1. 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

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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!)

6. 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

7. EHR Home Page
STEM

8. DUE Home Page
DUE Programs
STEM

9. 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)

10. 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

11. 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)

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

13. 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
and call with questions and to pitch ideas
Visit them at NSF if you can
Offer to review for their program

14. Faculty Early Career Development
NSF
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)
STEM
Proposal Deadline Dates: July 21, 2017 (various deadlines based on discipline; GEO is 3rd Friday in July, annually after 2017)

15. 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

16. 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

17. 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

18. 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

19. 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 (
Community and technical colleges must be in leadership roles.
Education / Industry Partnerships are a hallmark of ATE.
Proposal Deadline: October 5, 2017

20. 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

21. 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

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

23. Improving Undergraduate STEM Education (IUSE: EHR)
NSF 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.

24. 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.

25. 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

26. 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

27. 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

28. 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

29. 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

30. 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

31. IUSE: GEOPATHS Solicitation
NSF 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

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

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

34. 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

35. 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

36. 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)

37. 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:
ntsFatalFlaws.pdf

38. 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.

39. 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

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

41. 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

42. 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

43. 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)

44. 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

45. 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

46. Comments,
Conversation, and
Your Questions