Review Criteria

Grants are awarded on a competitive basis using both panel and ad hoc mail review, as appropriate. Reviewers are selected from among scientists, mathematicians, engineers, technologists; teachers and other educators; and professional and institutional leaders drawn from colleges, universities, schools, research organizations, museums, public service groups, government agencies, industry, professional societies, and media organizations. Special efforts are made to secure reviews from individuals with strong records of achievement in working with special target audiences (e.g., women or minorities) or with specialized expertise (e.g., development of museum exhibits, media production). Award recommendations are made by program staff and reflect reviewer comments, expertise of the program staff, program priorities, and resource availability.

NSF evaluates proposals on the basis of two general criteria which are interpreted in light of the goals and objectives of each program. Proposers should carefully review individual program guidelines for any special review criteria. The two general NSF criteria are:

• What is the Intellectual Merit of the Proposed Activity? How important is the proposed activity to advancing knowledge and understanding within its own field and across different fields? How well qualified is the proposer (individual or team) to conduct the project? 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?
• What are the Broader Impacts of the Proposed Activity? 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, 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?

In addition to the above considerations, specific criteria used in evaluating ESIE proposals are:

• Impact. The potential for the project to make a significant impact in addressing a major national or regional problem. Potential of the project for significantly strengthening the Nation’s literacy and education in science and technology. Use of a particularly creative approach that might serve as a model for others.
• Plan. Likelihood that the project will achieve results, be cost-effective, and be appropriate relative to needs and anticipated impact. The soundness of the approach with respect to disciplinary content and/or instructional methods. Alignment or integration of the project with other major efforts to improve the quality of science, mathematics, or technology education. Reasonableness of evaluation plans. Credibility of the plan for project continuation beyond NSF support. Reasonableness of mechanisms put in place that are expected to result in widespread dissemination of instructional materials, models or other project results.
• Personnel. The expertise and background of senior personnel that will ensure success of the project. Assurances that levels of commitment and involvement are commensurate with their anticipated contribution.
• Products. Clear description of expected products or outcomes of the project and the likelihood that they will be of high quality. Likelihood that the impact of the project will be broadened through dissemination or replication of products or outcomes in other locations or nationally.
• Cooperative Relationships. Reasonableness of working relationships among collaborating parties and clear evidence of the level of collaboration demonstrated in the proposal. Likelihood that the project will facilitate greater interactions among professionals in museums, media, cooperating school systems, universities, and industry. Evidence that long-term relationships are likely to be forged that can supplement and support the quality of science, mathematics, and technology education.
• Evaluation Plans. Inclusion of appropriate evaluation plans to assure that: 1) draft material and prototype activities will be tested during the development stages of the project, and 2) assessment will be conducted on the impact of the completed project on participants’ knowledge, attitudes, interests, and/or behavior.
• Contributions. Evidence that the proposal includes appropriate contributions (intellectual and/or financial) from the host institution, private sector, state or local educational agencies, colleges and universities, professional societies, and other sources.