NSF Research Support Relevant to Games4Learning

1. NSF Research Support Relevant to Games4Learning John C Cherniavsky National Science Foundation

2. … Fundamental Science in the Context of Innovation and Discovery Advanced Learning Technologies - ALT

3. ALT: The Action of Theory • Why are you proposing that? Strong use and development of THEORY in IT and Learning. • How are you going to study that? What are your advancements in IT? • What evidence will you collect? How do you know the intervention works? Advancement in Learning. Serving the sciences and engineering through the study of learning

4. ALT by the numbers (2006)… • Proposals: 171 proposals received; 7 were funded (approx. 3 percent); • Content Focus: 1 Math, 1 Math/Science, 6 Science • Level: 2 Middle School, 3 UG, 1 Professional, 1 K-16 • Other Topical: Dialog, Intelligent Tutors, Concept Maps, Systems Research, AI

5. Rebecca Jordan, Learning About Complex Systems in Middle School by Constructing Structure-Behavior-Function Models Research goals of project • Develop new representations for complex thinking. • Show the effectiveness in classrooms How the project contributes to program goals • New Technology for use in science learning • New science curriculum based on the technology

6. Grosz, Rubin: S-CASTS, A System for Collaboration Among Students, Teacher and System • Research goal of project Develop a theoretical model of collaboration based on multi-agent computer systems research and apply that model to existing mathematics education materials. • How project contributes to program goals Represents a collaboration between a top rank computer scientist (Barbara Grosz) and a top rank education researcher (Andee Rubin). Contributions will be made in both CS and in CSCL. • Implications for REESE Provides more tools for CSCL – an important research area for encouraging group learning.

7. Contacts + Information • John C Cherniavsky, 703-292-5136, jchernia@nsf.gov • Amy Baylor, 292-8491,abaylor@nsf.gov • http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2006/nsf06535/nsf06535.htm

8. ITEST • H1B Visa funded to interest US youth in careers now going to foreign nationals • After school programs in information technology in STEM contexts • Youth programs • Comprehensive Programs

9. Research and Evaluation on Education in Science and Engineering (REESE) Program 07-595 Division of Research on Learning (DRL) Directorate for Education and Human Resources (EHR) National Science Foundation

10. REESE Synopsis • The Research and Evaluation on Education in Science and Engineering (REESE) program supports basic and applied research and evaluation that enhances science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) learning and teaching.  • REESE is building an interdisciplinary research portfolio focusing on core scientific questions about learning that have implications for education at all ages.  REESE also encourages proposals concerning education research methodology and evaluation.

11. Kinds of proposals • Topical Strands • Frontier Research • Contextual Research • Award types • Knowledge diffusion (< $250,000) • Empirical (< $1,000,000) • Large Empirical (< $2,000,000) • Diffusion and Evaluation (< $5,000,000) • Conferences and workshops • Anticipated 2008 budget: $30,000,000

12. Frontier Research • Projects seek to transform the STEM education research and policy agenda with groundbreaking theories, findings, and methodological and measurement developments. • Projects engage foundational questions about what concepts can be learned by whom, at what age, how and where that can happen, and how it can be measured. Far-reaching, longer-term advances in knowledge and theory. • Proposals are restricted to the following topics: • Neural basis for learning mathematics • Cognitive processes underlying STEM learning and teaching • Measurement, modeling, and methods • Cyber-enabled learning and teaching

13. Contextual Research • Proposals address central problems in teaching, learning, and evaluation that must be addressed in order for substantial progress to be made in STEM education. • Output of projects should have near-term, relatively direct implications for communities of researchers, developers, and analysts who are engaged in producing curricula, improving teacher education, or providing guidance to policymakers.   • A project may involve a specific curriculum or policy as a test case, but the greater value of the project should be carried by the deeper questions it engages.  (n.b., DRK12 funds the development of specific resources, models, or technologies, such as curricula.)

14. Award types • Knowledge diffusion(formerly called synthesis) • Small projects for the synthesis or diffusion of existing knowledge on a topic of critical importance to STEM learning. Maximum award is $250,000 for two years. • Empirical • Projects, based in the STEM disciplines, designed to collect new empirical data.  Maximum award is $1,000,000 for three years.  • Large Empirical. • Complex projects such as multi-disciplinary teams working on conceptually related projects, longitudinal studies with large samples of participants, or randomized control trials of interventions. Maximum award is $2,000,000 for five years. • Diffusion and Evaluation • Project that provides technical assistance for projects on research methods and analysis, synthesize findings across the REESE portfolio, perform special evaluative studies, and disseminate findings.  Maximum award is $5,000,000 for five years.  • Conferences and workshops • Focused projects related to the goals of the program. Usual award is under $100,000. 

15. Next REESE competition • Optional Letter of Intent: November 5, 2007 • Full Proposal deadline: January 8, 2008 • Website: http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2007/nsf07595/nsf07595.htm • For further information: • 703-292-8650 • DRLREESE@nsf.gov

16. Other sources of funding at NSF • Other programs within DRL • DRK12; ALT; ITEST; CAREER • Other divisions within EHR  • Division of Undergraduate Education (DUE) • Division of Graduate Education (DGE) • Division of Human Resource Development HRD • Other directorates also fund education research

17. Cyber-enabledDiscovery and Innovation (CDI) National Science Foundation

18. Cyber-enabled Discovery and Innovation • Multi-disciplinary research seeking contributions to more than one area of science or engineering, by innovation in, or innovative use of computational thinking • Computational thinking refers to computational… • …Concepts • …Methods • …Models • …Algorithms • …Tools

19. Why CDI? Objective of CDI: Enhance American competitiveness by enabling innovation through the use of computational thinking

20. CDI is Unique within NSF • five-year initiative • to create revolutionary science and engineering research outcomes • made possible by innovations and advances in computational thinking • emphasis on bold, multidisciplinary activities • radical, paradigm-changing science and engineering outcomes through computational thinking

21. Transformative Research • NEW in NSF Review Criteria: • To what extent does the proposed activity suggest and explore creative, original, or potentially transformative concepts? • ADDITIONAL CDI REVIEW CRITERIA: • The proposal should define a bold multidisciplinary research agenda that, through computational thinking, promises paradigm-shifting outcomes in more than one field of science and engineering. • The proposal should provide a clear and compelling rationale that describes how innovations in, and/or innovative use of, computational thinking will lead to the desired project outcomes.  • The proposal should draw on productive intellectual partnerships that capitalize upon knowledge and expertise synergies in multiple fields or sub-fields in science or engineering and/or in multiple types of organizations. • potential for extraordinary outcomes, such as, • revolutionizing entire disciplines, • creating entirely new fields, or • disrupting accepted theories and perspectives … as a result of taking a fresh, multi-disciplinary approach.  Special emphasis will be placed on proposals that promise to enhance competitiveness, innovation, or safety and security in the United States.

24. Long-term Funding for Cyber-enabled Discovery and Innovation • All NSF directorates are participating in this activity (subject to budget approval)

25. Three CDI Themes CDI seeks transformative research in the following general themes, via innovations in, and/or innovative use of, computational thinking: • From Data to Knowledge: deriving new science and engineering knowledge and enhanced human cognition from the growing abundance of digital data; • Understanding Complexity in Natural, Built, and Social Systems: insights on systems of many interacting elements throughout science and engineering; • Virtual Organizations: research via cyber-enabled virtual organizations that bring people and resources together across institutional, geographical, and cultural boundaries. 

26. From Data to Knowledge Extracting useful information and deriving new knowledge from data efficiently, while accounting for the presence of uncertainty and dependency, leads to several sub-themes in which transformative ideas are needed: • Modeling • Operations on data • Algorithms • Human interaction with data

27. Understanding Complexity in Natural, Built, and Social Systems Identifying general principles and laws that characterize complexity and capture the essence of complex systems is one of the major challenges of 21st century science. Attaining the breakthroughs, to overcome these challenges, requires transformative ideas in the following areas: • Simulation and Computational Experiments • Methods, Algorithms, and Tools

28. Virtual Organizations (VOs) Advances in VOs bring together domain needs with algorithm development, systems operations, organizational studies, social computing, and interactive design. VOs provide flexible boundaries, memberships, and lifecycles, which can be tailored to particular research problems, users and learner needs or tasks of any community. VOs provide opportunities for: • Remote access • Collaboration • Education and training

29. CDI Philosophy • Contributions to more than one area of science or engineering, by development or innovative use of computational thinking • Multidisciplinary projects stimulating advances in computational concepts, methods, models, algorithms, and tools • “Business as usual” need not apply • “Projects that make straightforward use of existing computational concepts, methods, models, algorithms and tools to significantly advance only one discipline should be submitted to an appropriate program in that field instead of to CDI.” • No place for incremental research • Untraditional approaches and collaborations welcome

30. Types of Projects • CDI defines research modalities • Project size not measured by $$ • Projects classified by magnitude of effort • Three types are defined: Types I, II, and III. • Type III, center-scale efforts, will not be supported in the first year of CDI

31. Type I Projects • focused aims that tackle discrete, high-risk problems that, once resolved, may enable transformative breakthroughs in multiple fields of science or engineering through computational thinking • research and education efforts roughly comparable to that of up to two investigators with summer support, two graduate students, and their research needs (e.g., materials, supplies, travel), for a duration of three years

32. Type II projects • multiple major aims that tackle complementary facets of complex solutions for advancing multiple fields of science and engineering through computational thinking. • several intellectual leaders, multidisciplinary teams • significant education component • likely to be distributed collaborative projects with more extensive project coordination needs • greater effort than in Type I, and, for example, roughly comparable to that of up to three investigators with summer support, three graduate students, one or two other senior personnel (post-doctoral researchers, staff), and their research needs (e.g., materials, supplies, travel), for a duration of four years

33. Type III Projects • collaborative research, potentially distributed across several institutions • may involve center-type activities, demanding substantial coordination efforts • greater effort than in Type II in terms of scope and in the order of magnitude of expected outcomes • Type III projects will not be supported in FY08, but in the future years, subject to the availability of funds

34. Broadening Participation • diversity of sciences and engineering, academic departments • underrepresented minorities in STEM • collaborations with industry in order to match • scientific insights with • technical insights

35. International Collaborations • involve true intellectual partnership in which successful outcomes depend on the unique contributions of all partners, U.S. and foreign • engage junior researchers and students in the collaboration, taking advantage of cyber environments to prepare a globally-engaged workforce • in conducting research in all of the major components of the CDI • create more systematic knowledge about the intertwined social and technical issues of effective VOs, changing both the practice and the outcomes of science and engineering research and education. NSF awards are, in principle, limited to support of the U.S. side of an international collaboration. In almost all cases, international partners should obtain their own funding for participation.

36. Timeline • Letters of Intent (required) due: Nov 30, 07 • Preliminary Proposals due: Jan 8, 08 • Preliminary proposal panels: • Type I: Feb 11, 12 Mon, Tue • Type II: Feb 14,15 Thurs, Fri • Full proposals by invitation only! • Full proposals due: April 29, 08 • Full proposal panels: • Type I: June 2, 3 Mon, Tue • Type II: June 5, 6 Thurs, Fri • Award recommendations: July 2008

37. Review Process • “CDI spirit:” the CDI Implementation Team is a successful cross-directorate effort – panel moderator teams, review process and award recommendations will represent “science-first” multi-disciplinary transformative research projects with no disciplinary boundaries.

38. Review Process Panel moderators will be assisted by the CDIWG and CDI Admin Team. Panel management is outsourced to EDJ Associates. • Panel moderator teams of at least two PDs from different NSF organizational units • Panel moderator briefing to be scheduled for mid-December • Information packages available to potential panel moderators by end of November, to reviewers at panelist recruitment • Scheduled informational correspondence with panelists from invitation to review assignments and instructions • Panelist orientation meetings on the mornings of Feb 11, and Feb 14 • Panel summary templates on desktops • Panel report form to be filled out by panel moderator teams • Invite/not invite decisions based on panel moderator team reports by CDWG

39. More Information on CDI: Contact members of CDIIT. • Contact the CDIIT Co-chairs: Sirin Tekinay (CISE), Tom Russell (MPS), Eduardo Misawa(ENG • Two representatives from each NSF unit. • Outreach “standard” presentation package in preparation • cdi@nsf.gov ; (703)292-8080 http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2007/nsf07603/nsf07603.htm

40. Review Process • “CDI spirit:” the CDI Implementation Team is a successful cross-directorate effort – panel moderator teams, review process and award recommendations will represent “science-first” multi-disciplinary transformative research projects with no disciplinary boundaries.

41. Review Process Panel moderators will be assisted by the CDIWG and CDI Admin Team. Panel management is outsourced to EDJ Associates. • Panel moderator teams of at least two PDs from different NSF organizational units • Panel moderator briefing to be scheduled for mid-December • Information packages available to potential panel moderators by end of November, to reviewers at panelist recruitment • Scheduled informational correspondence with panelists from invitation to review assignments and instructions • Panelist orientation meetings on the mornings of Feb 11, and Feb 14 • Panel summary templates on desktops • Panel report form to be filled out by panel moderator teams • Invite/not invite decisions based on panel moderator team reports by CDWG

42. More Information on CDI: Contact members of CDIIT. • Contact the CDIIT Co-chairs: Sirin Tekinay (CISE), Tom Russell (MPS), Eduardo Misawa(ENG • Two representatives from each NSF unit. • Outreach “standard” presentation package in preparation • cdi@nsf.gov ; (703)292-8080 http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2007/nsf07603/nsf07603.htm

43. CDI LOGO CONTEST IS ON: As of September 20, 07!

44. Proposal Content: Reminders The proposal should present: • Objectives and scientific and/or educational significance of the proposed work • Suitability of the methods to be used, including evaluation of outcomes • Qualifications of the investigator and the grantee organization • Effect of the activity on the infrastructure of science/education • Results from prior support • Amount of funding required (justify)

45. NSB Merit Review Criteria (NSF 04-23) Intellectual Merit How important is the proposed activity to advancing knowledge and understanding within its own field or across different fields? How well qualified is the nominee (individual or team) to conduct the project? (If appropriate, the reviewer will comment on the quality of the prior work.) To what extent does the proposed activity suggest and explore creative and original concepts? How well conceived and organized is the proposed activity? Is there sufficient access to resources?

46. NSB Merit Review Criteria (NSF 04-23) Broader Impacts How well does the activity advance discovery and understanding while promoting teaching, training, and learning? How well does the proposed activity broaden the participation of underrepresented groups (e.g., gender, ethnicity, disability, geographic, etc.)? To what extent will it enhance the infrastructure for research and education, such as facilities, instrumentation, networks, and partnerships? Will the results be disseminated broadly to enhance scientific and technological understanding? What may be the benefits of the proposed activity to society?

47. Getting Started • Start EARLY • Get acquainted withFASTLANE(www.FastLane.nsf.gov) • Read the Program Solicitation and follow the guidelines • Contact a program officer to discuss your idea; this provides useful information and often helps you to refine your idea; it may also prevent you from applying to the wrong program (e-mail is best) • Become a NSF reviewer • Subscribe to Custom News Services at NSF http://www.nsf.gov/mynsf/

48. WAYS TO PARTICIPATE • Grant Holder • Principal Investigator • Member of Project Team, or Coalition, or Advisory Board • Test Site • User of Products • Participant in Workshops and Symposium • Reviewer of Proposals

49. But Most Important! Have fun!