eligibility requirements beyond the standard NSF requirements. For more information, see program solicitation and guidelines {HYPERLINK "http://www.nsf.gov/pubsys/ods/getpub.cfm?ods_key=nsf02067"} NSF 02-067 .

        4. Informal Science Education (ISE)

        The ISE Program provides stimulating experiences for SMT learning outside of formal classroom environments through media, exhibits, and community-based programming. Its goals are to increase the understanding of and participation in SMT disciplines by individuals of all ages; establish linkages between informal and formal education; and stimulate parents and others to support their children's SMT learning endeavors and become informed proponents for high-quality, universally available SMT education.

        Eligibility Requirements for ISE

        The ISE Program has special eligibility requirements beyond the standard NSF requirements. For more information, see program solicitation and guidelines {HYPERLINK "http://www.nsf.gov/pubsys/ods/getpub.cfm?ods_key=nsf0160"} NSF 01-60 .

        5. Information Technology Experiences for Students and Teachers (ITEST)

        The ITEST Program seeks to increase the opportunities for students and teachers to learn about, experience, and use information technologies within the context of STEM, including information technology (IT) courses. It responds directly to concern about shortages of technology workers in the United States and builds on the earlier NSF program for youth titled After School Centers for Exploration and New Discovery (ASCEND). Supported projects are intended to provide opportunities for both middle- and high-school students, for their teachers to build the skills and knowledge needed to advance their study, and to function and contribute in a technologically rich society.

        Eligibility Requirements for ITEST

        The ITEST Program has special eligibility requirements beyond the standard NSF requirements. For more information, see program solicitation and guidelines {HYPERLINK "http://www.nsf.gov/pubsys/ods/getpub.cfm?ods_key=nsf02147"} NSF 02-147 .

        6. Presidential Awards for Excellence in Mathematics and Science Teaching (PAEMST)

        The PAEMST Program, which was established in 1983 by The White House and managed by NSF, identifies outstanding science and mathematics teachers--in kindergarten through 12th grade--in each state and four U.S. jurisdictions. It is the nation's highest honor for K-12 science and mathematics teachers.

        Eligibility Requirements for PAEMST

        The PAEMST Program has special eligibility requirements beyond the standard NSF requirements. For complete information, visit the PAEMST web site, {HYPERLINK "https://www.ehr.nsf.gov/pres_awards/"} https://www.ehr.nsf.gov/pres_awards/ .

        7. Advanced Technological Education (ATE)

        The ESIE Division and the Division of Undergraduate Education jointly manage the ATE Program. ATE promotes improvement in the education of technicians in science and engineering related fields at the undergraduate and secondary school levels. It particularly targets 2-year colleges and encourages collaboration among 2-year colleges, 4-year colleges, universities, secondary schools, business, industry, and government. Proposals are solicited in three major tracks:

          • Projects—Activities may include the design and implementation of new courses, laboratories, and educational materials; the adaptation and implementation of exemplary curricula and programs in new educational settings; the preparation and professional development of college faculty and secondary school teachers; internships and field experience for students, faculty, and teachers; or national conferences, workshops, and similar activities that focus on issues in technological education.
          • Centers—ATE Centers are comprehensive national or regional resources that provide models and leadership for other projects and act as clearinghouses for educational materials and methods. National Centers of Excellence engage in the full range of activities described above for projects. Regional Centers for manufacturing or information technology education pursue comprehensive approaches that focus on reforming academic programs, departments, and systems to produce a highly qualified workforce to meet industry's needs within a particular geographic region.
          • Articulation Partnerships—These projects focus on enhancing either of two important educational pathways for students between 2-year colleges and 4-year colleges and universities. One type of Articulation Partnership focuses on strengthening the SMT preparation of prospective K-12 teachers who are enrolled in preprofessional programs at 2-year colleges. The other type of Articulation Partnership targets 2-year college programs for students to continue their education in 4-year STEM programs, especially programs that have a strong technological basis.

        Proposals in all three tracks must show evidence of a coherent vision of technological education—a vision that recognizes the needs of the modern workplace; of students as lifelong learners; and for articulation of educational programs at different levels.



        » See document: http://www.nsf.gov/od/lpa/news/publicat/nsf03009/ehr/esie.htm#1
         
      • Deadlines



        About this list -- This page is generated from the Online Document System as of Apr 18, 2003. It includes deadlines and target dates from the previous month .


        Important -- Deadline and target dates are subject to change, and details concerning these dates may be found in the individual publications listed below, or on the deadline and target date pages maintained by the program areas.


        NSF 03-511

        Informal Science Education (ISE)

        (Education)

        Preliminary Proposal Due Date - required : March 03, 2003


        NSF 03-530

        National Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Education Digital Library (NSDL)

        (Education)

        Letter of Intent: March 12, 2003


        NSF 03-520

        Louis Stokes Alliances for Minority Participation (LSAMP) Program

        (Education)

        Full Proposal Deadline due by 5 p.m proposer's local time: March 23, 2003


        NSF 02-168

        Information Technology Research

        (Biology, Computer/Information Sciences, Education, Engineering, Geosciences, International, Math/Physical Sciences, NSF-wide, Polar Programs, Scientific and Professional Social/Behavioral Sciences)

        Deadline Date for Large Projects : March 24, 2003


        NSF 03-540

        Dear Colleague Letter - Education

        (Education, Special Emphasis Program)

        The requests should be submitted as soon as notification of application acceptance by DoE is received, but must be submitted no later than 5 PM (local time). : March 30, 2003


        NSF 03-544

        Robert Noyce Scholarship Program

        (Education)

        Letter of Intent Due Date - optional: April 05, 2003


        NSF 03-519

        National Nanotechnology Infrastructure Network (NNIN)

        (Biology, Computer/Information Sciences, Crosscutting Programs, Education, Engineering, Geosciences, Math/Physical Sciences, Social/Behavioral Sciences)

        Letter of Intent due (required): April 07, 2003


        NSF 03-521

        Partnerships for Innovation (PFI)

        (Biology, Computer/Information Sciences, Crosscutting Programs, Education, Engineering, Geosciences, Math/Physical Sciences, NSF-wide, Polar Programs, Social/Behavioral Sciences)

        Full Proposal Deadline: April 09, 2003


        NSF 03-548

        Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Talent Expansion Program

        (Education)

        Letter of Intent Due Date - optional: April 10, 2003


        NSF 03-502

        Gender Diversity in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics Education

        (Education)

        Full proposal deadline date due by 5 p.m proposer's local time) for Elementary and Middle School, Informal Education (K-12) and High School, Undergraduate, Teacher and Faculty Development, Educational Technololgies.: April 11, 2003


        NSF 03-541

        Math and Science Partnership: Research, Evaluation, and Technical Assistance (MSP RETA)

        (Education)

        Letter of Intent Due Date.: April 14, 2003


        NSF 02-177

        Program for Persons with Disabilities (PPD) FY03

        (Education)

        Proposals due by 5:00 p.m. local time: April 18, 2003


        NSF 03-530

        National Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Education Digital Library (NSDL)

        (Education)

        Deadline Date: April 21, 2003


        NSF 03-523

        Advanced Technological Education

        (Education)

        Deadline Dates for Preliminary Proposal for LSMD: April 23, 2003


        NSF 03-523

        Advanced Technological Education

        (Education)

        Deadline Dates for Preliminary Proposal for LSTP: April 23, 2003


        NSF 03-523

        Advanced Technological Education

        (Education)

        Preliminary Proposal Due Date optional except for LSMD and LSTP: April 23, 2003


        NSF 03-522

        Centers for Learning and Teaching (CLT)

        (Education)

        Full Proposal Deadline (due by 5 p.m proposer's local time): April 24, 2003


        NSF 03-524

        Instructional Materials Development (IMD)

        (Education)

        Preliminary Proposal Due Date (required): May 01, 2003


        NSF 03-532

        NSF Graduate Teaching Fellows in K-12 Education (GK-12)

        (Biology, Computer/Information Sciences, Crosscutting Programs, Education, Engineering, Geosciences, Math/Physical Sciences, NSF-wide, Polar Programs, Social/Behavioral Sciences)

        Letter of Intent Due Date - Required - Please email to gk-12@nsf.gov by 5:00 PM proposer's local time, the first Wednesday in May: May 07, 2003


        NSF 03-541

        Math and Science Partnership: Research, Evaluation, and Technical Assistance (MSP RETA)

        (Education)

        Full Proposal due by 5 p.m proposer's local time.: May 12, 2003


        NSF 03-542

        Evaluative Research and Evaluation Capacity Building (EREC) and Research on Learning and Education (ROLE)

        (Education)

        EREC Proposal Deadline due by 5 p.m proposer's local time: May 15, 2003


        NSF 03-519

        National Nanotechnology Infrastructure Network (NNIN)

        (Biology, Computer/Information Sciences, Crosscutting Programs, Education, Engineering, Geosciences, Math/Physical Sciences, Social/Behavioral Sciences)

        Full Proposal Deadline due by 5 p.m proposer's local time: May 16, 2003


        NSF 03-544

        Robert Noyce Scholarship Program

        (Education)

        Full Proposal Deadline due by 5 p.m proposer's local time: May 16, 2003


        NSF 03-534

        Teacher Professional Continuum (TPC)

        (Education)

        Preliminary Proposal Due Date required for categories I, II, and III; not required for category IV: May 19, 2003


        NSF 03-548

        Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Talent Expansion Program

        (Education)

        Full Proposal Deadline due by 5 p.m proposer's local time: May 22, 2003


        NSF 03-511

        Informal Science Education (ISE)

        (Education)

        Full Proposal Deadline due by 5 p.m proposer's local time : May 30, 2003


        NSF 03-542

        Evaluative Research and Evaluation Capacity Building (EREC) and Research on Learning and Education (ROLE)

        (Education)

        ROLE Proposal Deadline due by 5 p.m proposer's local time: June 01, 2003


        NSF 03-037

        Joint Announcement of Opportunities for FY 2003: Interdisciplinary Training for Undergraduates in Biological and Mathematical Sciences (UBM)

        (Biology, Education, Math/Physical Sciences)

        For FY 2003 consideration: June 02, 2003


        NSF 03-532

        NSF Graduate Teaching Fellows in K-12 Education (GK-12)

        (Biology, Computer/Information Sciences, Crosscutting Programs, Education, Engineering, Geosciences, Math/Physical Sciences, NSF-wide, Polar Programs, Social/Behavioral Sciences)

        Full Proposal Deadline due by 5 p.m proposer's local time. Annually to FastLane the first Wednesday in June: June 04, 2003


        NSF 03-558

        Course, Curriculum, and Laboratory Improvement

        (Education)

        (due by 5 p.m. proposer's local time): June 18, 2003


        NSF 03-528

        EPSCoR Research Infrastructure Improvement Grant Program (RII)

        (Education)

        Full Proposal Deadline due by 5 p.m proposer's local time: July 17, 2003


        NSF 02-111

        Faculty Early Career Development (CAREER) Program

        (Biology, Computer/Information Sciences, Education, Engineering, Geosciences, Math/Physical Sciences, NSF-wide, Polar Programs, Social/Behavioral Sciences)

        Deadline Date for BIO,CISE, and EHR: July 22, 2003


        NSF 02-111

        Faculty Early Career Development (CAREER) Program

        (Biology, Computer/Information Sciences, Education, Engineering, Geosciences, Math/Physical Sciences, NSF-wide, Polar Programs, Social/Behavioral Sciences)

        Deadline Date for ENG: July 23, 2003


        NSF 02-111

        Faculty Early Career Development (CAREER) Program

        (Biology, Computer/Information Sciences, Education, Engineering, Geosciences, Math/Physical Sciences, NSF-wide, Polar Programs, Social/Behavioral Sciences)

        Deadline Date for GEO, MPS, SBE and OPP: July 24, 2003


        NSF 03-511

        Informal Science Education (ISE)

        (Education)

        Preliminary Proposal Due Date - required: August 15, 2003


        NSF 03-524

        Instructional Materials Development (IMD)

        (Education)

        Full Proposal Deadline due by 5 p.m proposer's local time : August 26, 2003


        NSF 03-534

        Teacher Professional Continuum (TPC)

        (Education)

        Full Proposal Deadline due by 5 p.m proposer's local time: September 10, 2003


        NSF 02-136

        Research Experiences for Undergraduates

        (Biology, Computer/Information Sciences, Crosscutting Programs, Education, Engineering, Geosciences, Math/Physical Sciences, NSF-wide, Polar Programs, Social/Behavioral Sciences)

        Full Proposal Deadline: September 15, 2003


        NSF 98-19

        Human Resource Development for Science, Mathematics and Engineering Education and Research -- NSF 98-19

        (Education)

        Alliances for Minority Participation (AMP): October 15, 2003


        NSF 03-520

        Louis Stokes Alliances for Minority Participation (LSAMP) Program

        (Education)

        Full Proposal Deadline due by 5 p.m proposer's local time: October 15, 2003


        NSF 03-523

        Advanced Technological Education

        (Education)

        Full Proposal Deadline Date due by 5 p.m proposer's local time: October 15, 2003


        NSF 01-138

        Alliances For Graduate Education And The Professoriate (AGEP)

        (Education)

        Deadline Date: October 16, 2003


        NSF 03-511

        Informal Science Education (ISE)

        (Education)

        Full Proposal Deadline due by 5 p.m proposer's local time : November 17, 2003


        NSF 03-542

        Evaluative Research and Evaluation Capacity Building (EREC) and Research on Learning and Education (ROLE)

        (Education)

        ROLE Proposal Deadline due by 5 p.m proposer's local time: December 10, 2003


        NSF 01-171

        Major Research Instrumentation (MRI) Program

        (Biology, Computer/Information Sciences, Crosscutting Programs, Education, Engineering, Geosciences, Math/Physical Sciences, NSF-wide, Polar Programs, Social/Behavioral Sciences)

        Deadline Date: January 22, 2004


        NSF 03-532

        NSF Graduate Teaching Fellows in K-12 Education (GK-12)

        (Biology, Computer/Information Sciences, Crosscutting Programs, Education, Engineering, Geosciences, Math/Physical Sciences, NSF-wide, Polar Programs, Social/Behavioral Sciences)

        Letter of Intent Due Date - Required - Please email to gk-12@nsf.gov by 5:00 PM proposer's local time, the first Wednesday in May: May 05, 2004


        NSF 03-542

        Evaluative Research and Evaluation Capacity Building (EREC) and Research on Learning and Education (ROLE)

        (Education)

        EREC Proposal Deadline due by 5 p.m proposer's local time: May 15, 2004


        NSF 03-542

        Evaluative Research and Evaluation Capacity Building (EREC) and Research on Learning and Education (ROLE)

        (Education)

        ROLE Proposal Deadline due by 5 p.m proposer's local time: June 01, 2004


        NSF 03-532

        NSF Graduate Teaching Fellows in K-12 Education (GK-12)

        (Biology, Computer/Information Sciences, Crosscutting Programs, Education, Engineering, Geosciences, Math/Physical Sciences, NSF-wide, Polar Programs, Social/Behavioral Sciences)

        Full Proposal Deadline due by 5 p.m proposer's local time. Annually to FastLane the first Wednesday in June: June 02, 2004


        NSF 02-111

        Faculty Early Career Development (CAREER) Program

        (Biology, Computer/Information Sciences, Education, Engineering, Geosciences, Math/Physical Sciences, NSF-wide, Polar Programs, Social/Behavioral Sciences)

        Deadline Date for BIO,CISE, and EHR: July 20, 2004


        NSF 02-111

        Faculty Early Career Development (CAREER) Program

        (Biology, Computer/Information Sciences, Education, Engineering, Geosciences, Math/Physical Sciences, NSF-wide, Polar Programs, Social/Behavioral Sciences)

        Deadline Date for ENG: July 21, 2004


        NSF 02-111

        Faculty Early Career Development (CAREER) Program

        (Biology, Computer/Information Sciences, Education, Engineering, Geosciences, Math/Physical Sciences, NSF-wide, Polar Programs, Social/Behavioral Sciences)

        Deadline Date for GEO, MPS, SBE and OPP: July 22, 2004


        NSF 02-136

        Research Experiences for Undergraduates

        (Biology, Computer/Information Sciences, Crosscutting Programs, Education, Engineering, Geosciences, Math/Physical Sciences, NSF-wide, Polar Programs, Social/Behavioral Sciences)

        Full Proposal Deadline: September 15, 2004


        NSF 98-19

        Human Resource Development for Science, Mathematics and Engineering Education and Research -- NSF 98-19

        (Education)

        Alliances for Minority Participation (AMP): October 15, 2004


        NSF 03-520

        Louis Stokes Alliances for Minority Participation (LSAMP) Program

        (Education)

        Full Proposal Deadline due by 5 p.m proposer's local time: October 15, 2004


        NSF 01-138

        Alliances For Graduate Education And The Professoriate (AGEP)

        (Education)

        Deadline Date: October 16, 2004


        NSF 03-542

        Evaluative Research and Evaluation Capacity Building (EREC) and Research on Learning and Education (ROLE)

        (Education)

        ROLE Proposal Deadline due by 5 p.m proposer's local time: December 10, 2004


        NSF 03-532

        NSF Graduate Teaching Fellows in K-12 Education (GK-12)

        (Biology, Computer/Information Sciences, Crosscutting Programs, Education, Engineering, Geosciences, Math/Physical Sciences, NSF-wide, Polar Programs, Social/Behavioral Sciences)

        Letter of Intent Due Date - Required - Please email to gk-12@nsf.gov by 5:00 PM proposer's local time, the first Wednesday in May: May 04, 2005


        NSF 03-542

        Evaluative Research and Evaluation Capacity Building (EREC) and Research on Learning and Education (ROLE)

        (Education)

        EREC Proposal Deadline due by 5 p.m proposer's local time: May 15, 2005


        NSF 03-532

        NSF Graduate Teaching Fellows in K-12 Education (GK-12)

        (Biology, Computer/Information Sciences, Crosscutting Programs, Education, Engineering, Geosciences, Math/Physical Sciences, NSF-wide, Polar Programs, Social/Behavioral Sciences)

        Full Proposal Deadline due by 5 p.m proposer's local time. Annually to FastLane the first Wednesday in June: June 01, 2005


        NSF 03-542

        Evaluative Research and Evaluation Capacity Building (EREC) and Research on Learning and Education (ROLE)

        (Education)

        ROLE Proposal Deadline due by 5 p.m proposer's local time: June 01, 2005


        NSF 98-19

        Human Resource Development for Science, Mathematics and Engineering Education and Research -- NSF 98-19

        (Education)

        Alliances for Minority Participation (AMP): October 15, 2005


        NSF 03-520

        Louis Stokes Alliances for Minority Participation (LSAMP) Program

        (Education)

        Full Proposal Deadline due by 5 p.m proposer's local time: October 15, 2005


        NSF 03-542

        Evaluative Research and Evaluation Capacity Building (EREC) and Research on Learning and Education (ROLE)

        (Education)

        ROLE Proposal Deadline due by 5 p.m proposer's local time: December 10, 2005


        NSF 03-542

        Evaluative Research and Evaluation Capacity Building (EREC) and Research on Learning and Education (ROLE)

        (Education)

        EREC Proposal Deadline due by 5 p.m proposer's local time: May 15, 2006


        NSF 03-542

        Evaluative Research and Evaluation Capacity Building (EREC) and Research on Learning and Education (ROLE)

        (Education)

        ROLE Proposal Deadline due by 5 p.m proposer's local time: June 01, 2006


        NSF 03-520

        Louis Stokes Alliances for Minority Participation (LSAMP) Program

        (Education)

        Full Proposal Deadline due by 5 p.m proposer's local time: October 15, 2006


        NSF 03-542

        Evaluative Research and Evaluation Capacity Building (EREC) and Research on Learning and Education (ROLE)

        (Education)

        ROLE Proposal Deadline due by 5 p.m proposer's local time: December 10, 2006


        » See document: http://www.nsf.gov/home/deadline/ehr.htm
         
    • ESIE
      » See document: http://www.ehr.nsf.gov/EHR/ESIE/
       

bullet2 Quiz: Emerging Theory|Philosophy of Teach|Learning

» See document: http://www.employees.csbsju.edu/esass/learningratingscale.htm

bullet2 Meta-Libraries

bullet2   Rhizomes

 
7.2.3 Mind as Rhizome

The alternative we wish to propose here builds on the MAB metaphor but moves the mind out of the head and deliberately blurs or obliterates such common distinctions as environment/ individual, inside/outside, and self/other. We will label our view "mind as rhizome" (MAR), a metaphor inspired by Umberto Eco (1984, p. 81; see also Deleuze & Guattari, 1983). A rhizome is a root crop, a prostrate or underground system of stems, roots, and fibers whose fruits are tubers, bulbs, and leaves. A tulip is a rhizome as is rice grass, even the familiar crab grass. The metaphor of rhizome specifically rejects the inevitability of such notions as hierarchy, order, node, kernel, or structure. The tangle of roots and tubers characteristic of rhizomes is meant to suggest a form of mind where:
    • Every point can and must be connected with every other point, raising the possibility of an infinite juxtaposition. There are no fixed points or positions, only connections (relationships).
    • The structure is dynamic, constantly changing, such that if a portion of the rhizome is broken off at any point it could be reconnected at another point, leaving the original potential for juxtaposition in place.
    • There is no hierarchy or genealogy contained as where some points are inevitably superordinate or prior to others.
    • The rhizome whole has no outside or inside but is rather an open network that can be connected with something else in all of its dimensions.

The notion of a rhizome is a difficult one to imagine, and any attempt to view it as a static picture risks minimizing its dynamic, temporal, and even self-contradictory character. Eco (1984) has labeled the rhizome as "an inconceivable globality" to highlight the impossibility of any global, overall description of the network. Since no one (user, scientist, or philosopher) can describe the whole, we are left with "local" descriptions, a vision of one or a few of the many potential structures derivable from the rhizome. Every local description of the network is an hypothes ' is, an abduction (see Shank, 1987) constantly subject to falsification. To quote Eco:

Such a notion ... does not deny the existence of structured knowledge; it only suggests that such a knowledge cannot be recognized and organized as a global system; it provides only "local" and transitory systems of knowledge which can be contradicted by alternative and equally "local" cultural organizations; every attempt to recognize these local organizations as unique and "global" --ignoring their partiality--produces an ideological bias (1984, p. 84).

This last statement emphasizes the point that we are not proposing the metaphor of rhizome for an individual mind, but to minds as distributed in social, cultural, historical, and institutional contexts. Except as a degenerate case, there is no such thing as a single mind, unconnected to other minds or to their (collective) social-cultural constructions. Thinking, or whatever we choose to call the activity of mind, is always dialogic, connected to another, either directly as in some communicative action or indirectly via some form of semiotic mediation: signs and/or tools appropriated from the sociocultural context.

Wertsch (1991), drawing inspiration from Vygotsky and Bakhtin, has argued this case very well (without invoking the metaphor of the rhizome), and we will present his view more fully. For our purposes here, we want to stress the potential connectivity implied by the MAR metaphor. We are connected to other people individually but also collectively, as in the speech communities or social languages in which we are all embedded. We are connected to the sociocultural milieu in which we operate, a milieu characterized by the tools (computers, cars, television, and so forth) and signs (language, mathematics, drawing, etc.), which we may appropriate for our thinking. Thus thinking is not an action that takes place within a mind within a body, but rather at the connections, in the interactions. But it is worth saying again that this thinking is always "local," always a limited subset of the potential (unlimited) rhizomous connections.

Learning, then, is neither a matter of discriminating the symbols of the world and the rules for manipulating them nor of activating the right connections in the brain. It is, rather, a matter of constructing and navigating a local, situated path through a rhizomous labyrinth, a process of dialogue and negotiation with and within a local sociocultural context. Although this analogy fails if pushed too far, the connectivity we have in mind is a bit like the World Wide Web (WWW). While the "results" of a connection to WWW is experienced via an interface with one's local workstation, that experience is possible only as a result of connections with many (potentially an infinite number of) servers all over the world. The local workstation both contributes to (constructs) and is constructed by its connections.
 
 



bullet2   Lynn Clark

Lynn Schofield Clark specializes in research on teens and their families. As the projects Associate Investigator, she has spent the past two years working closely with teens of various backgrounds, learning about their media practices and how the electronic media play a role in their religious or spiritual identities, and has published and presented on these topics in many forums. She has written and piloted the methodological aspects of the research project.

In addition to her work in media, culture, and religion, Dr. Clark has also published on teens use of the Internet and on the role of mass communication education in religious leadership formation. A former owner of a small television production company specializing in marketing for not-for-profit organizations, Dr. Clark has taught at the University of Colorado and at the University of Dayton. She has also served on the faculty and staff of United Theological Seminary. She was nominated to the Harvard Society of Fellows in 1998 and is a member of the International Study Commission on Media, Religion, and Culture, through which she has consulted with electronic producers and scholars around the world. She has worked with teens as a volunteer through various religious and civic organizations for over twelve years. She is married and has one child.



  •   Angels to Aliens
    ORM • SAVE 20%

    H arry Potter, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, and the Left Behind series are but the latest

    manifestations of American teenagers’ longstanding fascination with the supernatural

    and the paranormal. In this groundbreaking book, Lynn Schofield Clark explores the

    implications of this fascination for contemporary religious and spiritual practices. Relying on

    stories gleaned from more than 250 in-depth interviews with teens and their families, Clark

    seeks to discover what today’s teens really believe and why. She finds that as adherence to

    formal religious bodies declines, interest in alternative spiritualities as well as belief in

    “superstition” grow accordingly. Ironically, she argues, fundamentalist Christian alarmism

    about the forces of evil has also fed belief in a wider array of supernatural entities.

    Resisting the claim that the media “brainwash” teens, Clark argues that today’s popular stories

    of demons, hell, and the afterlife actually have their roots in the U.S.’s religious heritage.

    She considers why some young people are nervous about supernatural stories in the media,

    while others comfortably and often unselfconsciously blur the boundaries between those stories

    of the realm beyond that belong to traditional religion and those offered by the entertainment

    media. At a time of increased religious pluralism and declining participation in formal religious

    institutions, Clark says, we must completely reexamine what young people mean—and

    what they may believe—when they identify themselves as “spiritual” or “religious.”

    Offering provocative insights into how the entertainment media shape contemporary religious

    ideas and practices, From Angels to Aliens paints a surprising—and perhaps alarming—

    portrait of the spiritual state of America’s youth.




     
  • Media | Democracy | Youth Culture
    Doctoral Seminar on Qualitative Methodology

    Doing Media Research on the Music Industry

    Background and Experience:

    My love of teaching is what originally motivated me to get a Ph.D. and is what keeps me in academia today. I have had the honor of teaching at the undergraduate, Masters, and Ph.D. levels at three institutions: the University of Colorado, the University of Dayton, and United Theological Seminary.

    My teaching philosophy

    As a teacher, I aim to create a friendly environment of mutual respect where learning can occur. I also aim to be relevant and practical. I draw connections between social theory and the professional and policy concerns of contemporary media industries whenever possible.

    I believe that the courses I have taught are clearly structured, and I frequently discuss with the students why I have included the assignments, readings, lectures, and invited guests I have, and how the class will be useful for them in their chosen professions. I am also flexible. In the Fall of 2001, I changed the course syllabus after September 11 so as to better engage students in discussions that linked the course material with current events. I did the same when the U.S. entered Iraq in Spring 2003. I strive to be fair and clear in grading policies: these are explained in the syllabus and before each assignment’s due date. I seek out opportunities to improve my teaching, and have found participation in the Graduate Teacher Program and the Faculty Teaching Excellence Programs at the University of Colorado to be particularly useful.

    When I plan my class discussions, I respect what you as a student bring to our time together. I make a concerted effort not only to learn your interests and background, but to incorporate these into class goals as often as possible. For instance, in larger undergraduate classes I’ve distributed short surveys asking favorite media choices and have drawn upon these for my examples when teaching, thereby shaping some of my own media choices around yours so as to keep examples relevant. I have required doctoral students to submit papers for academic conferences and have had undergraduates participate in mock job interviews as well as collaborative research efforts. I also make a special effort to involve students of color, special needs students, and international students by incorporating issues of diversity into class presentations, discussing concerns individually, and expecting sensitivity on the part of all class participants. I enjoy one-on-one interactions with students as a part of all classes I teach, and see these meetings as a crucial first invitation to continued interaction.

    In short, I aim to model professionalism through my organization, preparation, and respect for your time and contributions.



     

bullet2   Summer Reading

  •   Paulo Freire
    » See document: http://www.nl.edu/ace/Resources/Freire.html
     
  •   Oppressing the Pedagogues
    » See document: http://www.sonoma.edu/users/d/daniels/Freire_summary.html
     
  •   Albert Hirschman
    » See document: http://www.sss.ias.edu/home/hirschman.html
     
  •   Voice: Exit Stage Left
    » See document: http://216.239.57.104/search?q=cache:Of80rlHeTKUJ:www.som.yale.edu/faculty/Sunder/PhdAccountingControl/HirschmanReviewClement.doc+book+review+%22Exit,+Voice+and+Loyalty&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
     
  •   Deborah Meier
    » See document: http://www.ncrel.org/cscd/pubs/lead41/41meier.htm
     
  • Question     In Schools We Trust?
    » See document: http://www.performanceassessment.org/articles/pa_champion.html
     
  •   HGSE Publications
    » See document: http://www.gse.harvard.edu/~library/summerlist.html
     
  • Waiting for information     Videos
     
  •   Codex Serafinianus
    The Codex is an encyclopedia for a fictional world, written in a fictional language. It's divided into a number of sections (each with its own table of contents) on subjects such as plants, animals, inhabitants, machines, clothing, and architecture. After only a glance it becomes apparent that Serafini was not attempting to create a consistent alternate world. Rather, the Codex is sort of an elaborate pun on, or parody of, the real world. A lot of the odd effect comes from parallelism between illustrations on a page -- Serafini plays with our desire to find patterns by providing just enough consistency to draw us into looking for an internal logic where there is none. Although it's difficult to find a copy (I used interlibrary loan) I would highly recommend taking a look through this strange and beautiful book.


    This Italian graphic designer composed a superb book of 400 pages approximately which are appeared as an encyclopaedic dictionary which offers very beautiful graphic qualities since it very drew: the letters, the graphs, the diagrams and sketch... However, its characteristic lies in the fact that nobody will be able to read it, even the most powerful machine of deciphering for the reason which he invented a completely new writing compared to all those that one could discover.

    There is thus a book structured and ordered, in which one could rather easily reconstitute the topics approached, and yet he could never be read, but simply looked at and admired. Graphics very are successful.

    The evoked topics are: gardening, anatomy, mathematics, geometry, hairstyles, cards, machines to be flown, transport, chemical analyses, labyrinth, Babel, costumes, foods...

    Lastly, this Italian graphic designer (for which Italo Calvino wrote the foreword of the book) introduced a bizarrery: in two contiguous boards some hardly coherent French words. They are only words in this book:

    (1) " orgiaque girl emerged and guessed, the first day on the dam of Balbeo " " still " " sculptor... to remember... here still " " here... wounded eyes " in bulk then: " to cross, aillor, it is, you, impassioned, USA, well, to believe, I, belief, by "

    Why these some words, and why in French? They are in the chapter " writing " where one sees a man sitting in a rocking chair, roller skates with the feet, and a right arm finishing instead of a hand by the low part of a pen plucks. It writes on a table with sheets squared of the words (1). With with dimensions of the large bottle of opened ink, letters, and words fall. On the new page, the man is laid down by ground, is stabbed by a pen plucks; all is reversed.


    » See document: http://www.io.com/~iareth/codindx.html
     
    • 1


          listen:there's a hell

          of a good universe next door;let's go


          ee cummings


       


      When considering the canon of inventive, intelligent works of fantasy, it's probably fair to say that if the Codex Seraphinianus by Luigi Serafini didn't exist, it would be necessary to invent it. Imaginary worlds are as old as the human imagination itself and will be with us for as long as imagination lasts, despite their currently rather devalued reputation as staples of bad science fiction and fantasy. Conveyor-belt proliferation aside, "We all love a mysterious country," as Nebuchadnezzar the dandy reminds us in David Britton's Lord Horror, the words being a quote from M John Harrison's 'Egnaro', a story that is, in part, an examination of the condition and effect of imagined worlds (and in Harrison's story the quote comes from Lucas, a character based on David Britton--how's that for a circular reference?) Most invented worlds, however, serve only as the backdrop for a narrative, whatever mythologies or ersatz histories might be created to substantiate their existence. The Codex Seraphinianus is unique in placing its invented world centre stage and, even more uniquely, purporting to be a product of that world itself. Its creation seems the inevitable result of a trend of fantasy writing that delights in invention purely for its own sake, particularly invention that goes to great lengths to seem authentic or authoritative, academic even. The great precursor here is Borges' short story 'Tlön, Uqbar, Orbis Tertius' which relates the invention of a Britannica-style encyclopedia describing with the greatest detail and authority a completely fictional world. Typically for Borges (as for Harrison), the story is also a commentary upon this kind of invention, as well as the effect it can have on our "real" world--for Borges and Harrison reality is more mutable than people like to think. Luigi Serafini takes the whole game a very difficult step further, by creating a complete work which describes his own fictional world in detail, with numerous colour illustrations and the whole written in a completely invented language and alphabet. I've never seen a comment by Borges that refers to the Codex but I'm sure he would have been delighted by it.


      The Codex was first drawn to my attention not by Alberto Manguel and Gianni Guadaluppi's excellent Dictionary of Imaginary Places (where it would be excluded anyway, since it doesn't concern a place located on the Earth) but in a book by computer scientist Douglas R Hofstadter called Metamagical Themas. Hofstadter won the Pulitzer Prize for non fiction with his first book, Gödel, Escher, Bach: an Eternal Golden Braid. Metamagical Themas is a collection of essays he wrote for Scientific American in the early 1980s when he took over the 'Mathematical Games' column previously written by Martin Gardner (Hofstadter's title is an anagram.) Although Hofstadter's books tend to focus on scientific and mathematical subjects, he is, like many of the best scientists, fascinated by the point at which logic grows fractal and meaning devolves into subjectivity. An essay entitled 'Stuff and Nonsense' discusses the nonsense tradition from Ben Johnson through to Samuel Beckett and John Lennon. Towards the end of the piece he describes the Codex:


      "Codex Seraphinianus is a much more elaborate work. In fact, it is a highly idiosyncratic magnum opus by an Italian architect indulging his sense of fancy to the hilt. It consists of two volumes in a completely invented language (including the numbering system, which is itself rather esoteric), penned entirely by the author, accompanied by thousands of beautifully drawn colour pictures of the most fantastic scenes, machines, beasts, feasts, and so on. It purports to be a vast encyclopedia of a hypothetical land somewhat like the earth, with many creatures resembling people to various degrees, but many creatures of unheard-of bizarreness promenading throughout the countryside. Serafini has sections on physics, chemistry, mineralogy (including many drawings of elaborate gems), geography, botany, zoology, sociology, linguistics, technology, architecture, sports (of all sorts), clothing, and so on. The pictures have their own internal logic, but to our eyes they are filled with utter non sequiturs.


      "A typical example depicts an automobile chassis covered with some huge piece of what appears to be melting gum in the shape of a small mountain range. All over the gum are small insects, and the wheels of the "car" appear to have meIted as well. The explanation is all there for anyone to read, if they can decipher Serafinian. Unfortunately, no one knows that language. Fortunately, on another page there is one picture of a scholar standing by what is apparently a Rosetta Stone. Unfortunately, the only language on it, besides Serafinian itself, is an unknown kind of hieroglyphics. Thus the stone is of no help unless you already know Serafinian. Oh, well . . . Many of the pictures are grotesque and disturbing, but others are extremely beautiful and visionary. The inventiveness that it took to come up with all these conceptions of a hypothetical land is staggering."


       
    • 2
      By John Coulthart


      (Added 02 January 2002.)


      Matrix

      ©1983 Luigi Serafini


      Subsequent research on my part revealed that, although the estimable Manguel makes no mention of the Codex in his Dictionary of Imaginary Places, he was in fact (inevitably?) present at the book's public discovery, an event he describes in A History of Reading:


      "One summer afternoon in 1978, a voluminous parcel arrived in the offices of the publisher Franco Maria Ricci in Milan, where I was working as a foreign language editor. When we opened it we saw that it contained, instead of a manuscript, a large collection of illustrated pages depicting a number of strange objects and detailed but bizarre operations, each captioned in a script none of the editors recognized. The accompanying letter explained that the author, Luigi Serafini, had created an encyclopedia of an imaginary world along the lines of a medieval scientific compendium: each page precisely depicted a specific entry, and the annotations, in a nonsensical alphabet which Serafini had also invented during two long years in a small apartment in Rome, were meant to explain the illustrations' intricacies. Ricci, to his credit, published the work in two luxurious volumes with a delighted introduction by Italo Calvino; they are one of the most curious examples of an illustrated book I know. Made entirely of invented words and pictures, the Codex Seraphinianus must be read without the help of a common language, through signs for which there are no meanings except those furnished by a willing and inventive reader."


      To Ricci's further credit, the book is still essentially in print, albeit at a price most people would find prohibitive. Ricci specialises in prestige editions printed on quality paper stock and materials; whether a book of 400 pages is worth 250+ Euros is a matter for the individual purchaser. A second-hand copy of the 1983 US edition is currently available via Amazon.com for anyone with a spare $1000.


      As Hofstadter says, the mind is indeed staggered when considering the labour that went into the creation of this work, particularly for something that, in its willful hermeticism, subscribes to the Brian Eno recipe for originality: do something that's so time-consuming or difficult that no one else would ever bother. If this makes it sound like a slightly more involved equivalent of those Guinness Record-competing constructions made of toothpicks, then the comparison is unfair. The Taj Mahal in matchsticks operates on something like the chimps-with-typewriters principle: any number of people, given enough time, application and boxes of Swan Vesta could do as much. The Codex Seraphinianus is rather more special than that. It may be a folly but, like all the best follies, it achieves its own aesthetic apotheosis through accumulation of detail, sheer inventiveness and the ultimate conviction of its own worth; like all the best follies it is also unique. It might even be argued that the Codex Seraphinianus is one of the purest works of fantasy, one that affects no compromise with supporting narrative or histrionic drama but aims straight for the gold.


      If Borges' story sparked the creation of the book (and it's a good bet that this was the case), Serafini's pictures, in style and content, seem to owe much to the cartoons and drawings of another master of baroque European fantasy, Roland Topor. Topor was an equally polymathic figure--cartoonist, writer, film maker--who still seems better known in his native France than elsewhere. He is perhaps best known for his 1964 novel Le Locataire Chimerique, which was brilliantly filmed by Roman Polanski in 1976 as The Tenant. He also collaborated with Rene Laloux for the animated feature La Planete Sauvage and can be seen portraying an appropriately unhinged Renfield in Werner Herzog's Nosferatu the Vampyre. Topor and Serafini share a certain naïve draughtsmanship which nonetheless is in the service of an enthusiastic and deliberately Surrealist (in the original sense of the term) level of invention. Topor's bizarrely costumed characters created for the apocalyptic Ligeti opera Le Grande Macabre could have stepped directly from the pages of the Codex; the worlds of La Planete Sauvage, their inhabitants and creatures, buildings and habits, could conceivably occupy the same solar system as Serafini's although Serafini's imagination lacks Topor's viciousness.


      The Codex Seraphinianus remains a gauntlet thrown down to anyone considering the creation of an imaginary place. Like Finnegans Wake, it probably signifies a dead end, or at least the farthest point anyone would wish to take such an endeavour while remaining sane; even Henry Darger's monumental Story of the Vivian Girls is written in English! Those of us who might wish to see more works like it are bound to be frustrated for some time yet. The best we can hope for is a paperback reprint from an enterprising publisher, something to popularise it a little more. Four hundred full-colour pages in an unknown language with no story--any takers?