NSF Programs Supporting Undergraduate Education Jeff Ryan, University of South Florida - Tampa Jill Singer, SUNY Buffalo State 2017 Workshop for Early Career Geoscience Faculty University of Maryland

Geosciences Directorate We acknowledge the information provided by NSF Current Program Officers: Keith Sverdrup, V. Celeste Carter, Ron Buckmire, Lina Patino, and Brandon Jones Representing: Directorate for Education & Human Resources, Division of Undergraduate Education and Geosciences Directorate

This Evening’s Session General advice about applying and what program(s) are better fit(s) with your career stage Efficiently go through slides highlighting some programs of interest and general information/advice about applying to the NSF Conversations and your questions

Things to Consider Your department and institution expectations for renewal and tenure/promotion Do not ‘go it alone’ too early in your career and carefully consider taking on role of lead PI for programs that involve more senior faculty Align (as best as possible) your proposal submissions with teaching and research so you are not working at cross-purposes Be strategic and do not spread yourself too thin too early (if ever!)

Navigating NSF Directorate Divisions Geosciences (GEO) Earth Sciences Ocean Sciences Atmospheric & Geospace Sciences Polar Programs Education & Human Resources (EHR) Undergraduate Education (DUE) Graduate Education (DGE) Research on Learning…(DRL) Human Resource Development (HRD) Cross-Directorate programs Research Experiences for Undergraduates (REU) Research at Undergraduate Institutions (RUI) Innovations in Undergraduate STEM Education (IUSE) 6

EHR Home Page STEM

DUE Home Page DUE Programs STEM

Program Solicitations Developed by Program Officers Reviewed at several levels Most important advice for writing NSF proposals: READ the SOLICITATION Carefully! ESPECIALLY for education-focused RFPS!! Follow the directions given in the solicitation and the Proposal Guide (see slide with more about this)

The Program Solicitation Program Description Program-specific considerations and restrictions Institutional Eligibility and Limitations PI Eligibility & Limitations Budgetary Limitations Submission Deadlines and Target Dates Resources for proposal preparation Program Director Contact Information

NSF Proposal and Award Policies and Procedures Guide Part I: Grant Proposal Guide (GPG) Part II: Award and Administration Guide (AAG) Advice: Learn about your campus structure for preparing and submitting proposals (e.g., budgets, FastLane submission) and institutional requirements (e.g., ‘routing’ sheets)

Receiving NSF Notifications Deadlines are at least 90 days after the announcement is posted to the NSF website To get notifications, go to www.nsf.gov Click on “News” in the top menu panel Click on the “Get News Updates by Email” link at the top You can also sign up to get updates from Directorates

Program Officers Communicate with your Program Officer! Important Advice for Writing NSF Proposals: Communicate with your Program Officer! They work on hundreds of proposals They’re like “investment bankers” seeking science as the payoff They don’t know you beyond your name and biosketch unless you do something about it Email and call with questions and to pitch ideas Visit them at NSF if you can Offer to review for their program

Faculty Early Career Development NSF 17-537 Faculty Early Career Development (CAREER) Program [NSF-wide] Supports junior faculty early in their independent research careers who exemplify the role of teacher-scholar EHR CAREER research may focus on understanding STEM learning and education Five-year integrated research and education plan, with minimum total budget request of $400K EHR programs that accept CAREER proposals include: Improving Undergraduate STEM Education (IUSE) EHR Core Research (ECR) www.nsf.gov/career   STEM Proposal Deadline Dates: July 21, 2017 (various deadlines based on discipline; GEO is 3rd Friday in July, annually after 2017)

Research in Undergraduate Institutions (RUI) Big idea is to “level the playing field” between UG and research universities, and to recognize role of UG institutions in research and developing the future generations of researchers RUI proposal: Request to support individual or collaborative research project involving PUI faculty and students at own or other institutions Request involving shared research facilities 15 15

Research Opportunity Awards (ROA) ROA proposal: Supplement to an existing NSF award to support activities for PUI faculty Requests to rebudget funds in an existing NSF award to support activities for PUI faculty New collaborative proposal with ROA as a component or subaward Consider this option if you have pre-tenure leave and want to use it to learn new technique or establish a collaboration with a well-established researcher/lab 16 16

Research Experiences for Undergraduates (REU) NSF’s ambition is to encourage researchers (especially graduate-focused) to involve undergraduates (UGs) Supports active research participation by undergraduate students in any of the areas of research funded by NSF REU Supplements to regular research awards (those from primarily UG institutions tend to involve UGs up front) REU Sites bring in undergraduates mainly from other institutions to participate in research around a coherent theme 17 17

Major Research Instrumentation (MRI) Program objective is to increase access to instruments for research and research training <$100K to $4M, with 30% institutional cost share for Ph.D.-granting institutions (tip: can negotiate as part of start-up package); 2 MRIs per institution per year Encourages shared use within and between organizations, including private-sector partners BIG emphasis here on PUI’s (Predominantly Undergraduate Institutions) – no cost share required, projects can be UG-focused research effort as opposed to simply acquiring hardware for research Deadline: January 10, 2018 18 18

Advanced Technological Education (ATE) Focus: education of science and engineering technicians for high-technology fields that drive the nation’s economy. ATE Projects are most appropriate for early career faculty Projects: up to $300,000/yr for 3-yrs ($900,000 max. total) Small, New to ATE: up to $200,000 total over 2-3-yrs Resource for Pis: Mentor Connect (www.mentorconnect.org) Community and technical colleges must be in leadership roles. Education / Industry Partnerships are a hallmark of ATE. Proposal Deadline: October 5, 2017

NSF Scholarships in STEM (S-STEM) Program Supports institutional scholarship programs for full- time, academically-talented students with financial need. Funds are provided through H1B visa fees. Strong proposals develop programs for cohorts of students that address local needs, and effectively mentor and support students to enable them to enter the STEM workforce or graduate school. Proposal Deadline: March 28, 2018 http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2016/nsf16540/nsf16540.pdf

Improving Undergraduate STEM Education (IUSE) Foundation-wide portfolio of programs aimed at improving the quality of undergraduate STEM education and increase the number and diversity of students completing STEM degrees Motivated by recent national, Academy, NSF reports Multiple solicitations from multiple NSF directorates targeting different aspects of disciplinary needs. Note: Geosciences do not take full advantage of this program

IUSE Pillars: Long-Term Goals Improve STEM Learning & Learning Environments Broaden Participation & Institutional Capacity for STEM Learning Build the STEM Professional Workforce for Tomorrow

Improving Undergraduate STEM Education (IUSE: EHR) NSF 15-585 - currently being revised Improving Undergraduate STEM Education (IUSE: EHR) Improve STEM Learning & Learning Environments: Improve the knowledge base for defining, identifying, and innovating effective undergraduate STEM education teaching and learning for all NSF-supported disciplines, and foster widespread use of evidence-based resources and pedagogies in undergraduate STEM education Build the Professional STEM Workforce for Tomorrow: Improve the preparation of undergraduate students so they can succeed as productive members of the future STEM workforce, regardless of career path, and be engaged as members of a STEM-literate society Broaden Participation & Institutional Capacity for STEM Learning: Increase the number and diversity of undergraduate students recruited and retained in STEM education and career pathways through improving the evidence base for successful strategies to broaden participation and implementation of the results of this research Proposals should describe projects that build on available evidence and theory, and that will generate evidence and build knowledge.

Improving Undergraduate STEM Education (IUSE: EHR) Program Vision All undergraduate students (both STEM majors and non-STEM majors) fully engaged in their STEM learning. Institutions of higher education deeply committed to the broad use of research-based teaching approaches.

Improving Undergraduate STEM Education - EHR (IUSE) Track 1: Engaged Student Learning (ESL) Course/curricular change, best practices, education research Undergraduate Research is a “best practice” Two levels Exploration: up to $300K, 2 years Design and Development – 2 levels Level I: up to $600K, 3 years – scale of multiple institutions or multiple disciplines at an institution Level II: $600K -$2M, 5 years – large scale efforts or long-term research 25 25

Improving Undergraduate STEM Education - EHR (IUSE) Track 2: Institutional and Community Transformation (ICT) Bringing best practices to departments/institutions and groups of institutions Two levels Exploration: up to $250K, 2 years Design and Development - Up to $3M, 5 years Other: Workshops, Conferences, and Special Projects Up to $75K Contact Program Officer in advance of submission 26 26

EHR-IUSE: Instrumentation Be realistic about cost and maintenance Need to connect acquisition to contributing new knowledge about its impact on student learning and how it contributes to engaging students Include a rigorous evaluation that produces findings that contribute to advancing our understanding about student learning 27 27

IUSE: EHR Program Two Program Tracks Engaged Student Learning Institutional and Community Transformation Two Approaches Two Approaches Exploration & Design (smaller scale) Development & Implementation (larger scale) Exploration & Design (smaller scale) Development & Implementation (larger scale) Up to $300K Up to 3 yrs Level I: Up to $600K Up to 3 yrs Level II: $601K to $2M Up to 5 yrs Up to $300K Up to 3 yrs Up to $3M Up to 5 yrs Focus on approaches to increase the propagation of highly effective methods of STEM teaching and learning Focuses on design, development, implementation of and research on STEM learning models, approaches, and tools Deadlines (Both tracks): Exploration/Design: November 2, 2016 Development/Implementation: January 11, 2017

Pathways into Geoscience (IUSE: GEOPATHS) Improving Undergraduate STEM Education: Pathways into Geoscience (IUSE: GEOPATHS) Slide from: Brandon Jones, Program Director – Education & Diversity NSF/GEO GSA - September 2016 1

G O A L S IUSE: GEOPATHS Increase the number and diversity of students Prepare students for any geoscience career Build on & contribute to the evidence base

IUSE: GEOPATHS Solicitation NSF 17-574 program solicitation (FY18) Letters of Intent were due 8/18/17 Proposals are due 10/10/17 Budget: Average total funding range $300K - $350K ~ 20 awards Project duration: Up to 3 years Two funding tracks GEOPATHS-EXTRA GEOPATHS-IMPACT

GEOPATHS EXTRA Engage & Retain “GEO Facilities” # > 6 Curriculum Scaffolding Sustained or Catalytic

GEOPATHS IMPACT Transition Support “GEO Facilities” Retention Sustainable Mechanisms Institutional Collabs 9

Eligibility Limitations Lead institution must be a U.S. accredited university or 2-year or 4-year college (and same as in LOI) All eligible organizations identified in NSF Proposal and Award Policies and Procedures Guide (PAPPG) can collaborate as “non-lead” GEOPATHS-EXTRA track has additional limits: – Lead institution cannot be a very high research activity university (R1), as defined in Carnegie Classifications. 10

Caveats IUSE: GEOPATHS proposals should not duplicate activities that can be achieved through: IUSE: EHR program Research Experiences for Undergraduates (REU) Sites or Supplements program Advanced Technological Education (ATE) program

Caveat about Geospatial Methods GIS/GPS and remote sensing are common tools used within the geosciences professional community, but… NSF has a separate Geography program in the SBE directorate, so GEO does not like to use its funds to support training in GIS/GPS or remote sensing methods unless students are also getting significant exposure to scientific content relevant to the geosciences (e.g., using these tools to investigate geoscience research questions)

Review and Submission NSF merit criteria for all proposals Intellectual Merit Broader Impacts Refer to program solicitation for explanations for program specific criteria of these Check spelling, grammar, margins, page limit, font size, etc. Use enough headings to help reviewers keep track of proposal sections. ADVICE: Look at ‘Fatal Flaws’ brochure found at: https://sbcjcweb.sbcjc.cc.ms.us/conf/pdfs/16/NRSP/2015HelpfulHi ntsFatalFlaws.pdf

NSF has TWO Merit Review Criteria Intellectual Merit: What will we learn? How will it advance knowledge? Broader Impacts: What will the immediate or eventual impacts be on society? How will it make the world a better place? Educationally focused projects often have a hard time disentangling these two criteria, but you need to explicitly address and distinguish these ideas in your proposal description.

Characteristics of Broader Impacts Don’t just list activities Describe the impacts of activities More is not always better Include strategies to achieve impacts Have a well-defined set of objectives and outcomes Discuss the rationale for the expectation Provide details on implementation Include evaluation and metrics Approach with same level of detail as intellectual merit content

Societal Impacts Broadening Participation Improved Education Increased Public Literacy & Interest Public Welfare & National Security Competitive Workforce & Economy Enhanced Partnerships & Infrastructure

The submitter’s three jobs Identify the right funding opportunity Conceptualize a fantastic project Write a persuasive proposal in 15 pages Identify the right funding opportunity

Tips for Proposal Writing: Preparing to Write Start EARLY – proposals take time to write, even longer for collaborative proposals Clarify your ideas and what you want to do Find potential programs that support your ideas Read solicitations (program guidelines) CAREFULLY If your ideas don’t fit, contact the Program officer to discuss your idea You may need to refine your idea or find another program Outline what you want to do

Tips for Proposal Writing: Preparing to Write Review the literature and descriptions of funded projects Know what is being done in your field and how your project is similar or different Give yourself and your grants’ officer enough time to complete the process and submit the proposal Let others know what about your plans Department colleagues/chair Does it fit within P&T guidelines? Department Chair/Dean – especially if $ match Space/power requirements, technician time, repairs, service contract, etc. Some NSF programs limit the number of proposals submitted by an institution in any given round of a program (e.g. MRI)

Steps to Successful Proposal Writing Organize the proposal – use the guidelines (program solicitation) Make it easy for reviewers to find key items Use subject headings, bullets, etc. Describe how you will evaluate the success of the project Be sure the budget and budget explanation match Be sure the budget reflects the size of the project Number of participants Instrumentation

Timeline for Merit Review Process 4 – 6 WEEKS PROPOSAL RECEIVED Administrative review, compliance checking 2 – 3 MONTHS REVIEWERS SELECTED Potential panelists contacted, panel finalized  3 MONTHS PEER REVIEW Panel meets. Panel provides guidance to PO, NOT a decision Proposal Receipt and Review 3 Months 3 – 6+ MONTHS PROGRAM OFFICER RECOMMENDATION PO considers panel input and other factors, may contact PI for additional information, decides on recommendations DIVISION DIRECTOR REVIEW PO makes recommendation, recommendation reviewed at higher levels NOTIFICATION Notification received by PI and/or SPO Proposal Processing 3 – 6+ Months

Comments, Conversation, and Your Questions