1. Bio-Link Summer Fellows Conference 2008 June 3, 2008 V. Celeste Carter Program Director vccarter@nsf.gov NSF Division of Undergraduate Education (DUE) Funding Opportunities

2. DUE Mission Statement To promote excellence in undergraduate science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education for all students. DUE:  agent of change, leads NSF efforts to achieve excellent STEM undergraduate education for all students  creates, develops, and manages programs that enable institutions to expand the professional STEM workforce and strengthen scientific literacy for citizens

3. DUE Programs (short list)  Advanced Technological Education (ATE)  STEM Talent Expansion Program (STEP)  Scholarships in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (S-STEM)  Course, Curriculum, and Laboratory Improvement (CCLI)  Robert Noyce Teacher Scholarship Program  Scholarships for Service (SFS)  National Science Digital Library (NSDL)

4. ATE  promotes improvement in the education of science and engineering technicians at the undergraduate and secondary school level and the educators who prepare them, focusing on technicians for high- technology fields that drive the nation’s economy.  ATE is in its 16 th year of funding community colleges, having started with the Science and Advanced Technology Act of 1992 (SATA).  FY2008-FY2010  Preliminary Proposals - April 26, 24, and 23 respectively  Formal ProposalsOctober 11, 16, and 15 respectively http://www.nsf.gov/funding/pgm_summ.jsp?pims_id=5464&org=DUE&from=home

5. ATE  Centers of Excellence – National, Regional, Resource  http://www.ATECenters.org http://www.ATECenters.org  Projects:  Program Improvement;  Professional Development for Educators;  Curriculum and Educational Materials Development;  Teacher Preparation; or  Small Grants for Institutions New to the ATE Program.  Targeted Research on Technician Education

6. New ATE Project Opportunity: Small Grants for Institutions New to ATE  Purpose  Simulates implementation, adaptation, and innovation in all areas supported by ATE  Broaden the base of participation of community colleges in ATE  Strengthen the role of community colleges in meeting needs of business and industry  Proposers are encouraged to include resources of ATE and other NSF awardees and to include those people as consultants and subawardees  Available only to community college campuses that have not an an ATE award within the last 10 years  Limited to $150,000 with a maximum of 10% indirect

7. Targeted Research in Technician Education  Supports research on technician education, employment trends, changing role of technicians in the workplace, and other topics that make technician programs more effective and forward looking.  Represents a TRUE collaboration reflected in activities, leadership, and budget between well-qualified researchers and two-year college educators and others as appropriate.

8. Targeted Research in Technician Education Examples:  For specific high-technology fields, what works and what doesn’t work and why? What educational strategies are most effective in improving student learning in specific fields and how do you know?  Across multiple technology fields, what are the impacts of strategies such as problem based learning and remote laboratories?  How can the stakeholders in technician educations (community colleges in collaboration with all types of others) develop meaningful and mutually beneficial partnerships?  What model educational program and industry partnerships prepare students for sustained success in a technician career? What are the characteristics of students who best adapt?

9. Some Best Practices in Working with Industry Identified by ATE PIs  Get industry involved early and be flexible  Assure persistence and critical mass of partners  Use industry experts to help with curriculum development and project evaluation  Have joint membership of industry and academia on Workforce Investment Boards (WIB)

10. NSF Scholarships in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (S-STEM)  Goal: Provides institutions funds to provide scholarships to academically talented, but financial needy, students. Students can be pursuing associate, baccalaureate, or graduate degrees.  http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2007/nsf07524/nsf07524. pdf  H1B Visa Funds  Predecessor was Computer Science, Engineering, and Mathematics Scholarships (CSEMS) Program  Deadline: August 12, 2008

11. CCLI Vision Excellent STEM education for all undergraduate students. Goal Stimulate, disseminate, and institutionalize innovative developments in STEM education through the production of knowledge and the improvement of practice.

12. Cyclic Model for Creating Knowledge and Improving Practices in STEM Education Research on Teaching and Learning Implement Innovations New Materials and Strategies Increase Faculty Expertise Assess And Evaluate

13. Examples of Phase I Awards:  Cabrillo College: DUE#0737166 Bridging Community College Chemistry Faculty into the National Educational Community  Seattle Central CC: DUE#0736678 Six Short Weeks: A Classroom Strategy for Supporting Undergraduate Research in Mathematical Biology  Maricopa County CC District: DUE #0736853 Collaborative: Genomics as the Foundation of a New Undergraduate Curriculum  Everett CC: DUE#0535624 Addition of Low-Field FT-NMR and FT-IR Spectroscopy for the Enhancement of the Chemistry Laboratory Curriculum (Award Abstracts are available on the DUE web site)

14. NSF Awards Search: http://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/

15. Division of Undergraduate Education http://www.nsf.gov/div/index.jsp?div=DUE Project Information Resource System

16. Proposal Review Process 1.Instructions for Reviewers 2.Read Proposal 3.Write comments on proposal 4.Discuss comments

17. Individual Reviews of Proposals  Read ahead of the panel meeting, and enter your reviews on FastLane.  Ratings can be changed (E, V, G, F, P) as well as your written review.  Proposals that end up getting funded usually have E’s and V’s, proposals with average equal to or less than 3.5 usually considered non-competitive.  E = 5, V = 4, G = 3, F = 2, P = 1

18. Intellectual Merit Addresses a major challenge Supported by capable faculty and others Improved student learning Rationale and vision clearly articulated Informed by other projects Effective evaluation and dissemination Adequate facilities, resources, and commitment Institutional and departmental commitment

19. Additional Criteria for Intellectual Merit  Does the project have potential for improving student learning in science or engineering technician education programs?  Are the goals, objectives, and outcomes and the plans and procedures for achieving them, worthwhile, well- developed, and realistic?  Is the evaluation plan clearly tied to the project outcomes? Is the evaluation likely to provide useful information to the project and others?  Is the rationale for selecting particular activities or components for development or adaptation clearly articulated and informed by and build on the research literature and the work of others?  Does the project provide for effective assessment of student learning?  Is the evidence of institutional support clear and compelling, and have plans for long term institutionalization been addressed?

20. Broader Impacts  Integrated into the institution’s academic programs  Contributes to knowledge base and useful to other institutions  Widely used products which can be disseminated through commercial and other channels  Improved content and pedagogy for faculty and teachers  Increased participation by women, underrepresented minorities, and persons with disabilities  Ensures high quality STEM education for people pursuing careers in STEM fields or as teachers or technicians

21. Additional Criteria for Broader Impacts  Does the project work with employers to address their current and future needs for technicians?  Has an assessment of workforce needs for technicians been conducted?  Will the project evaluation inform others through the communication of results?  Are the results and products of the project likely to be useful at other institutions?  Are other educational institutions involved in project activities?  Will the project's results be widely disseminated and will its products be distributed effectively and commercialized when appropriate?  Does the project promote diversity in the technical workforce?

22. Proposal Review and Decision Process Investigator/ Institution FastLane: Central Processing Program Manager Division Director Declination Award (Via DGA) Withdrawal Mail Reviews Panel Review Inap- propriate

23. Task  Read the proposal: 0603496 CC of Spokane  Note strengths and weaknesses.  Note IM and BI, additional review criteria  Assign your own overall rating

24. Strengths  Overall goal: recruit students into a Community College Biotechnology Program through outreach to HS teachers and Counselors  Workshops: strong format with significant follow-up activities  3-phase approach  Teachers + counselors  Master teachers and Student Peer Ambassadors  Industry internships for teachers

25. Strengths  Builds on existing successful programs (SCC Btec Academy, WSU Professional Development Inquiry-based activities)  Need for Btec technicians in WA state  Produce BEI handbook, disseminate regionally and nationally  Well-written, extensive evaluation plan  Named external evaluator (resume)  Project staff: roles defined, have expertise to accomplish the project

26. Strengths  Will use existing curricular materials from Bio- Link (mainly talk about BioRad GFP labs?)  Good use of people: teacher-counselor teams will compile a Career Counseling and Resource Guide (BEI)  Name companies involved in the project  List types of projects (e.g., cell culture)  IRB approval will be sought ( would be stronger if they had already started the process - pending or temporary approval)

27. Weaknesses  No page numbers (difficult for reading and discussion)  Describe Phase I activities and say they will recruit from WA, OR, ID, MT, but never mention anything other than WA for bulk of proposal.  State will recruit from schools and colleges with hi-numbers of underrepresented students – not much detail on how this will be done (MESA program mentioned, letter of support)

28. Weaknesses  All recruitment is via direct mailings  No discussion of other projects doing HS outreach-will this outreach bring HS students to the CC?  This 3-yr project will only produce 4 master teachers  How will this effort be sustained? (will obtain funding from state and corporate sources, but no details)  Equate sustainability to dissemination of BEI guide

29. Weaknesses  Who is Suzanne Bassett and what will her role be on this project?  Effectiveness of figures and tables?  Note: reviewers don’t have to read the appendices (almost all do)

30. How did the reviewers rate the proposal?  1 E, 5V  “It is creating a way of taking advantage of two very influential partners in a high school student's career decision making process, the high school counselor and the peer.”