Improving Undergraduate STEM Education: Hispanic Serving Institution Program

1. Improving Undergraduate STEM Education: Hispanic Serving Institution Program Minerva Cordero, PhD Program Director Directorate for Education and Human Resources TxHSIC Conference May 23-24, 2019 University of the Incarnate Word San Antonio, TX

3. Improving Undergraduate STEM Education: Hispanic-Serving Institutions (HSI Program) NSF 19-540 Deadline: September 18, 2019 • Website: https://nsf.gov/ehr/HSIProgramPlan.jsp • FAQs, data from listening sessions, and announcements • Addresses requirements set by Congress in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2017 and the American Innovation and Competitiveness Act, recognizing the need to build capacity at HSIs and increase the retention and graduation rates of students pursuing associate or baccalaureate degrees in STEM fields at HSIs. Program Co-Leads Minerva Cordero Talitha Washington

4. HSI Program Supported Activities • The HSI Program will support activities that: • improve STEM learning and learning environments, • broaden participation in STEM, • build institutional capacity for STEM learning, and/or • develop the professional STEM workforce of tomorrow.

5. Track 1: Building Capacity • Priority Area 1: Critical Transitions • Priority Area 2: Innovative Cross-Sector Partnerships • Priority Area 3: Teaching and Learning in STEM • Proposals should focus on one or more of these priority areas, as appropriate to the project goals. • An institution can submit only one proposal, but may be a partner with several institutions. • The Lead Principal Investigator (PI) must be employed by the eligible institution submitting the proposal, but Co-PIs are not restricted to employees of eligible institutions.

6. Track 2: HSIs New to NSF • Build capacity in undergraduate STEM education at HSIs that either have never received NSF funding or have not received funding from NSF in the five years prior to the proposal deadline. • Stimulate implementation, adaptation, and innovation in one or more of the three priority areas identified in Track 1. • It is expected that some of the funded Track 2 projects will serve as pilots for ideas that may be expanded in future proposals in Track 1 or other NSF programs. • There are no restrictions on the number of proposals per institution.

7. Award Information • Approximately $15 million is anticipated for FY20, pending availability of funds. • Track 1: Building Capacity • Number of awards: Up to 10 in FY20 • Project length: Up to five years • Award size: Up to $2,500,000 • Track 2: HSIs New to NSF • Number of awards: Up to 5 in FY20 • Project length: Up to three years • Award size: Up to $300,000 Deadline September 18, 2019

8. HELPFUL HINTSfor proposal writing • Read the Program Announcement • NSF has no hidden agendas. It’s all there in the program announcement. • Talk with a program officer to make sure that your ideas fit in the program. If the program officer tells you that your ideas are too narrow or don’t fit a program, look for other sources. • Make sure that your project is worthwhile, realistic, well-planned, and innovative. 1

9. HELPFUL HINTSfor proposal writing • Work on Projects You Care Deeply About • Let your commitment come through in the proposal. • Make sure reviewers can understand the importance of this work to your institution and to others. 2

10. HELPFUL HINTSfor proposal writing • Build on What Others Have Done • Like any research project, you must build on what others have done before you and then add to the base of knowledge. Don’t reinvent the wheel. • Read the literature, go to workshops, talk with others. • Be current. • Discuss the value added of your project. What are you adding to the knowledge base? 3

11. HELPFUL HINTSfor proposal writing • Have Measurable Goals and Objectives • Enhancing student learning, improving undergraduate education, and other similar things are lofty, but not measurable. Make sure that you have measurable goals and objectives. What will be delivered? What is needed to convince others that this works is worth supporting or emulating? 5

12. HELPFUL HINTSfor proposal writing • Think Teamwork • Successful projects are team efforts, although individuals matter too. Your project team should be greater than the sum of the parts. • Departmental efforts are more likely to be successful than one-person efforts. • You must have support of administrators. Keep them involved, make them look good, give them credit, find out what they need to support you. • Get a good group of internal and external advisors and an outside evaluator (or evaluation team). 6

13. HELPFUL HINTSfor proposal writing • Use Good Management Skills • Have a realistic time line and implementation schedule from the beginning and stick to it. • Have milestones and specific deliverables (with dates). • Assign responsibilities, but also give folks needed authority to do them, and then hold them accountable. 7

14. Perspectives on Project Evaluation • Evaluation is complicated and involved • It’s not an end-of-project “add-on” • Evaluation requires expertise • Get an evaluator involved early • In conceptualizing the project • In proposal writing Question: Internal or External Evaluator?

15. Finding an Evaluator

16. NSF Merit Review Criteria For All Proposals • What is the potential for the proposed activity to make a difference? • Intellectual Merit: By advancing knowledge and understanding within its own field or across different fields; and • Broader Impacts: By benefitting society or advancing desired societal outcomes? • Is the planfor carrying out the proposed activities well-reasoned, well organized, and based on a sound rationale? Does the plan incorporate a mechanism to assess success? • How qualified is the individual, team, or institution to conduct the proposed activities? • Are there adequate resources available to the PI (either at the home institution or through collaborations) to carry out the proposed activities?

17. Funding Decisions • The individual reviews and panel summary provide: • Review of the proposal • Feedback (strengths and weaknesses) to the proposers anonymously • NSF Program Officers make funding recommendations guided by program goals and portfolio considerations. • NSF Division Directors either concur or reject the Program Officer’s funding recommendations. • NSF’s Division of Grants and Agreements makes the official award - as longs as: • The institution has an adequate grant management capacity. • The PI/CO-PIs do not have overdue annual or final reports. • There are no other outstanding issues with the institution or PI.

18. Proposal Review and Processing

19. Useful resources • NSF Proposal and Award Policies & Procedures Guide • https://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=papp • Common Guidelines for Education Research and Development • https://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=nsf13126 • NSF Merit Review Overview • https://www.nsf.gov/bfa/dias/policy/merit_review/ • Solicitation, FAQs, and Webinar resources are available on the HSI program website https://www.nsf.gov/funding/pgm_summ.jsp?pims_id=505512

20. “If you want different results, do not do the same things.” Albert Einstein https://hsistemhub.org/ Questions? mcordero@nsf.gov