1. V. Celeste Carter, Ph.D. DUE Program Officer 2001-2003 Biotechnology Program Director Foothill College Los Altos Hills, CA carterceleste@foothill.edu Writing More Effective NSF Proposals

2.  Original and/or good ideas  Succinct, focused project plan  Realistic amount of work  Sufficient detail provided  Cost effective  High impact  Knowledge and experience  Evidence of potential effectiveness  Likelihood project will be sustained  Solid evaluation plan What Makes a Proposal Competitive?

3. Key Questions for the Prospective PI What do you intend to do? Why is the work important? What has already been done? How are you going to do the work?

4. www.nsf.gov

5. Directorate for Education and Human Resources EHR Divisions

6. NSF Directorate for Education and Human Resources (EHR)  Division of Undergraduate Education (DUE)  Division Graduate Education (DGE)  Division of Research on Learning (DRL)  Merger? Elementary, Informal, and Secondary Education (ESIE) and Research, Evaluation, and Communication (REC)  Division of Human Resource Development (HRD)

7. EHR DUE

8. EHR ATE Program

9. ADVANCED TECHNOLOGICAL EDUCATION  FY2008  Formal ProposalsOctober 11, 2007  Preliminary ProposalsApril 24, 2008  ~ $46 million for FY2008  Program Solicitation: http://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp? ods_key=nsf07530

10. ATE Program With an emphasis on two-year colleges, the ATE program 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.

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

12. Beyond a Good Idea  This session assumes a good idea.  And focuses on ways to improve a proposal that contains a good idea.

14. Scenario – Developing a Proposal Idea  Prof. Nubi has taught introductory bioinformatics courses for several semesters.  Prof. Nubi has an idea for “greatly improving” these courses by adding or adapting new stuff.  new stuff = laboratories, web experiences, interactive sets of material, research projects, …  Prof. Nubi has tried some preliminary material.  Based on this, Prof. Nubi decides to prepare an NSF proposal.

15. Dr. Nubi’s Proposal Outline  Develop or adapt new materials or methods to enhance student learning at Grant College  Describe how new materials or methods would improve the students’ preparation  Provide “details of new stuff”  Conduct course evaluations when using new stuff  Describe new stuff using conference papers, journal articles, and web site

16. 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

17. 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

18. Improving the Goals & Objectives & Rationale Statements  TASK:  Generate a list of specific improvements for Reading # 1  PROCESS:  Think-share-report

19. What’s Wrong? Concern #1 Goals are focused on a local problem — they ignore broader impact

20. What’s Wrong? Concern #2 Rationale is based only on the applicant’s experience  Ignores the experience of others  Ignores the literature

21. PD’s Responses – Improving Goals, Objectives, & Rationale  Tie goals to student performance  Be specific  State clear, focused goals  Eliminate the “apple pie” assertions  Describe measurable outcomes  Use goal-oriented verbs  “Enhance” and “acquaint” are vague  Bullet key items

22. PD’s Responses – Improving Goals, Objectives & Rationale  Focus beyond just effects on students in PI’s course  Make the goals to develop, evaluate, and disseminate material  Be careful about the distinction between goals and objectives  Goals – higher-level, broad-reaching  Objectives – specific, measurable outcomes

23. Improving Evaluation of Goals, Implementation, Outcomes  TASK:  Generate a list of specific improvements for Reading # 2  PROCESS:  Think-share-report

24. What’s Wrong? Concern #3  Evaluation considers only the students’ impressions  Evaluation ignores learning goals and outcomes

25. NSF PD’s Responses –Improving Evaluation  Monitor student performance, progress, and attitudes to guide development (formative)  Verify and document success (summative)  Use quantitative & qualitative approaches  Provide sample evaluation questions and methods

26. NSF PD’s Responses –Improving Evaluation  Measure gains in student performance  Pre- and post-tests  Experimental and control groups  Longitudinal retention of knowledge  Examine effects on retention, course- taking patterns, diversity, employment, etc.  Employ alpha, beta, and field testing  Use diverse audiences: e.g. different types of institutions; majors and non-majors

27. NSF PD’s Responses –Improving Evaluation  Evaluate from multiple perspectives  Appropriateness of learning objectives: What is being taught/learned?  Attitude of students (this is not enough!): How is it being taught?  Learning outcomes: How successful is the “intervention”?  Develop specific criteria for evaluation by other faculty in subsequent courses

28. NSF PD’s Responses –Improving Evaluation  Get help!!  Use independent (outside) evaluator(s)  Seek regular feedback from a local advisory group  Use an (external) advisory board

29. Improving Dissemination  TASK:  Generate a list of improvements for Reading # 3  PROCESS:  Think-share-report

30. What’s Wrong? Concern #4  Dissemination plan is passive –Needs to be proactive and aggressive

31. NSF PD’s Responses – Dissemination Approaches  Publish in educational journals  Present at professional meetings (national and regional - be specific)  Conduct faculty workshops  Maintain personal or course web sites  Contribute to professional group or subspecialty web sites  Listservs, wikis, blogs, NSDL, newsletters

32. NSF PD’s Responses – Dissemination  Prepare textbooks, manuals, or instructor guides  Pen popular press pieces  Strike agreements with other faculty members to critique or evaluate materials  Use regular mailings to colleagues: general and/or targeted

33. NSF 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

34. There is no Magic Formula  Read the solicitation  Use your judgment  Don’t include a section because someone told you that it’s needed  Ask a colleague to read the proposal  Do they understand what you want to do?  Do they understand how you will accomplish it?  Do they agree that the project is needed?

35. Final Comments Start with a good idea:  Embed it within a larger context with measurable objectives  Relate the idea to the literature  Evaluate progress and outcomes  Disseminate findings and results  Be persistent! Often it is the person who reworks and resubmits that is funded.

36. WAYS TO PARTICIPATE  Grant Holder  Principal Investigator  Member of Project Team  Member of a coalition  Member of an Advisory Board  Test Site  User of Products  Participant in Workshops and Symposium  Reviewer of Proposals!!!

37. Information and Inquiries  DUE Emailundergrad@nsf.gov Phone703-292-8670 Fax703-292-9015 Snail Mail: Division of Undergraduate Education, NSF 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Room 835 Arlington, VA 22230 DUE Project Information Resource System https://www.ehr.nsf.gov/pirs_prs_web/search/