NSF DUE Mission – Promote excellence in undergraduate STEM education for all students

1. Overview of Funding Opportunities at the National Science Foundation Division of Undergraduate Education: Advanced Technological Education (ATE) Pamela Brown, NSF Program Director Division of Undergraduate Education (DUE) CUR Dialogues 2012 Washington, DC February 24, 2012

2. NSF DUE Mission – Promote excellence in undergraduate STEM education for all students Each solicitation has its own objectives. All proposals are judged on common intellectual merit and broader impacts. Some solicitations have additional criteria. The success of the NSF’s effort depends on the peer review process.

3. Matching proposal goals and activities with those of the solicitation is important for successful funding

4. The DUE web page – www.NSF.gov - provides information about solicitation components and awards • Information on past awards is found by clicking on the “Awards” tab at the top of the page

5. Advanced Technological Education (ATE) promotes workforce development in high-technology fields, with leadership coming from community colleges • The Science and Advanced Technology Act of 1992 (SATA) mandated the creation of ATE, with continuing reauthorizations under the America Competes Act. • Program focuses on the education of science and engineering technicians for high-technology fields that drive the nation’s economy. • Grades 7-12, 2yr- and 4-yr institutions can be supported. • Community colleges have leadership roles on all projects.

6. ATE’s objectives can be met through activities to improve education and opportunities. • Partnerships between academic institutions and employers to promote improved technician education. • Curriculum development, college faculty and secondary school teacher professional development, career pathways from secondary schools to two-year colleges and to four-year institutions. • Articulation agreements • Educational research to advance knowledge related to technician education

7. The ATE Program has several tracks • Projects which focus on: • Program Development, Implementation and Improvement; • Professional Development for Educators; • Curriculum and Educational Materials Development; • Teacher Preparation; • Business and Entrepreneurial skills for students in technician education programs; • Leadership Capacity Building for faculty. • Centers of Excellence – National, Regional, Resource: • Targeted Research on Technician Education

8. Small Grants for Institutions New to the ATE Program provide colleges with a chance to “get their foot in the door.” Simulate 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 • Available only to community college campuses that have not had an ATE award within the last 10 years or never had one. • Limited to $200,000 over 3 years • Funding rate for FY10 was between 70-80% for this area

9. Collaboration between educational institutions and industry is an important component of ATE • Partnerships • Internships • Industry input driving curriculum • Hire adjunct faculty from industry • Skill standards • Industry Advisory Board • Career pathways • Economic Development/WIB involvement (both state and local)

10. The ATE solicitation (11-692) contains links to resources • ATE Centers: http://www.atecenters.org • Evalua|t|eCenter: http://www.evalu-ate.org • ATE Central: http://atecentral.net/ • ATE PI Guide: http://govpiguide.org/scenarios • www.teachingtechnicians.org (SCATE Center) • “Educating Biotechnicians”: http://www.aacc.nche.edu/Resources/aaccprograms/ate/Documents/biotech_report.pdf • “Preparing Energy Technicians for the 21st Century Workforce”: • http://www.ateec.org/store/catalog/Energy-General---Preparing-Energy-Technicians-for-the-21st-Century-Workforce-400.html

11. ATE is NSF DUE’s largest program for community colleges

12. Highlights of The Review Process All proposals must address Intellectual Merit and Broader Impacts

13. Reviewing for the NSF is a good way to improve grant writing skills • Reviewers are solicited by program directors. You can volunteer to review for a program; you will need to submit a CV) • ~5-6 reviewers/panel • Reviewers receive ~12 proposals electronically 2 to 3 weeks before the panel. • Reviewers electronically prepare reviews and assign individual ratings (E,V, G,F, P) before the review panel meets.

14. Reviewers rate proposals from Fair to Excellent and prepare comments on strengths and weaknesses/concerns • Excellent (5) • Very Good (4) • Good (3) • Fair (2) • Poor (1) Reviewer comments should align with the rating Ratings may be changed after the panel discussion • Usually a rating of higher than 3.5 makes the proposal competitive Program directors make funding recommendations

15. Reviewer written comments include intellectual merit, broader impacts and a summary statement • Intellectual merit (IM) • General summary of project (2-3 sentences) • Describe Strengths • Describe Weaknesses/concerns • Broader impacts (BI) • Describe Strengths • Describe Weaknesses/concerns • Summary statement---Again Describe…. • Overall strengths • Overall concerns • And a Rationale that justifies your rating

16. Reviewers meet to discuss the proposal and write a panel summary • Held Over Two Days in Washington DC • Panel Chair (picked by program director ahead of time) establishes order of proposal review process • Proposals are discussed individually • A “scribe” is designated to capture all of the points brought up in discussion and produce a summary review – called the “Panel Summary” • The reviews and panel summaries are written to provide guidance for declines and negotiating points for awards

17. Reviews and panel summaries are written for both applicants and NSF program directors • NSF program directors • Informs recommendations relative to funding • Guides pre-award negotiations • Applicants • If proposal is funded: • Provides suggestions for improving project • If proposal is not funded: • Provides information to guide a revision of the proposal

18. Competitive proposals share common features • Original ideas. Potentially high impact. • Succinct, focused project plan. Sufficient detail provided. • Realistic amount of work – timeline and responsibility delineated. • Cost effective – budget aligned with activities. • Demonstrated knowledge of field (literature survey) and experience of PIs. Project builds on prior knowledge. • Rationale and evidence of potential effectiveness. • Likelihood the project will be sustained. • Solid evaluation plan including formative and summative assessment.

19. Writing a good proposal requires time and commitment • Start EARLY • Get acquainted with FASTLANE • Read the Program Solicitation and follow the guidelines. Read the Grant Proposal Guide (GPG). • Learn about the recent DUE awards using the NSF Award Search tool • Become an NSF reviewer • Contact (e-mail is best) a program officer to discuss your idea. This may cause you to refine your idea and may prevent you from applying to the wrong program • Program Officers in DUE: Check the solicitations for names and contact information. Outreach is part of our job!

20. Understanding the review process should help you to prepare better proposals.

21. Thank you for your attention For more information: • DUE Web Site - http://www.nsf.gov/div/index.jsp?div=DUE • Vet ideas with a program officer • Volunteer to review proposals. Opinions expressed in this presentation are those of the presenter and are not official NSF policy