This document has been archived. Undergraduate Education Science, Mathematics, Engineering, Technology Program Announcement and Guidelines Directorate for Education and Human Resources Division of Undergraduate Education * COURSE, CURRICULUM AND LABORATORY IMPROVEMENT * NSF COLLABORATIVES FOR EXCELLENCE IN TEACHER PREPARATION * ADVANCED TECHNOLOGICAL EDUCATION NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION NSF 98-45 Table of Contents Inquiries and Closing Dates.......................inside front cover Glossary of Acronyms..............................................ii Must Read Items..................................................iii NSF Organization..................................................iv Introduction.......................................................1 Overview of Programs...............................................3 Common Themes Across DUE Programs..................................4 General Program Information........................................5 Eligibility Target Audience Evaluation of Project Dissemination of Results Descriptions of Programs Course, Curriculum and Laboratory Improvement(CCLI)...........6 NSF Collaboratives for Excellence in Teacher Preparation (CETP).....................................................12 Advanced Technological Education (ATE).......................16 Preparation and Submission of Preliminary and Formal Proposals....23 Merit Review Criteria.............................................31 Announcement and Administration of Awards.........................33 Appendix I: Advice to Proposal Writers............................35 Appendix II: Project Data Form (1295) and Instructions............37 Inquiries and Closing Dates Questions regarding these programs that are not addressed in this publication or at the DUE Web site (http://www.ehr.nsf.gov/EHR/DUE/start.htm) may be directed to the DUE Information Center by phoning (703) 306-1666, e-mail to undergrad@nsf.gov, or U.S. mail to: The National Science Foundation Division of Undergraduate Education 4201 Wilson Blvd., Room 835 Arlington, VA 22230 Deadline: Course, Curriculum, and Laboratory Improvement (CCLI) (703) 306-1681 Formal proposals November 16, 1998 Formal proposals June 7, 1999 (anticipated June deadline annually thereafter) NSF Collaboratives for Excellence in Teacher Preparation (CETP) (703) 306-1669 (Annual deadlines are anticipated in Track 1; biennial deadlines in Track 2.) Preliminary proposals for CETP Track 1 May 1, 1998 Formal proposals for CETP Track 1 September 1, 1998 Preliminary proposals for CETP Tracks 1 and 2 May 1, 1999 Formal proposals for CETP Tracks 1 and 2 September 1, 1999 Advanced Technological Education (ATE) (703) 306-1668 Preliminary proposals April 15, 1998 Formal proposals October 15, 1998 Electronic Dissemination: This and other NSF publications are available electronically from the Documents online button at the NSF Web site (http://www.nsf.gov). Telephonic Device for the Deaf (TDD): NSF has TDD capability, which enables individuals with hearing impairments to communicate with the Division of Human Resource Management for information relating to NSF programs, employment, or general information. This number is (703) 306-0090. Glossary of Acronyms Acronym Definition ATE Advanced Technological Education CCLI Course, Curriculum and Laboratory Improvement CCLI-AA Chemistry Initiative Adapt & Adopt CCLI-A&I Adaptation and Implementation CCLI-EMD Educational Materials Development CCLI-ND National Dissemination CETP NSF Collaboratives for Excellence in Teacher Preparation DUE Division of Undergraduate Education EHR Directorate for Education and Human Resources ESIE Division of Elementary, Secondary, and Informal Education GPG Grant Proposal Guide (NSF 98-2) KDI Knowledge and Distributed Intelligence NSF National Science Foundation NVC National Visiting Committee PFK Proposal Forms Kit (NSF 98-3) SMET Science, Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology "Must Read" Items for Fiscal Year 1999 Programs Significant programmatic changes are reflected in this Announcement. Therefore, it is imperative that all prospective applicants carefully read the Announcement with particular attention to the major changes highlighted below: 1. The Course, Curriculum, and Laboratory Improvement (CCLI) program incorporates most features of the former Course and Curriculum Development and Instrumentation and Laboratory Improvement programs, including the option to submit instrumentation- or equipment-only proposals. In addition, CCLI gives increased priority to adaptation and implementation of previously developed materials and educational practices. 2. Proposals for the single workshop projects previously supported through the Undergraduate Faculty Enhancement program are no longer encouraged. Rather, the integration of faculty professional development within projects funded in all programs is encouraged. In addition, organizations with the ability to provide multi-disciplinary professional development for faculty nationwide are invited to submit proposals (see page 10). 3. The NSF Collaboratives for Excellence in Teacher Preparation (CETP) program has been reconfigured to support projects within two tracks: projects with an Institutional Focus (Track I) and those with a System- wide Focus (Track II). Track I proposals will be accepted and reviewed every year. Track II proposals will be accepted and reviewed on a biennial basis (i.e., every other year) beginning in 1999. Consistent with DUE's cross-cutting emphasis on the preparation of prospective preK-12 teachers, projects containing teacher preparation components or elements may be submitted, as appropriate, to the ATE and CCLI programs. 4. DUE has identified four special themes for applicants to all programs to consider, as appropriate, in developing projects (see page 4 for more information). These themes are: * Teacher Preparation * Diversity * Faculty Development * Integration of Technology in Education 5. Applicants can obtain up-to-date information on the award/decline status of their proposals via FastLane. The Division also encourages submission of Final Project Reports (Form 98A) via FastLane. FastLane can be accessed from the NSF Web site (http://www.nsf.gov), which includes detailed instructions for its use. NSF Organization [chart omitted from the ASCII text version of this publication] Introduction The National Science Foundation (NSF) provides leadership and support for the Nation's efforts to improve education in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology (SMET), addressing every level of education. Although almost all units of the Foundation are engaged in these activities, primary responsibility is concentrated in the Directorate for Education and Human Resources (EHR). The EHR Division of Undergraduate Education (DUE) serves as the focal point for NSF's agency-wide effort in undergraduate education. DUE programs address the spectrum of undergraduate educational challenges. Programs offered at this time are: * Course, Curriculum and Laboratory Improvement (CCLI) * NSF Collaboratives for Excellence in Teacher Preparation (CETP) * Advanced Technological Education (ATE) This program announcement describes all of these programs. Brief supplements may be issued, as needed, to announce relevant changes or additions. To stay current with the DUE program offerings periodically visit the DUE Web site (http://www.ehr.nsf.gov/EHR/DUE/start.htm). RATIONALE FOR DUE PROGRAMS Undergraduate education is central to NSF's mission in human resources development. Whether preparing students to be literate citizen- leaders, to enter the workforce with two- or four-year degrees, or to continue their formal education in graduate school, undergraduate education provides the critical link between the Nation's secondary schools and a society increasingly dependent upon science and technology. DUE's programmatic and other leadership efforts reflect the recommendations made in the 1996 Review of Undergraduate Education, Shaping the Future: New Expectations for Undergraduate Education in Science, Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology (NSF 96-139); available at the DUE Web site. The review had broad-based input through special hearings involving faculty from SMET disciplines, academic institution presidents, administrators, representatives from business and industry, as well as regional focus groups of students, parents, and employers. The results of this effort highlight the importance of SMET education for all students, including: * SMET majors * prospective pre-Kindergarten through grade 12 (preK-12) teachers * students preparing for the technical workplace * all students, as citizens in a technological society. The SMET education of all students calls for more effective linkages between preK-12 schools and higher education, undergraduate and graduate education, and higher education and the workplace. The realization of the vision in Shaping the Future will require institution-wide reform of colleges and universities throughout the United States. This Nation has a unique and inadequately developed resource--its diverse population. The percentages of underrepresented minorities[1], persons with disabilities, and women that follow careers in SMET fields need to increase for this Nation to realize the full potential of its diverse population. The "non-traditional" student, i.e., part-time student, working parent, or career-changing adult, is an important constituent of the Shaping the Future vision. Faculty members who creatively combine teaching with research are essential to the creation of vital SMET undergraduate education. NSF seeks to provide incentives and rewards to stimulate and motivate faculty members so that creative teaching and pedagogical scholarship become a part of the "faculty culture" at all institutions. DUE is supportive of projects involving multiple disciplines. The goal is to have students engage in the interdisciplinary nature of real world problems. In addition, projects involving collaboration with industry, which will better prepare students for entry and growth in the global business community, are strongly encouraged. The Foundation's opportunity to have a major impact on undergraduate education is greater than ever. Increased national recognition of the importance of SMET education coupled with rapid growth in new educational technologies, innovations in preK-12 education, increased understanding of how students learn, and successful interdisciplinary approaches create new opportunities for improving undergraduate education. [1] African-Americans, Alaskan Natives, Hispanics, Native Americans, and Native Pacific Islanders. Guide for DUE Program Selection [chart omitted from the ASCII text version of this publication] Overview of Programs In this announcement NSF offers a new program Course, Curriculum, and Laboratory Improvement (CCLI), which has been developed to build on the advances in undergraduate education achieved through previous programs and on input from the community, as reflected in the Shaping the Future report. CCLI provides an integrated program structure that incorporates most features of the former Course and Curriculum Development (CCD) and Instrumentation and Laboratory Improvement (ILI) programs, including the option to submit instrumentation- or equipment-only proposals. In addition, CCLI gives increased priority to improving undergraduate education through adaptation and implementation of previously developed materials and educational practices. Proposals for the single workshop projects previously supported through the Undergraduate Faculty Enhancement (UFE) program are no longer encouraged. Rather, the integration of faculty professional development within all projects is encouraged. Also, organizations with the ability to provide multi- disciplinary professional development for faculty nationwide are invited to submit proposals. Consequently, CCD, ILI, and UFE are no longer offered as separate programs. The Course, Curriculum, and Laboratory Improvement (CCLI) program seeks to improve the quality of SMET courses, curricula, and laboratories. It encompasses SMET education for all students and targets activities affecting the learning environment, content, and educational practices. The program has three major tracks: 1. Educational Materials Development (CCLI-EMD). Projects are expected to produce, for national distribution and implementation, innovative materials that incorporate effective educational practices to improve student learning in SMET content areas. For example, projects to develop textbooks, software or laboratory materials that enhance the student learning environment are appropriate in this track. 2. Adaptation and Implementation (CCLI-A&I). Projects are expected to result in improved SMET education at institutions through adaptation and implementation of exemplary materials, laboratory experiences, and educational practices. Proposals requesting only instrumentation or laboratory equipment, which contribute to improving student understanding of SMET, are also encouraged. 3. National Dissemination (CCLI-ND). Projects are expected to facilitate large-scale, national dissemination of exemplary materials and practices, and provide faculty professional development through a national offering of workshops, short courses, and/or related activities. Projects supported through CCLI provide the foundation for systemic reform, i.e., the totality of effort required of institutions to achieve excellence in SMET undergraduate education for all students. Other recent NSF initiatives have promoted systemic reform in undergraduate education including, for example, Institution-wide Reform of Undergraduate Education and Recognition Awards for the Integration of Research and Education. For information on NSF programs in undergraduate education not described in this announcement see NSF Guide to Programs (97-150) or contact the DUE Information Center at (703) 306-1666 or via e-mail at undergrad@nsf.gov. The purpose of the NSF Collaboratives for Excellence in Teacher Preparation (CETP) is to increase significantly the number of pre- Kindergarten through grade 12 (preK-12) teachers well prepared to teach science and mathematics. Projects are required to involve substantial collaboration of faculty and administrators in the sciences, mathematics, engineering, technology and their counterparts in education. Projects should pay particular attention to the need to attract SMET majors into the teaching profession, as well as the need to provide a good science and mathematics background to students majoring in other fields but intending to become teachers, especially those from underrepresented groups. CETP features two tracks: 1. Institutional Focus and 2. System-wide Focus. Collaborative activities encompass the continuum of teacher preparation from recruitment of prospective teachers through support for novice teachers. The Advanced Technological Education (ATE) program is managed jointly by DUE and the Division of Elementary, Secondary, and Informal Education. The program promotes exemplary improvement in technician education at the national and regional levels through support of curriculum development and program improvement in undergraduate and secondary school SMET education. To achieve its goals, the ATE program seeks to make use of the resources of the Nation's associate degree granting institutions in alliances with four-year colleges and universities, secondary schools, business, industry and government. Undergraduate faculty of four-year institutions are encouraged to collaborate with two-year institutions in developing ATE proposals. ATE solicits two types of proposals, which differ in scope: ATE Projects and National/Regional Centers of Excellence for Advanced Technological Education. Both focus on one or more aspects of curriculum development and program improvement. DUE also welcomes proposals for other activities that lead to a better understanding of advanced technological education and contribute to lifelong learning. Common Themes Across DUE Programs DUE has identified four themes for targeted emphasis: * Teacher Preparation * Diversity * Faculty Development * Integration of Technology in Education Features that address these themes may be integrated, as appropriate, into projects funded through DUE programs. Teacher Preparation The SMET preparation of prospective preK-12 teachers is a major emphasis within DUE. Although wide ranging in approach, all funded teacher preparation activities work toward the common objectives of advancing best teaching practices and promoting those innovative instructional programs that attract and retain the ablest of our Nation's students for careers in the teaching profession. Consequently, in addition to projects supported through the NSF Collaboratives for Excellence in Teacher Preparation (CETP), projects having teacher preparation components are encouraged and may be submitted through the CCLI and ATE programs. DUE is interested in supporting projects that are responsive to the premise that the preparation of prospective teachers is the responsibility of both education and SMET faculty, who should collaborate in the development of courses and curricula leading to the certification of teachers. SMET-based programs should provide prospective teachers with in-depth subject matter and with teaching knowledge adequate to meet the challenges posed by standards-based education, changing technology, and an increasingly diverse student body. Proposers submitting proposals with a teacher preparation theme through the ATE or CCLI programs should reference the sections for those two programs and, in addition, the CETP program section for general information regarding emphases within the area of teacher preparation. Diversity All DUE programs encourage proposals that strengthen undergraduate education by increasing the participation and success in SMET of women, underrepresented minorities, and persons with disabilities. Projects that can serve as models for increasing the number who successfully pursue careers in SMET areas and in preK-12 teaching are of particular interest. DUE seeks to take full advantage of ideas from individuals and institutions who can bring their experience and expertise to bear on the challenge of increasing the diversity of the SMET workforce and improving the SMET preparation of underrepresented groups. One effective strategy for meeting this challenge is to increase the pool of institutions with significant enrollments of underrepresented persons that participate in the undergraduate programs of NSF. Hence, proposals from such institutions that have not been previous participants in DUE programs are particularly encouraged. Faculty Development Quality undergraduate education derives from faculty members who are intellectually vigorous, up-to-date in their fields, and experienced in effective teaching methods. Through all its programs, DUE provides support, in cooperation with colleges, universities, and professional societies, to supplement course, curriculum and laboratory improvement efforts with faculty development activities. DUE promotes activities that enhance the abilities of faculty members to adapt and introduce newly developed course and laboratory materials, pedagogical methods, and technologies into the learning environment. In addition to enhancement of current faculty, projects are encouraged to integrate activities that address the preparation of future faculty. Integration of Technology in Education All DUE programs seek proposals for projects that use current and emerging technologies to improve learning and teaching in SMET. These proposals should integrate innovative educational strategy, appropriate content, and sound evaluation with current technology to produce more effective learning environments. Projects may develop or adapt materials and strategies to improve distance learning, incorporating effective uses of technology. The use of technology in education is an important component of the NSF-wide Knowledge and Distributed Intelligence (KDI) effort. The goal of KDI is a better understanding of fundamental processes by which information, knowledge, and intelligence occur in distributed systems, both natural and artificial. Results from KDI will have a major impact on learning and research in SMET. The KDI effort encourages projects that extend beyond the usual boundaries of education and research. These efforts could include the use of widely dispersed resources to support both content and inquiry- based activities as well as collaborations that link learning and cognition with computing and communications technologies to provide more meaningful learning experiences. DUE encourages proposals that apply positive results from such collaborative research efforts to improve learning and teaching. General Program Information ELIGIBILITY Eligible Fields and Disciplines Proposals may be submitted for support of projects in any field of science, mathematics, engineering, and technology ordinarily supported by NSF. A detailed list of disciplines and corresponding codes is included in Appendix II. Projects involving fundamental scientific, mathematical, or engineering concepts within technical, professional, or pre-professional programs are appropriate. Multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary proposals are especially encouraged. Specifically excluded are projects that address clinical fields such as medicine, nursing, clinical psychology, and physical education, and those that primarily involve social work, home economics, the arts, and the humanities. Eligible Institutions and Individuals Proposals are invited from organizations in the United States and its territories: two-year colleges, four-year colleges, universities, professional societies, consortia of institutions, and nonprofit and for-profit organizations that are directly associated with educational or research activities. Proposals from a formal consortium should be submitted by the consortium; proposals from an informal consortium or coalition may be submitted by one of the member institutions. For additional details see Grant Proposal Guide (GPG, NSF 98-2). Each Principal Investigator may submit only one proposal to each program per closing date. TARGET AUDIENCE The ultimate target audience for all DUE programs is undergraduates enrolled in SMET courses: * science, mathematics, and engineering majors; * prospective teachers at the elementary, middle, and secondary school levels; * students in science technology and engineering technology programs; and * non-SMET majors seeking scientific and technological literacy. EVALUATION OF PROJECT Projects supported under DUE programs are inherently experimental in character. Thus, it is essential that the methodologies and results of these projects be subjected to careful evaluation. The scale and cost of evaluative activities should be appropriate to the size and scope of the project. The evaluation should provide credible data on what the project has accomplished and how well it has fulfilled the expectations of the Investigator, the relevant scientific community, and NSF. An evaluation plan should describe the objectives or critical evaluation questions, the personnel to perform the evaluation tasks, the process for collecting and analyzing the information, the use of the information for monitoring the progress of the project, and a timeline for the evaluation activities. In order to develop effective methods for evaluation, cooperation with persons experienced in evaluation is encouraged. The Foundation may request the cooperation of individual projects in the collection of specific data via surveys or other mechanisms to enable evaluation of DUE's programs. The Foundation may work with the applicant during the award process to develop special evaluation and dissemination mechanisms, when the scale and cost of a project merit it. For more information regarding project evaluation see User-Friendly Handbook for Project Evaluation: Science, Mathematics, Engineering and Technology Education (NSF 93-152; reprinted 6/97). DISSEMINATION OF RESULTS For the desired national impact to be achieved, project results must be evaluated and then disseminated widely within the appropriate academic, scientific, and technical communities. The value of a project depends on the quality and utility of what is learned or produced and upon the breadth and effectiveness of the related dissemination activities; therefore plans for dissemination of project results are given significant weight in the review of proposals. A dissemination plan should include designation of the audience to be reached, description of the information or material to be disseminated and how it will be made available to other institutions, the means of dissemination (such as faculty development workshops, journal articles, conference presentations, textbooks, laboratory manuals, software, audiovisual materials, electronic networks and media, etc.), the nature of technical assistance available to support implementation, and procedures for determining success of the dissemination effort. Where applicable, applicants should describe existing or planned arrangements with commercial publishers in their proposals. Multiple dissemination approaches are encouraged. For additional guidance see Announcement and Administration of Awards. Descriptions of Programs Guide for CCLI Proposal Development [chart omitted from the ASCII text version of this publication] Course, Curriculum, and Laboratory Improvement (CCLI) Closing Date: November 16, 1998; June 7, 1999 (anticipated June deadline annually thereafter) Program Track: Contact: Educational Materials Development (CCLI-EMD) (703) 306-1681 Adaptation and Implementation: Adaptation and Implementation (CCLI-A&I) (703) 306-1667 Chemistry Initiative-Adapt & Adopt (CCLI-AA) (703) 306-1666 National Dissemination (CCLI-ND) (703) 306-1670 A. Purpose The goal of the Course, Curriculum, and Laboratory Improvement (CCLI) program is to revitalize and improve the quality of undergraduate science, mathematics, engineering, and technology (SMET) education obtained by all students at all types of institutions. To achieve this goal the CCLI program promotes the: * development and evaluation of exemplary materials incorporating effective educational practices; * enhancement of current faculty and preparation of future faculty; * adaptation and implementation of effective materials and pedagogies; * improvement of laboratories and field experiences through provision of equipment for student use and support of curriculum development; and * dissemination of effective educational materials and practices. Proposals are encouraged that address all levels of undergraduate education, with emphasis on introductory-level courses, curricula, and laboratories. Introductory experiences are crucial to improving SMET education for all students: those with career aspirations in these fields, prospective preK-12 teachers, future members of the technological workforce, and all students as informed and productive citizens in an society that is increasingly based on science and technology. The cross-cutting themes (teacher preparation, diversity, faculty development, and integration of technology) described on page 4 should be integrated into CCLI projects as appropriate. B. Program Design Projects funded in this program are expected to improve undergraduate SMET education by increasing the availability and use of high quality educational materials and the employment of effective pedagogical strategies. NSF encourages applications from across the spectrum of educational institutions: two-year colleges, four-year colleges, and comprehensive, doctoral, and research universities. Projects may involve a single institution, collaboration with business and industrial partners, or collaboration among several institutions. For example, projects may include collaborative curricular and laboratory development efforts that improve the transition of students between the collaborating institutions (such as transfer between two- and four-year institutions). The CCLI program has three major tracks: 1. Educational Materials Development (CCLI-EMD). Projects are expected to result in the development of innovative materials that incorporate effective educational practices to improve student learning in SMET content areas. These projects should have potential for national distribution, adaptation and implementation. 2. Adaptation and Implementation (CCLI-A&I). Projects are expected to result in improved SMET education at institutions through adaptation and implementation of exemplary materials, laboratory experiences, and educational practices. 3. National Dissemination (CCLI-ND). Projects are expected to facilitate large-scale, national professional development opportunities for faculty through workshops, short courses, and/or related activities. Proposals may contain features that are appropriate for more than one of these tracks. However, applicants must identify on the Cover Sheet and Form 1295-Project Data Form the track in which they wish their project to be reviewed. The development and implementation of materials and approaches for multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary courses, curricula, and laboratories are especially encouraged. Such efforts should reflect collaboration among faculty members in the relevant disciplines. Projects should be well founded on research conducted in teaching and learning. In particular, proposals should describe how research has informed the project to date and plans for research to inform the project's further development. Also, the proposal should describe how student learning will be assessed, reflecting the educational objectives and practices being introduced through the project. Proposals may focus on an individual course, or address a curriculum encompassing several related courses. For CCLI purposes, "laboratory improvement" includes improving laboratory experiences ranging from those that are fully integrated into teaching and learning within a course to a separate component in the curriculum. The setting may involve, for example, an observatory, a field site, a computer room, or an integrated laboratory/classroom, as well as the traditional laboratory. The descriptions below indicate the essential features of the three tracks. Although the activities described within these three tracks are expected to comprise the majority of projects supported through the CCLI program, proposals that address other mechanisms for improving undergraduate education will be considered. Track 1: Educational Materials Development (CCLI-EMD) This track of CCLI supports course, curriculum, and laboratory development projects that will result in innovative educational materials (e.g., electronic, print, multi-media, equipment) incorporating effective educational practices for improved student learning. Although perhaps initially conceived in local course or laboratory development, these projects are expected to address national needs in undergraduate SMET education. In particular, projects are expected to produce innovative materials of a quality and significance appropriate for national distribution, adaptation, and implementation. NSF funding provides support for the development, widespread site testing and evaluation of these materials and methods, and efforts to promote their effective implementation. The project scope may be, for example, a set of modules, a course, a series of courses, or an entire curriculum. Projects may involve a single discipline or may cut across disciplinary boundaries. The proposal narrative should include the following: * a statement of the problem or need being addressed; * a description of the innovative materials and pedagogies to be developed; * plans for developing, site-testing and evaluating materials and instructional practices; * description of a strategy to promote effective national implementation; and * plans for self-sustained distribution of materials. Expected outcomes for funded projects are, for example: * innovative materials for national distribution; * teaching and learning strategies that are demonstrated to be effective at diverse sites; * effective national dissemination and faculty professional development in the use of material and pedagogies; and * establishment of commercial or other self-sustaining distribution. In addition to the projects described above, smaller "proof-of-concept" proposals may also be submitted to the EMD track. The "proof-of-concept" will vary with projects but, in general, is expected to demonstrate the scientific, educational, and commercial merit and feasibility of an idea or concept. The results could serve as the basis for a full development proposal and might, for example, provide a prototype product (module, video, etc.). It is also expected that results from proof-of-concept grants may in many cases attract support from funding sources other than NSF. Expected outcomes of proof-of-concept grants are, for example: * a prototype product or other information establishing a "proof of concept"; * a plan for full development; * an established project team/partners; * identification of test sites; and * identification of potential commercial publisher or plans for other means of self-sustained distribution. Track 2: Adaptation and Implementation Adaptation and Implementation (CCLI-A&I) This track of CCLI promotes the improvement of undergraduate SMET education through the adaptation and implementation of effective materials, techniques, and practices to result in positive change at an institution. An outcome of CCLI-A&I projects should be implementation to impact the funded institution(s). As a result, these institutions will also serve as national models exemplifying effective implementation of practices to improve student learning. It is anticipated that Track 2 proposals will encompass a range of activities from individual courses and laboratories to more comprehensive projects that impact entire curricula or programs. The Table on page 10 indicates the budget range based on the scope of the project. CCLI-A&I projects would effect change within or across departments or other institutional units, by having broad faculty and administrative support. The proposal must demonstrate how the project fits into departmental and institutional goals and plans to build on the project. An important recommendation in Shaping the Future is that NSF promote the implementation of effective curricula as well as their initial development. Adaptation and effective implementation require creative efforts, and provide opportunities for evaluation in alternative settings. Consequently, proposers of CCLI-A&I projects are encouraged to adapt and implement high-quality educational materials and effective educational practices developed through NSF funded projects or elsewhere. Proposals should describe the materials and practices being adapted, as well as innovations required to effect the desired improvements. Abstracts of curriculum and laboratory development projects funded through programs managed by DUE can be obtained in print by contacting the DUE Information Center at 703-306-1666 or via e-mail (undergrad@nsf.gov), or in electronic form via the DUE Web site: (http://www.ehr.nsf.gov/EHR/DUE/start.htm). Many of these previously funded projects are in progress and proposers may wish to contact the project Principal Investigators to explore the possibility of serving as test sites. Materials for adaptation may be drawn from more than one project. For example, Systemic Changes in the Undergraduate Chemistry Curriculum and Mathematical Sciences and Their Applications throughout the Curriculum are two NSF Initiatives that have funded large-scale, multi- year projects which are still underway. All projects involve collaborations of several institutions. Information on these projects can also be obtained through the DUE Web site or Information Center as indicated above. Projects to adapt and implement quality curricula, materials, and/or techniques might include, for example: * the incorporation of laboratory experiments and/or field experiences that actively engage students to use the scientific process and explore concepts in better ways; * the adaptation and testing of exemplary materials with a student audience significantly different from the one where they were developed; * the use of new resources and materials, particularly instructional and information technologies, to enhance learning and teaching for all students; * the promotion of critical thinking, problem-solving skills, and creativity; * the use of collaborative learning, student teaching, learning communities, and other innovations that aim to improve pedagogy in courses with large as well as small enrollments; and/or * the improvement of the way in which postdoctoral students, graduate students, and advanced undergraduates contribute to undergraduate education as well as their development as possible future faculty. As in the former Instrumentation and Laboratory Improvement (ILI) program, the requested funds may be entirely for laboratory equipment and instrumentation. However, funding requests may also include all items normally supported by NSF. See Preparation and Submission of Preliminary and Formal Proposals and Special Note below for matching requirements. The proposal narrative should include the following elements: * a description of the specific needs being addressed and the courses/laboratories that will be developed or improved by the proposed changes; * a description of innovative features, and of the materials and practices to be adapted and implemented; * features of the implementation strategy (including faculty development) and a timeline; * evidence of institutional commitment to the project (see special matching requirements below)and departmental or institutional plans to build on the project; * plans for evaluation of project outcomes; and * plans for dissemination of project results. Expected outcomes include, for example: * adaptation and implementation of innovative practices and materials for course, curriculum, or laboratory improvements; * faculty professional development in support of educational improvements; * initiation of efforts to broaden the impact at the institution, within the discipline or across disciplines; * an evaluation that informs the institution and others of the effectiveness of the implemented materials and practices; and * a national model exemplifying effective implementation of practices to improve student learning. The CCLI program discourages proposals that: * are justified solely on the basis of financial need or increased enrollments; * seek replacement equipment without a well-conceived plan for enhancing learning; * provide only the basic level of support for SMET instruction needed to maintain a viable program; or * replicate an existing program without adaptation to the needs of a particular student audience. Such projects are more appropriately supported by the institution. Special Note on CCLI-A&I Matching Requirements: In recognition of the institutional commitment required to conduct successful projects and the particular benefit to the funded institution in the Adaptation and Implementation track of CCLI, a match by non-Federal funds equal to or greater than the NSF funds is required. A specific 1:1 match is required on equipment as part of the 1:1 match on the entire budget. Please note that the 1:1 match on the entire budget is a requirement only for CCLI-A&I projects (CCLI-AA projects are exempt). The 1:1 match on equipment is required in all DUE programs. Systemic Changes in the Undergraduate Chemistry Curriculum-Adapt and Adopt (CCLI-AA). For FY 1999, it is anticipated that about $700,000 will be available to fund 6 to 10 proposals for the adaptation and adoption of materials and methods being produced by the five major projects funded through NSF's Systemic Chemistry Initiative. Awardees will be institutions not previously funded through this Initiative. Proposals should describe how the proposed use of materials and methods developed by one or more of those efforts will enhance the national impact of the original project(s) and promote the goals of the Systemic Chemistry Initiative. In CCLI-AA projects, matching is required only on equipment. To obtain information about these five major projects and the Initiative, please consult the DUE Web site or contact the DUE Information Center at (703) 306-1666. Other chemistry-related proposals should be submitted to the regular CCLI-EMD and CCLI-A&I tracks. Track 3: National Dissemination (CCLI-ND) The purpose of this track is the national dissemination of exemplary materials and practices through the provision of faculty professional development opportunities. Such opportunities should be designed to enable current faculty, as well as prepare future faculty, to introduce new content into undergraduate courses, to investigate effective educational practices, and to interact intensively with experts in the field. Projects funded in this track could also serve to catalyze the transfer of new scientific information obtained from research projects into the undergraduate curriculum, a process that enables the integration of research and education. Awards will be made to organizations that are capable of providing a large-scale, national faculty development effort in a variety of disciplines and topical areas. While it is expected that the primary mechanism for such efforts will be faculty workshops and short courses, distance learning opportunities (e.g., via the Internet) and other means of dissemination are encouraged. Eligible activities are not restricted to the dissemination of results from NSF-funded projects. It is anticipated that only a very few awards will be made in CCLI-ND. Organizations considering submission of a proposal within this track should contact a DUE Program Director at (703) 306-1666. Following this initial discussion, a preliminary project description should be received by a DUE Program Director for comment, no later than six weeks before the formal closing date of November 16, 1998. This preliminary project description of not more than 3 single-spaced pages should include a project outline, a description of personnel involved, and an approximate budget. Formal proposals must be postmarked no later than November 16, 1998. C. Preparation and Submission of Proposals Please refer to Preparation and Submission of Preliminary and Formal Proposals (page 23) for information regarding proposal submission, and Merit Review Criteria (page 31) for information regarding proposal review. See Budget and Budget Justification (page 28) for eligible costs. Note that in all DUE programs equipment costs must be matched by non-Federal funds equal to or greater than the NSF funds. The number and size of awards for the current year will depend on the quality of the proposals received and the availability of funds. Grant duration is typically 2-3 years but may be requested for up to five years. The table below indicates a budget range for projects within the CCLI program. The minimum budget request is $5,000. Tracks Project Scope (expected range of NSF support) Educational Materials Proof of Concept Full Development Development (up to $75K) (up to $500K) Adaptation & Course/Laboratory Comprehensive Curriculum Implementation (up to $100K) (up to $200K) National Dissemination Large-Scale Faculty Professional Development Guide for CETP Proposal Development [chart omitted from the ASCII text version of this publication] NSF Collaboratives for Excellence in Teacher Preparation (CETP) Closing Dates for Track 1: Preliminary Proposals: May 1, 1998; Formal Proposals: September 1, 1998 Closing Dates for Track 2: Preliminary Proposals: May 1, 1999; Formal Proposals: September 1, 1999 Contact: (703) 306-1669 A. Purpose The NSF Collaboratives for Excellence in Teacher Preparation (CETP) program is a response to the national need to attract and retain increasing numbers of teachers well qualified in mathematics and the sciences. The purpose of the CETP program is to achieve significant and systemic improvement in the science, mathematics, engineering, and technology (SMET) preparation of prospective preK-12 teachers. Programs are sought which recruit and develop future teachers who are sensitive to the varied learning styles, backgrounds, and needs of their students. Particular attention is needed to recruit prospective teachers from underrepresented groups so the teachers of tomorrow reflect the diversity of the students they teach. Recognizing the wide responsibility for teacher preparation within institutions of higher education, a principal objective of the CETP program is to engage the faculties and departments of science, mathematics, engineering, technology, and education in developing teacher certification programs. CETP teacher preparation programs will provide prospective teachers with the in-depth subject matter and teaching knowledge necessary to implement the national mathematics and science standards, as well as emerging educational technologies, to fully realize the potential of this nation's richly diverse student body. Teacher preparation requires multi-dimensional approaches and the concerted effort of many stakeholders including faculty and administration from two-year, four-year and research institutions and school districts; the business community; and state departments of education. A collaborative effort having full institutional support is needed in order to develop preK-12 teachers who are: excited about incorporating mathematics, technology, and the sciences into their daily classroom activities; competent in their subject matter; and confident in their abilities within these disciplines. The range of activities supported by the CETP program spans the continuum of teacher preparation including recruitment, instruction in content, pedagogy, classroom management, early field experiences, credentialing, and induction and support of novice teachers. In meeting the immediate national demand for competent mathematics and science teachers, the scope of teacher preparation programs has been broadened to include the preparation of teachers from non-traditional sources such as para-professionals and mathematicians, scientists, engineers, or technicians considering career changes. B. Program Design The Division's programs promote the development of both single component and comprehensive systemic projects leading to the reform of teacher preparation: * Teacher Preparation Priority in ATE and CCLI * NSF Collaboratives for Excellence in Teacher Preparation Special projects are also supported. Examples of these are: studies of topics specific to teacher preparation and national symposia or workshops that have high potential for increasing understanding of the issues related to SMET teacher preparation and improving the national preparation of teachers. Proposers interested in submitting proposals for special projects should first discuss ideas with a Program Director (contact the Division at 703-306-1666). All teacher preparation projects are expected to involve the collaboration of faculty and administration in science, mathematics, engineering, technology and education. Teacher preparation projects should hold the promise of producing more teachers well prepared in science and mathematics and skilled in the use of current pedagogies. All teacher preparation related projects should have the potential to provide a basis for other institutions and faculties to benefit from the project's results. Teacher Preparation Priority in ATE and CCLI Consistent with the Division's cross-cutting programmatic emphasis on the SMET preparation of prospective preK-12 teachers, disciplinary or interdisciplinary projects containing teacher preparation elements may be submitted, as appropriate, to the ATE or CCLI programs. Projects are expected to contribute directly, or have the potential for contributing, to an existing or planned teacher preparation program. Projects will be considered in accordance with the specific program requirements found in the ATE and CCLI sections of this Program Announcement. Proposers should consult the ATE and CCLI Program Sections for further information, as well as the remainder of this section regarding priorities in teacher preparation. NSF Collaboratives for Excellence in Teacher Preparation CETP projects must be multi-component and designed to result in comprehensive change in a program producing significant numbers of preK-12 teachers. The ultimate result should be a substantial increase in the number of teachers who are well prepared both in the basic disciplines of science and mathematics and the pedagogical and assessment methodologies consistent with the national standards. A key feature of the CETP program is the collaboration of a range of disciplines (science, mathematics, engineering, and technology coupled with education) and institutions (school districts; two-year, four-year and research colleges and universities; professional and community organizations; state licensing and accreditation agencies; and the private sector). Collaborative activities should extend from recruitment of students through support of beginning teachers, and may include the graduate education necessary to achieve certification. Multidisciplinary programs including the participation of faculty from engineering and technology departments and from the liberal arts are strongly encouraged. The CETP program has two tracks to develop, implement, and institutionalize comprehensive change in teacher preparation: 1. Institutional Focus 2. System-wide (state or other geographic region) Focus Projects should be designed to develop the collaborative frameworks necessary for a coordinated approach to teacher preparation, beginning with recruitment and culminating with the initial years of teaching. A wide spectrum of responsible institutions should be engaged. All comprehensive proposals should clearly describe the management structure to be developed, delineating: the specific roles and responsibilities of each of the collaborating institutions and Principal Investigators; methods for providing appropriate support for participating departments, faculty and teachers; and methods for project assessment and evaluation. Proposals should give clear evidence of the department and institutional support necessary to ensure institution-wide commitment. CETP leadership and design teams must include: * as the Principal Investigator, an institutional leader within the discipline-based science, mathematics, engineering or technology faculty; * extensive and substantive collaboration among discipline based faculty, education faculty, and experienced teachers including a critical mass of those involved in teaching introductory courses in mathematics, the sciences, and, as appropriate, engineering and technology; * as appropriate, inclusion of faculty and administrators from two-year colleges, recognizing the significant role these institutions play in the teacher production pipeline; * active participants at all levels of leadership from each of the collaborating stakeholders including institutional and school district administrators and from women and members of other groups underrepresented in science, mathematics, and engineering. CETP proposals should also indicate clear connections with existing NSF or other systemic projects. Institutionalization should include plans for: the science, mathematics, and engineering departments to integrate prospective teachers into their culture; adaptation and institutionalization of products and approaches by affected institutions, school districts and education agencies; and development of an infrastructure and management plan among the collaborating institutions to ensure the sustainability and continuation of successful projects beyond the period of NSF financial support. Dissemination should include the development of materials such as textbooks, software, and multimedia products and clear plans for dissemination and publication of materials and results. Track 1: Institutional Focus Track 1 supports the development and implementation necessary for institutionalization of comprehensive teacher preparation projects. Projects may involve one large institution with a high level of teacher production and its feeder institutions (two- and four-year colleges, school districts) or the logical alliance of a number of institutions, including four-year independent colleges, community colleges, and school districts, whose combined efforts represent a major contribution to teacher production and placement within a defined local area. Track 2: System-wide (state or other geographic region) Focus The scope of Track 2 projects is beyond that of Track 1 by encompassing an entire university system or a collection of colleges/universities which span a state or other geographic region. Projects involve the colleges and universities in the region, as well as the schools and their administrative systems. Projects are expected to impact the institutions and system policies in a sustainable way. Features of Teacher Preparation Projects The features listed below indicate the range of activities which are encompassed in teacher preparation efforts. The list is not intended to be complete, but rather to illustrate the breadth of effort required. Students and Faculty: * incentive programs that attract outstanding students, including strong representation from minority and underrepresented populations, to teaching careers which include recruitment of science, mathematics, engineering, and technology majors; mathematicians, scientists, engineers and technicians considering mid-career changes; and/or teacher aides interested in becoming certified as teachers; * mentoring programs addressing the needs of both pre-service teachers and teachers in the first few years of their career; * field experiences including research experiences for preservice teachers; tutoring and classroom experiences; internships at industry and museum settings; and summer teacher corps; * college faculty and pre-college faculty exchange experiences; * collaboration with school districts to ensure appropriate placement of students and novice teachers, and strong support systems for novice teachers linking preservice to active service; * community based programs that promote teaching as a career; * programs that specifically address the needs of urban and rural student populations. Programs: * curriculum consistent with the national science and math standards, including core courses integrating the study of pedagogy and content; interdisciplinary courses including science, mathematics, engineering and humanities; post- baccalaureate, pre-certification courses; * effective teaching strategies such as cooperative learning, inquiry-based instruction, use of hands-on activities, attention to issues of equity, and the use of technology in the classroom; * master teacher in residence programs which involve preK-12 master teachers in planning, implementing and assessing teacher preparation courses and programs (including mentoringprospective and practicing teachers); * courses and experiences preparing prospective teachers to work with special populations; * assessment methods that better reflect the objectives of new educational materials and practices objectives; * application and conduct of research in teaching and learning; * bridge programs to establish linkages to, and coordination with, other NSF science and mathematics education reform program efforts such as Local Systemic Change (LSC), State Systemic Initiatives (SSI), Urban Systemic Initiatives (USI), Ruraal Systemic Initiatives (RSI), Comprehensive Partnerships for Mathematics and Science Achievement (CPMSA), or Alliance for Minority Participation (AMP). Information concerning any of these Programs may be obtained from the NSF Web site (http://www.nsf.gov) or by phone. Information about LSC may be obtained from the Division of Elementary, Secondary, and Informal Education at (703) 306-1620. Information concerning SSI, RSI and USI projects may be obtained from NSF's Division of Educational System Reform at (703) 306-1690. Information concerning CPMSA and AMP projects may be obtained from the Division of Human Resource Development at (703) 306-1640. C. Budget Teacher Preparation Priority in ATE and CCLI Proposers are referred to the ATE and CCLI Program sections. CETP Track 1 and 2 Projects * Track 1 awards will be made for $500,000 to $800,000 per year for a duration of 1 to 3 years. * Track 2 awards will be made for $500,000 to $1,000,000 per year for a duration of 3 to 5 years. D. Preparation and Submission of Preliminary and Formal Proposals It is strongly recommended that institutions planning to submit a formal proposal for Track 1 or 2 of the CETP program first submit a preliminary proposal. Preliminary proposals for Track 1 are due on May 1, 1998 and annually thereafter. Preliminary proposals for Track 2 are due on May 1, 1999 and biennially thereafter. Both the formal proposal and the preliminary proposal should reflect extensive planning and discussion among scientists, science educators, mathematicians, mathematics educators, teachers, and university and school administrators. Please refer to Preparation and Submission of Preliminary and Formal Proposals for information regarding proposal submission. Please refer to Merit Review Criteria for information regarding proposal review. Guide for ATE Proposal Development [chart omitted from the ASCII text version of this publication] Advanced Technological Education (ATE) Closing Date for Preliminary Proposals: April 15, 1998 Closing Date for Formal Proposals: October 15, 1998 Contact: 703-306-1668 A. Purpose Ensuring internationally competitive industrial and other business enterprises, protection of the environment, effective development and use of new technologies, and other high technology activities requires well-educated science and engineering technicians. It has become increasingly apparent that the quality of this high-technology workforce depends on strong and innovative science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education at associate degree granting institutions. Such education should creatively serve first-time students, returning students, and workers seeking new career opportunities or new skills in a changing economy. To be effective, technological education programs require partnerships among two- and four-year colleges, universities, secondary schools, business, government, and industry. The Advanced Technological Education (ATE) program promotes improvement in technician education delivered at the undergraduate and secondary school levels. The program expects all projects to include major involvement of two-year colleges. Focused on both national and regional levels, it supports curriculum development and program improvement for technicians being educated for the high performance workplace of advanced technologies. Curriculum development encompasses the design and implementation of new curricula, courses, laboratories, and instructional materials. Program improvement encompasses faculty and teacher development, student academic support, and formal cooperative arrangements among institutions and other partners. ATE centers and projects result in major improvements in advanced technological education, serve as models for other institutions, assure that students acquire strong backgrounds in mathematics and science, and yield nationally-usable educational products. All projects must have a vision for technician education which is used to guide project development. The program is managed jointly by the Division of Undergraduate Education (DUE) and the Division of Elementary, Secondary, and Informal Education (ESIE). B. Eligibility Requirements under the program are as follows: Eligible Programs. For purposes of this program, technician education is generally considered to be the occupation-driven education of persons who will use complex technologies. ATE programs focus on strategic advanced-technology fields and offer education and/or work experiences that are based on scientific, mathematical, and engineering principles. ATE-supported fields in engineering technology include, but are not limited to, aeronautical, architectural, biomedical, chemical, civil, communications, computer, electrical and electronic, industrial, manufacturing, materials, mechanical, marine, nuclear, systems, and telecommunications. In the area of science technology, supported fields include, but are not limited to, agriculture, biotechnology, chemical, environmental, hazardous waste, marine science, and optics. Technicians in these fields enhance productivity in manufacturing, telecommunications, information management, transportation, and other commercial activities important to national economic and security interests. Students enrolled in ATE programs at two-year colleges typically earn an associate degree in engineering technology or science technology qualifying them for employment or transfer to a four-year institution. ATE will support development of science, mathematics, engineering and technology courses in both core and advanced technology areas. The disciplinary emphasis is predicated on the expectation that all ATE programs have a strong core of courses in science and mathematics to serve as prerequisites and co-requisites for specialized technology courses. ATE will also support development of advanced science and engineering technology courses that assume students have mastered such skills and principles. Course development is expected to be a cooperative effort among faculty and appropriate industry staff (e.g., technicians, research staff) in mathematics, science, engineering, and technical fields. Eligible Institutions. Proposals are invited from two-year colleges, other associate degree granting institutions, two-year college systems, and consortia of two-year colleges. In addition, proposals are welcomed from consortia of other appropriate organizations and institutions (e.g., four-year colleges and universities, secondary schools, professional societies, and educational research and development groups) that include two-year colleges in leadership roles. Proposals from a formal consortium should be submitted by the consortium; proposals from an informal consortium should be submitted by one member of the consortium. Eligible Costs. ATE will support new design or development costs. NSF funds may not be used to support expenditures that would normally be undertaken in the absence of an award. C. ATE Program Tracks ATE expects to support the following three tracks of projects: 1) Projects which focus on one or more aspects of advanced technological education, i.e., curriculum or instructional materials development, faculty or teacher preparation and enhancement, technical experiences for students and faculty including internships and cooperative education, or laboratory development; 2) up to three new Centers of Excellence in Advanced Technological Education that provide systems-based approaches to technological education (Note: the number and distribution of Centers and projects depends on availability of funds and quality of proposals received); and, 3) conferences, workshops, symposia, design and planning projects, studies, and other special projects that will lead to better understanding and promotion of issues in advanced technological education. Track 1. ATE Projects Project Development ATE focuses on improving educational opportunities for potential science and engineering technicians. Centers are expected to be comprehensive in scope. Projects may focus more narrowly on curriculum or instructional materials development, faculty or teacher enhancement, faculty or teacher preparation, technical and research experiences for students and faculty, including internships and cooperative education, or laboratory development. They should, nonetheless, be placed within the context of a more comprehensive program. Because of the nature of technological education programs, where appropriate, projects should build on alliances of associate degree granting institutions with four-year colleges and universities, secondary schools, business, industry, and government. Students and parents must also be made aware of the opportunities and rewards for careers as technicians and the educational requirements necessary to pursue such careers. Projects that cut across the boundaries listed below are especially encouraged. a. Curriculum and Instructional Materials Projects ATE supports model projects that demonstrate a vision to improve the quality of courses and curricula in the basic mathematics, science, and engineering core underlying programs in advanced technological education, as well as more specialized science and engineering technology courses. Its activities affect the learning environment, content, and experience of instruction. Technological education is field dependent and driven by applications. There should be a match between occupational requirements and what students are taught. The education component should provide understanding to make the technician more insightful about the work environment and more flexible about receiving additional training which may be job and/or skill related. ATE seeks projects that envision major changes in technician education and that result in products such as textbooks, laboratory experiments and manuals, software, videos, CD-ROMs, and other educational products. Products are expected to be widely disseminated through publishers, seminars, workshops, electronic networks, and other appropriate means including conference presentations and journal articles. Projects may range from substantial revision of existing materials to creation of entirely new ones; from a few modules at a single instructional level to comprehensive curricula for multiple years; and from a single subject to the integration of several disciplines. Projects must produce major changes and significant improvement beyond the recipient institution and produce materials used nationally. Curriculum projects are especially sought that integrate mathematics, science, and technology; are developed by teams of educators, scientists, and industry participants; and implement the national mathematics, science, and industry standards in a technological context. Curriculum projects that prepare future teachers and faculty for advanced technological programs are also encouraged. A variety of projects is encouraged. Requests normally range from $50,000 to $500,000 per year and for 1-3 years duration depending on complexity. b. Teacher and Faculty Development Projects Faculty and teachers are key elements in advanced technological education. It is critical that they have a sound disciplinary background with knowledge of state-of-the-art developments and techniques in their fields; be intellectually vigorous and excited about their disciplines; employ modern teaching practices; and regard teaching as an important and rewarding activity. To this end, ATE seeks to enhance both the disciplinary capabilities and teaching skills of faculty and teachers, as well as to provide support to maintain their currency and vitality. Successful projects emphasize content, pedagogy, development and exercise of leadership skills, and opportunities for continuing professional growth. Faculty and teachers also need to be familiar with new instrumentation and the opportunity to evaluate its suitability for instructional use. They need opportunities to synthesize knowledge that cuts across their own and other disciplines. Finally, they also need opportunities to interact intensively with experts in the field and with colleagues who are practicing scientists, technicians, engineers, and mathematicians, both during the course of the project, and in a continuing way after the project. Typical projects for teacher and faculty enhancement include conferences, seminars, short courses, industrial internships, institutes, workshops, or a series of such activities. Sessions may vary in length from a few days to several weeks. It is expected that activities would usually be conducted in the summer with follow-up activities during the academic year. To effect long-term change, teacher and faculty enhancement projects normally span at least two academic years. Projects in which two-year college faculty work with four-year college or university faculty and/or secondary school teachers are encouraged, as are those which bring together faculty and teachers from different disciplines. Instructional materials projects to prepare pre-service teachers and faculty for careers in technological education are also sought. Programs, which are collaborations between two-year colleges and four- year colleges and universities, are particularly desirable. Involvement of science, mathematics, engineering, technology, and education faculty and secondary school teachers in curriculum design and program implementation is encouraged. Teacher and faculty preparation and enhancement projects normally range from $25,000 to $500,000 per year, with a duration of one-to-three years depending on the complexity and length of the activities, the number of teachers and faculty involved, and the follow-up support provided. c. Technical Experiences for Students and Faculty Technical experiences should provide high-potential students and faculty from secondary schools or two-year colleges with a broad perspective of technical fields. They are introduced to an intellectually stimulating environment centered on genuine technical experiences both in the classroom and in a work or community environment. Participants are expected to work in small groups interacting on a regular basis with scientists, engineers, and technicians and with peers who have an interest and curiosity similar to their own. Student-faculty teams are particularly encouraged to participate in technical experiences. Successful projects provide opportunities to formulate problems and questions, design appropriate models, use technological tools, and perform tasks related to their field. In addition, the student-faculty teams are expected to translate the technical experiences and follow-up activities into meaningful classroom experiences that introduce other students to the role of technicians in the workplace. Technical experiences include, but are not limited to, industrial internships and cooperative experiences. It is expected that the industry partners will provide major support for internships and cooperative activities. Through participation in technical experiences, students and faculty will: * gain greater knowledge of, and hands-on exposure to, the applications of science, mathematics, engineering, and technology and become more confident of their ability in technical areas; * obtain information about, and develop interest in, careers as science and engineering technicians, and become aware of the academic preparation necessary for such careers; become acquainted with the environment of two-year colleges as well as business, industry, government laboratories, research organizations, and other academic institutions. Projects may consist of any combination of activities involving instruction, problem solving, research, design and creation of products. Proposers should provide a balance of classroom, laboratory, industrial, and field experiences. While some activities may be individualized, project activities should stress group interactions that foster collaborations among peers and provide substantive feedback. Proposals should describe recruitment strategies; criteria for selection of participants; relevance of the planned experiences to curricula or programs; commitments by schools, colleges, or industries to provide resources for implementing project activities; content of sessions about ethics in the workplace and career awareness; and strategies for evaluating the value added to the education of students and faculty. Technical Experience projects will normally range from $50,000 to $250,000 per year with a duration of one to three years. Internships should receive substantial cost sharing. d. Laboratory Development Projects Laboratory or field experiences with suitable modern equipment are crucial elements of advanced technological education, especially at the two-year college level. ATE will support projects to develop innovative methods for using laboratory exercises that improve student understanding of basic principles and for using modern instrumentation, new technologies, or applications of instruments that extend the instructional capability of the equipment. ATE also encourages establishment of equipment-sharing through consortia or Centers. Because ATE focuses on improving the quality of technological education through laboratory improvement, projects based primarily on financial need or replacement of equipment at the same level of capability are not appropriate. Equipment funds must be matched by non-federal dollars equal to, or greater than, funds requested from NSF. The maximum NSF request for equipment for the life of the project is normally $100,000 or 10% of the total NSF budget request, whichever is larger. Track 2. National/Regional Centers of Excellence for Advanced Technological Education National/Regional Centers of Excellence are comprehensive projects that serve as models and clearinghouses for the benefit of both colleges and secondary schools. A Center must have a well-formulated underlying philosophy; a vision for technological education for the future; and a well-defined plan to reach that vision. Model curricula, instructional materials, and teaching methods will be developed at and through these Centers and then disseminated through publishers, seminars, workshops, publications, electronic networks, and other appropriate means. Centers may vary in size, complexity, disciplinary coverage, and extent of the region served. It is expected that Centers will involve active participation in the educational process by both academia and the private and public sectors served by the educational system. Centers are cooperative efforts among two-year colleges, four-year colleges and universities, secondary schools, industry, business, and government and must involve two-year colleges in leadership roles. Sources of Support. Center proposals should involve a three-pronged alliance of support from: * NSF--either for curriculum development (e.g., core courses and laboratories in science, mathematics, engineering, science technology, and engineering technology) or for program improvement (e.g., faculty and teacher development, formal cooperative arrangements among partners); * Proposing educational institution(s) or consortium--for other laboratory-driven experiences, student services, and other courses such as technical writing to support the programs; * Local business, industry, and government agencies and laboratories--for apprenticeships, cooperative educational experiences, and internships for students, faculty enhancement, loan of technical professionals to teach, and other modes of active cooperation in the Center. Project Elements. It is anticipated that the proposal for a Center will include, but not be limited to, most of the following elements: Curriculum Development * curriculum improvement in the basic mathematics, science, and engineering core underlying the proposed program; * curriculum improvement in science technology and engineerinng technology courses with the expectation that students have strong mathematics and science backgrounds; * assessment of student learning; * a product-oriented approach aimed at producing curricula and educational materials of potential widespread benefit; * conference presentations and journal articles in support of project dissemination; * coordination among technical specialties and other course areas; * student experiences with appropriate equipment; * collaboration with secondary schools and technical education professionals in the design of curricula and instructional materials that provide a foundation for technician education; * instructional approaches that encourage such activities as student writing, oral presentations, group learning experiences, and long term projects; * pedagogical designs that enhance the learning opportunities for persons with disabilities, minorities and women. Program Improvement * preparation and enhancement of college faculty, especially at the two-year level; * use of modern instructional technologies in classrooms and laboratories; * recruitment, retention, and placement of students, especially those groups underrepresented in careers in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology; * improved guidance for students with diverse educational and work experiences entering the programs-both for students entering from high school programs and for those returning with a wide variety of work and educational experiences; * alliances with local business, industry, and government including (1) curricula planning, internships, cooperative educational experiences, and apprentice opportunities for students and/or (2) faculty enhancement, exchange, and loan programs; * articulation of courses and programs between secondary schools, two-year colleges and four-year colleges and universities; * innovative partnerships for design of curricular and instructional materials and for their dissemination through national consortia, associations, and publishers; * project evaluation to include, as appropriate, alignment with national standards; * professionalization of technician careers, including accreditation, use of voluntary industry standards, and certification; * electronic networking of partners for exchange of information and materials; * collaborative arrangements with secondary schools; and, * awareness of students and their parents about opportunities in technical careers. Funding and Duration of Centers. National/Regional Centers of Excellence for Advanced Technological Education are expected to be comprehensive projects involving curriculum development and program improvement as described above. NSF anticipates making up to three new awards for Centers annually depending on availability of funds. Awards will be made for up to $1 million per year for a duration of three-to- five years. Track 3: Special Projects ATE expects to support a few special projects such as conferences, symposia, studies, design and planning projects, and other activities that will lead to a better understanding of issues in advanced technological education. Requests should normally be made at least nine months in advance of the date of the scheduled activity. Individuals or groups wishing to submit such a request should contact an ATE Program Director in DUE at (703) 306-1668 or in ESIE at (703) 306-1620, as appropriate, before preparing a two- to three-page preliminary proposal. Following an initial discussion, a preliminary proposal that includes a statement of the objective and target audience, a project outline, description of personnel involved, and approximate budget should be sent to the appropriate ATE Program Director. NSF staff will review these preliminary proposals and encourage selected formal proposals. Formal proposals for such activities should include: 1) a summary indicating the objectives of the project; 2) a statement of the need; 3) names and qualifications of key personnel organizing and leading the activity including vitae of Principal Investigators; 4) lists of participants to be invited or other persons to be involved in the project; 5) information on probable dates of workshops or meetings or duration of other type projects; 6) a budget which details the requested NSF contribution and support requested or available from other sources; 7) products to be disseminated; and 8) evaluation of impact of activity. Because proceedings are normally published, requests for support can also include publication costs. D. Preparation and Submission of Preliminary and Formal Proposals Please refer to Preparation and Submission of Preliminary and Formal Proposals on page 23 and the Merit Review Criteria section on page 31. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Preparation and Submission of Preliminary and Formal Proposals GENERAL INFORMATION This section gives basic information needed to submit a proposal. Proposers will also need to consult the publication, Grant Proposal Guide (GPG, NSF 98-2) for required forms and additional guidance. GPG as well as the Proposal Forms Kit (PFK, NSF 98-3) are available electronically from the Documents online button on the NSF Web site (http://www.nsf.gov). The Division now encourages submission of Final Project Reports (NSF Form 98A) via FastLane. FastLane can be accessed from the NSF Web site, which includes detailed instructions for its use. Except as modified by the guidelines set forth in this announcement (see in particular, references to appendices on page 30 and the extended page limits for the CETP proposals and ATE Center proposals given on page 25), standard NSF guidelines on proposal preparation, submission, evaluation, NSF awards (general information and highlights), declinations, and withdrawals contained in GPG are applicable. More comprehensive information is contained in the NSF Grant Policy Manual (NSF 95-26), available electronically from the NSF Web site or for purchase for a fee from the Superintendent of Documents, Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402. In the event that the submitting organization has never been the recipient of an NSF award, it is recommended that appropriate administrative officials become familiar with the NSF policies and procedures contained in the NSF Grant Policy Manual that are applicable to most NSF awards. If a proposal from such an institution is recommended for an award, the NSF Division of Grants and Agreements will request certain required organizational, management, and financial information. (See Chapter III of the Grant Policy Manual.) PRELIMINARY PROPOSAL PREPARATION (Applicable to ATE and CETP) A. All preliminary proposals (except for ATE Special Projects) must include: 1. Cover Sheet for Proposals (NSF Form 1207, Rev. 10/97) signed by the Principal Investigator(s). Other institutional signatures are not necessary at the preliminary proposal stage. 2. Project Data and Summary Form (NSF Form 1295). This form requests institutional data and an abstract. The abstract should describe the project and the target audience. The abstract is used to assign the proposal to reviewers with specific expertise. 3. A Narrative not to exceed 6 single-spaced pages. Use no less than 2.5-cm margins, a type size with no more than 12 characters per 2.5 cm if using constant spacing and 15 characters per 2.5 cm if using proportional spacing. Print on the front of the page only. The preliminary proposal should express the conceptual design of the full proposal. Sufficient detail must be provided so that reviewers can evaluate the potential success of the project. The narrative of the preliminary proposal must address the following: * Project Goal--Briefly describe the need for the project and the current advances upon which it is based. Be specific concerning what is to be accomplished and the target audience. * Strategies--Describe the means to be used for accomplishing the goal. Highlight the innovative aspects that are most likely to produce change on a national scale. * Personnel--Identify the project leaders; briefly describe their roles, and their qualifications and credentials to undertake specific project tasks. * Evaluation and Dissemination--Describe the criteria to be used to determine project success. Outline plans for evaluating and disseminating products and/or strategies. * Partnerships--Identify the institutions and other alliances that will participate in the full project, and briefly describe their roles. In addition, describe the extent of existing partnerships. * Connections--Identify interactions with other NSF projects, and describe the nature of the interactions. * Strategies to Address Diversity--Describe plans to increase diversity within the workforce and to increase effective dialogue among faculty, teachers, students, industrial participants, and others. Outline specific ways in which these plans will be accomplished. 4. An Estimated Yearly Budget separated into general categories for salaries, equipment (equipment funds must be matched by non-Federal dollars equal to or greater than funds requested from NSF), supplies, travel, other direct costs, and indirect costs at a Federally negotiated approved rate. A plan for contributions by other partners in the alliance should be shown, together with an estimate of the amounts to be contributed. It is not necessary to use the NSF Budget Form (NSF Form 1030); however, sufficient information should be given to understand broadly how funds would be used. 5. A Vita (maximum of two pages) for each of the principals involved in the project. The vitae should be complete enough to show the necessary expertise to conduct the proposed project. Do not include appendices or attachments such as letters of commitment, curriculum documentation, etc., in the preliminary proposal. Submit 7 copies of the preliminary proposal, postmarked no later than midnight of the closing date, to: ANNOUNCEMENT/SOLICITATION NO 98-45 NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION NSF PROGRAM {either ATE or CETP} 4201 WILSON BLVD ROOM 835 ARLINGTON VA 22230 A subset of applicants will be encouraged to submit formal proposals. The time between the deadline for submission of preliminary proposals and the reply from NSF will be approximately six weeks for CETP and ten weeks for ATE preliminary proposals. B. Preliminary Proposals for ATE Special Projects: Following an initial discussion with an ATE Program Director, a 2-3 page preliminary proposal that includes the objective, a project outline, description of personnel involved, and approximate budget should be sent to the appropriate ATE Program Director. NSF staff will review these preliminary proposals and encourage selected formal proposals. Preliminary proposals (2 copies) for these special projects should be sent directly to the specific ATE Program Director with whom the idea was discussed at: National Science Foundation, Division of Undergraduate Education, Room 835, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Virginia 22230. FORMAL PROPOSAL PREPARATION The formal proposal for all programs should contain the following information, assembled in the order indicated. If a preliminary proposal was sent in, please indicate the number that was assigned to your preliminary proposal. Note the stringent page limits on the project narrative. All forms are available in Proposal Forms Kit (PFK NSF 98-3) or the Grant Proposal Guide (GPG NSF 98-2) except Form 1295- Project Data Form, which is included in this DUE Program Announcement. Both the PFK and the GPG are available electronically from the Documents online button at the NSF Web site (http://www.nsf.gov). All budgets should be prepared on NSF Form 1030 (Rev.10/97). A complete proposal consists of the following parts assembled in order: 1. Cover Sheet (NSF Form 1207, Rev. 10/97) 2. Information about Principal Investigators/Project Directors (NSF Form 1225) 3. Project Data Form (NSF Form 1295) 4. Table of Contents 5. Project Narrative, including Results from Prior NSF Support 6. References Cited 7. Biographical Sketches, limited to 2 pages per Investigator 8. Budget (Form 1030, Rev. 10/97) and Budget Justification 9. Current and Pending Support (NSF Form 1239) 10. Appendices Any proposal requesting $500,000 or more must include a budget for, and a description of, specific duties of an advisory group called a National Visiting Committee. See page 26 for details. 1. Cover Sheet The first page of the proposal should be the cover sheet (NSF Form 1207) prepared in the format described in the PFK. It is important that the cover sheet be completed with the full information requested. Most of the items are self-explanatory. One copy of the cover sheet must carry the original signature of the Principal Investigator(s) and the authorized organizational representative. Note that, if funds for this project are being requested from another Federal agency or another NSF program, this must be indicated in the upper-right-hand section of the cover sheet. If they are not being requested at the time the proposal is submitted, but are requested subsequently, send a letter so stating to the DUE office, identifying the proposal by its NSF number, as appropriate. The Title of the Proposed Project is one of several items used to direct the proposal to appropriate reviewers and to announce and advertise to the general public and scientific community the nature of the projects supported with NSF funds. Include informative key words that indicate, for example, the discipline, the target audience, and the nature of the problem and/or innovative solution. 2. Information about Principal Investigators/ Project Directors Submit only one copy of this form (NSF Form 1225) which is provided in PFK. It should be attached to the signature copy of the proposal. The form should not be duplicated in copies of the proposal. 3. Project Data Form and Project Summary The information on this Form 1295 is also used to direct the proposal to appropriate reviewers and to announce and advertise the nature of NSF-supported projects. See the instructions on page 37 for completing this form. The Project Summary should include a clear, concise description of the project. As stated in GPG, "the summary should not be an abstract of the proposal, but rather a self-contained description of the activity that would result if the proposal is funded by NSF. It should be informative to other persons working in the same or related fields, and insofar as possible, understandable to a scientifically literate reader." It should not contain extraneous descriptions of the institution, department, or Principal Investigators. It should be succinctly written. We specifically suggest that in less than 22 single-spaced lines your summary include: * the problem(s) being addressed by the proposal; * the objectives and expected outcomes including products; and * the activities used to accomplish the objectives. Please indicate where appropriate: * what special audience(s) are targeted by the project; * notable collaborations with other institutions; and * which DUE themes apply (i.e. teacher preparation, faculty development, diversity, and/or integration of technology in education). 4. Table of Contents 5. Project Narrative including Results from Prior NSF Support 5a. Results from Prior NSF Support If the prospective Principal Investigator or co-Principal Investigator(s) have received support from NSF pertaining to undergraduate education in the past five years, briefly describe the earlier project(s) and outcomes or present progress. This description should provide sufficient detail to permit a reviewer to reach an informed conclusion regarding the value of the results achieved. It is neither necessary nor desirable to list research funding unless those projects have a direct bearing on the new proposal. Include the NSF award number, amount and period of support, the title of the project, a summary of the results of the completed work, and a list of publications and formal presentations that acknowledged the NSF award (do not submit copies with the proposal). For CETP proposals, this section must be limited to no more than 5 double-spaced pages. Be aware that, for any completed NSF-funded project, the Principal Investigator(s) must have submitted NSF Form 98A, Final Project Report, or no new grant may be awarded. We suggest using FastLane to submit this report. 5b. Project Narrative Text in the narrative section of a formal proposal should be double- spaced (3 lines per 2.5 cm), with a font size of 12 point or larger and should be printed single side only. Margins should be 2.5 cm. The page limits for the narrative section are specified in the following table. NSF will not accept proposals with project narratives that exceed these page limits. Requirements (such as page limits) of this announcement supersedes the general requirements found in the GPG. PROGRAM MAX. NUMBER OF DOUBLE-SPACED PAGES FOR NARRATIVE ATE Centers 40 ATE Projects 30 CETP Tracks 1 and 2 40 CCLI Educational Materials Development 30 CCLI Adaptation/Implementation-General 15 CCLI Adapt and Adopt (Chemistry) 30 The narrative presents most of the information that determines whether or not a grant will be awarded. Write the proposal to respond to criteria, as described in this document, that will be used by reviewers in judging the merit of the proposal. All Narratives should contain: a. Project Overview: Briefly summarize the project, clearly stating goals and objectives, planned activities, general organizational structure (highlighting major participants), general schedule for activities, and expected outcomes. b. Goals and Objectives: Describe the goals clearly and concisely, relating them to local needs and resources within the context of national concerns and recent trends in pedagogy. c. Project Description: This should be the longest section of the narrative. It should describe the project features clearly delineating what you plan to do, how you plan to do it, the timetable for executing the project, and the facilities and resources available for realizing the project's objectives. Where appropriate, include evidence of any past successes that supports the methods you plan to adopt; such evidence may come from the current literature or from pilot programs. The literature cited in the bibliography should show an understanding of the knowledge base in the field in which the problem or question is posed. Appropriate literature on research in teaching and learning should be cited. Any literature cited should be clearly and specifically related to the proposed project, and it should be clear to a reader how the information in a reference has played a role in the design of the project. Describe as well the organizational structure of the project including any current barriers to inter-departmental or inter-institutional collaboration, as appropriate, and your plans to overcome these problems. Indicate how the project will be self- sustained at the conclusion of NSF support. d. Experience and Capability of the Principal Investigator(s): This section should describe the experience and capability of the Principal Investigator(s). e. Evaluation: Describe the qualifications of the individuals who will be involved in developing and carrying out formative and summative evaluation of the project and in providing general advice on the project's concept and conduct. The independence of such individuals from the Principal Investigator should be evident. Describe the criteria that will be used to evaluate the quality and impact of the project; how student learning will be assessed to reflect the proposed educational objectives and practices; how the information will be gathered at the applicant's institution and/or from others involved in pilot testing the material developed; and how the information will be analyzed to evaluate the project's effectiveness. The breadth of the evaluation plan and the composition of an advisory committee should be appropriate to the size and complexity of the project proposed. For very large projects (generally those requesting more than $500,000), plans should include a National Visiting Committee (NVC) to provide advice to the project staff, to assess project plans and progress through reports to the project leadership and to NSF, and to enhance dissemination of the project's products. NSF will work with the proposer during the award process to finalize NVC membership. For more information regarding project evaluation see User-Friendly Handbook for Project Evaluation: Science, Mathematics, Engineering and Technology Education (NSF 93-152; reprinted 6/97). f. Dissemination of Results: Describe plans to communicate the results of the project to other professionals in the scientific, mathematical, engineering, technology, and education communities, both during and after the project, and to disseminate products. Indicate textbooks, laboratory manuals, software or multimedia materials to be produced and how they will be made available to other institutions. If significant use of information technology is proposed, describe the procedures to maintain the quality and currency of the material, to provide user support, to publicize the availability of materials, and to assess the impact of the project. Plans for involving commercial publishers in the production, marketing, and dissemination of all appropriate products should be provided. Special instructions for Narratives of proposals requesting equipment: The equipment requested must be appropriate for the project's objectives. The narrative must show how the proposed curriculum improvement will take place, how the requested equipment is necessary for the project, and how the equipment will be used to improve student learning. Since the Foundation aims to support projects with maximum potential for continuing impact, each proposal should show how the equipment fits into the department's current holdings and must give a clear outline of the institution's plans for the extended maintenance of the equipment. A proposal seeking support for several unrelated projects or for a list of equipment to be used in unrelated ways is not appropriate. In addition to the material cited in the section "All Narratives should contain" (see above), include: a. Equipment Request: Here answer the question, "Is each item of equipment requested actually needed to implement this development, is it the right piece of equipment for the job, and is the request appropriate for the department?" Indicate briefly how each major equipment item requested will be used to enhance learning. Also indicate why the particular equipment was chosen, what alternatives were considered and rejected, and why. Reviewers do not need to be told what functions a given piece of equipment can perform unless those functions are unusual. Establish the precise correlation between the subject matter developments described in the previous sections and the items of equipment being requested. In the event of an award, any items regarded by NSF as ineligible, not germane, or inadequately justified will be deleted from the authorized list of purchases. Special arguments may be needed to explain requests for 1) apparatus of a quality or cost not usually encountered in undergraduate instruction; 2) equipment which is to be fabricated rather than purchased as a unit; or 3) purchases which might appear to be at variance with the academic setting in which the project would operate. Justification of these items must be related to the development of improved undergraduate instruction. Arguments based on enhancement of graduate-level courses, improvement of faculty research capabilities, or other activities outside the scope of undergraduate education are inappropriate. b. Equipment on Hand for the Project: This section should answer the question, "Has there been a thorough survey of the current equipment inventory and does the project plan to make full use of it?" Discuss major equipment on hand that will be available for the project, but that is not included in this request. c. Implementation and Equipment Maintenance: Answer the question, "Is a reasonable plan presented to ensure a maximum usable lifetime for the equipment?" Briefly, but explicitly, outline the institution's plan for starting the project and for extending the maintenance of the equipment beyond the duration of the grant. Special instructions for CETP Narratives: In addition to the issues enumerated above, the following specific issues should be addressed in the narrative section of proposals submitted to the CETP Program: It is important to clearly establish how the project will result in a change in the SMET preparation of future teachers. Provide a clear, concise description of the current program and of the program you hope to develop through the project. The narrative should include the following sections: program to be developed; organization and management structure; institutional commitment; evaluation; and anticipated results including disseminable products. a. Program to be Developed: In addition to the material cited in the section "All Narratives should contain" (see page 25), explain how the project will lead to full institutionalization of a comprehensive and cohesive program to improve the mathematics and science content and instructional preparation of preK-12 teachers. Indicate how the project will address each of the following areas: collaboration between mathematics, science, and education departments and faculties; participation of master teachers and school districts; recruitment and retention of an able and diverse set of students into the teaching profession; utilization of appropriate technology in the classroom; instructional strategies for special needs populations; student observation and development of effective preK-12 classroom management practices; and certification. Provide the background that has set the stage for the proposed program. Include findings from the current literature and from experience with pilot programs or other activities. Indicate how the project reflects relevant research findings and studies. b. Organization and Management: Describe the organizational structure of the collaborative project including any current barriers to inter- departmental or inter-institutional collaboration, as appropriate, and your plans to overcome these problems. Include a brief description of the rationale for including the specific faculty members and institutional components within the project. State the role of each and cite the expertise they will contribute to the project. c. Institutional Commitments: Evidence of institutional commitment is a requirement for all CETP projects. Such evidence should include letters of support from appropriate university administrators citing specific policies and activities they will pursue: to recognize the importance of the project to the campus; to encourage faculty and departments to participate in the project (e.g. reward and recognition for grant-related efforts including full credit for education related publications); to enable faculty and departments to implement project goals (e.g. needed renovation of learning spaces, support for faculty to attend workshops, support for data gathering through the registrar); and to institute increased institutional recognition of the importance of science, mathematics, engineering and technology department participation in teacher preparation in partnership with education departments and school districts. d. Evaluation: See part (e) above in "All Narratives should contain" section. e. Anticipated Results including Disseminable Products: Indicate how the project will serve as a national model of a new and better teacher preparation program. Be specific concerning expected outcomes. Indicate how the project will be self-sustained at the conclusion of NSF support. Specify the anticipated: number and types of students and faculty affected; number of teachers and schools participating as field sites; effects on certification standards; and products such as new curricular materials (textbooks, software, interactive multimedia materials) or evidence of success and guidelines for instituting similar projects elsewhere. 6. References Cited This section should include references to the literature cited in the Narrative. 7. Biographical Sketches Provide a biographical sketch of no more than two pages for each person listed as Senior Personnel on the Budget Form (NSF Form 1030). For CETP, biographical sketches of other participants may be included but may not exceed one page per person. Biographical sketches, in addition to data on educational background and career, must now include the following information within the two-page limit, if applicable: * A list of up to five publications most relevant to the work proposed and up to five other significant publications. Patents, copyrights, or software systems developed may be substituted for publications. These publications may overlap the continuing requirement for a list of all publications resulting from and citing prior NSF support. A complete list of publications for the past five years is no longer required. Only the list of up to ten will be used in merit review. * A list of the names of graduate and undergraduate students with whom the Principal Investigator(s) has had an association as thesis advisor, and of postdoctoral scholars sponsored by the Principal Investigator over the past five years, with a summary of the total numbers of graduate and undergraduate students advised and postdoctoral scholars sponsored. * A list of scientists with whom the Principal Investigator(s) has had a long-term association and/or with whom he/she has collaborated on a project, book, article, report, or paper within the past 48 months, and the Investigators' own graduate and postdoctoral advisors. This list is intended to avoid potential conflicts of interest in merit review. 8. Budget and Budget Justification See NSF Form 1030 (Rev. 10/97) and the instructions in Grant Proposal Guide (NSF 98-2), and those in this document under each program. Text for budget justification is limited to no more than 3 single-spaced or 6 double-spaced pages for all budget years, except for the CETP Comprehensive projects Phase II and III where the limits are 5 single- spaced or 10 double-spaced pages. For all programs, it is expected that the majority of the funds requested be for personnel time and costs related to development and implementation of new courses and curricula, and/or equipment for laboratory improvement. For multi-institutional submissions, the budget explanation should include the contributions of each institution and the amount each will receive from the grant. For multi-year projects, the results of the project are expected to be integrated into the academic programs of the institutions within the period of the award, and therefore it is expected that the budgets will reflect the assumption of responsibility by the participating institution(s) as the educational innovations are fully implemented. NSF funds may not be used to support expenditures that would have been undertaken in the absence of an award, such as the costs for routine teaching activities including curriculum development. Workshops In proposals that involve workshops, it is generally expected that the home institution of the faculty participant will bear the cost of travel to and from the workshop. However, travel costs for teachers may be included in ATE budgets. The NSF grant may include participant costs for subsistence (lodging and meals) during the workshop. In addition, funds may be requested for a stipend of up to $50 per day of the project for participants. Requests for such stipends must be specific to the target audience and fully justified; for example, to assure participation by faculty with few professional development opportunities or from resource-poor institutions. No tuition or other fees may be charged to the participants. Note that indirect costs may not be charged on participant support costs. In provision of the workshop, the host institution is expected to provide the facilities and equipment necessary to operate the project, and therefore NSF will ordinarily support no permanent equipment or facilities. With the exceptions noted above, the NSF grant may provide for planning and provision of the workshop, follow-through activities, participant support, and indirect costs. The total cost per participant-day ranges considerably depending on the proposed activity. In 1995-96, NSF funded most projects at levels between $180 and $350 per participant- day. A proposal should include a budget explanation, with particular justification if the request is at the upper end of this range. Institutional Commitments In all DUE programs equipment requests must be matched by non-Federal funds equal to or greater than the funds requested from NSF. To qualify as matching, these funds must be used specifically for the equipment (or its equivalent) listed in the budget approved for the project. For CCLI Adaptation & Innovation proposals only (excluding CCLI-AA proposals), the entire budget must be matched by institutional funds. Equipment must be matched as described above. The other portions of the budget may be matched in the form of funds, equipment, personnel time, etc., and may be provided from the institution(s), industry, or other non-Federal sources. This 1:1 match on the entire budget of CCLI Adaptation & Innovation projects is required since the significant educational improvement from such a project will be primarily local rather than national in scope. Any cost-sharing commitments specified in the proposal will be referenced and included as a condition of an award resulting from this announcement. The cost- sharing amount must be entered on Line M of NSF budget Form 1030. Special instructions for equipment for all DUE programs: Eligible Equipment Items For proposals submitted to DUE programs, each item or functional unit (see below for explanation) of equipment must have a minimum unit acquisition cost of $500 and a life expectancy of more than two years. The budget must be limited to the following categories, with a subtotal shown for each: a) Scientific and Computing Equipment b) Shipping Costs c) Required Taxes a) Scientific and computing equipment, to be used in any phase of undergraduate SMET education, may be requested. The equipment must be for use in specific curricular improvements discussed in the narrative. Purchase of software essential to the scientific, technical, and educational objectives of the project is permitted. Each software package must be itemized, justified, and the cost indicated. Software ordered in conjunction with new computing equipment is regarded as part of a functional unit and, accordingly, need not cost $500 in order to be eligible. Construction of equipment, including material and labor costs, is allowed. Sufficient justification must accompany requests for equipment construction funds, such as a detailed explanation of the advantages of the proposed units over commercially available items. Requests for equipment fabrication must be supported by drawings, diagrams, parts lists, and estimates for labor charges, as appropriate. Any use of project funds (NSF or institutional matching funds) for the modification or construction of laboratories or other buildings, or for the installation of equipment, is specifically prohibited. Equipment assembly costs for on-site assembly of multi-component instruments, as distinct from equipment installation or building or laboratory modification, are allowable. Specialized safety equipment may be purchased where necessary for the safe utilization of the equipment requested. b) Shipping costs, if not included in the purchase price, should be separately itemized. Reasonable estimates should be used, as opposed to a percentage of equipment costs. c) Required taxes may be included if the institution cannot be exempted from paying them. Ineligible Equipment Items In any DUE project, neither NSF funds nor institutional matching funds may be used to purchase: * teaching aids (e.g., films, slides, projectors, "drill and practice" software), word-processing equipment, library reference materials, or expendables (e.g., glassware, chemicals); * instrumentation that is not mainly for undergraduate use; * vehicles, laboratory furnishings or general utility items such as office equipment, benches, tables, desks, chairs, storage cases, routine supplies, and general consumables; * maintenance equipment and maintenance or service contracts-even when these are for equipment procured through a DUE program; * costs of building or laboratory modification or construction required for installation of the equipment (as distinct from simply integrating multiple computational resources or interfacing computers to instruments); * a flat percentage inflation allowance; * replacement equipment that does not significantly improve instructional capability. Equipment Budget Preparation Please note: a) Reviewers must be able to recognize the function of the requested equipment. Therefore, in the detailed budget list all individual items by a descriptive name and the probable brand, model, and price. Such selections may be changed after an award. b) Budget items may be either single items meeting the minimum cost required ($500), or part(s) of a functional unit where the sum of the components meets the minimum cost requirement. A functional unit is an assemblage of instruments, modules, and components that together perform a specific task or that will normally be used together. Each component of a functional unit must be itemized and the cost indicated; the subtotal for the entire unit should be entered as the unit cost. c) Many equipment manufacturers routinely offer educational or institutional discounts. In preparing the budget, contact manufacturers or distributors to obtain discounted prices. On the budget page, or on additional pages if necessary, show both the list price and the discounted price used to compute the total cost of the project. If it is possible to negotiate on an individual basis a special discount not routinely available to educational institutions, list the usual discounted price in the project's budget. The amount by which the special discount exceeds the standard educational discount may be counted as matching funds. Special instructions for CETP Budgets: Eligible costs: Only items related to specific costs incurred by CETP activities are eligible for inclusion; the normal costs of teaching and administrative activities and capital expenditures are not eligible. The costs of consultants, workshop activities and secretarial activities directly related to the needs of the project are eligible. 9. Current and Pending Support All current and pending externally funded support to the Principal Investigator and co-Principal Investigators (if any), including the proposed project, must be listed on the form provided (NSF Form 1239, contained in PFK). This information is needed to ensure that the project leaders will have time to carry out the project and that there is not duplication of support. 10. Appendices For all programs: Appendices provided should be relevant and concise. For materials development proposals, a sample of prior work or work in progress is recommended. For CETP proposals, the following are required: Letters of support from the President, Dean of Arts and Sciences or Engineering, and Dean of the School of Education from the submitting institution are required. Only include official letters that verify specific institutional and other resource commitments. These letters should outline specific commitments and contributions to the project rather than simply state general support. The total number of pages in the combined appendices may not exceed 15 single spaced or 30 double- spaced pages, including any letters of support from participating institutions or individuals. PROPOSAL SUBMISSION The required materials should be postmarked no later than the program closing date and sent in a single package to: ANNOUNCEMENT/SOLICITATION NO 98-45 NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION PPU NSF PROGRAM {either ATE, CETP, or CCLI} 4201 WILSON BLVD ROOM P60 ARLINGTON VA 22230 The following materials must be included in the submission: * Ten (10) copies of the proposal, including one original, as delineated in the previous section, with the exception that 15 copies are required for CETP proposals. * One (1) copy of the NSF Form 1225 attached to the copy of the proposal bearing original signatures. Do not include the form within the body of the proposal, since this would compromise the confidentiality of the information. While providing the information requested is voluntary, submitting this form is required by NSF. Omission of this form will cause delay in processing the proposal. * Two (2) sets of the following extra forms, with each set of forms stapled as a unit. --One copy of the Cover Sheet (NSF Form 1207, Rev. 10/97). --One copy of the Project Data Form (NSF Form 1295, 10/97). --One copy of the Project Summary. --One copy of the Budget and Justification pages. The following requirements also must be met: * All submitted materials must be contained in a single package. Secure packaging is mandatory. NSF is not responsible for processing proposals damaged in transit. * Each copy of the proposal should be on standard size paper of regular weight. All narrative and appendices pages must be numbered. The duplicating process should ensure legibility for at least 5 years. * One copy must be signed by both the Principal Investigator and by an administrative official who has been designated as an Authorized Institutional Representative. DO NOT: * Send separate "information" copies or several packages containing parts of a single proposal. * Send videotapes, computer diskettes, CD-ROMs, slides, books, etc. Merit Review Criteria NSF awards grants on a competitive basis. In selecting proposals to be supported, NSF is assisted by reviewers who are mathematicians, scientists, engineers, technologists, and educators in related disciplines drawn primarily from two- and four-year colleges and universities, secondary schools, industry, foundations, and professional societies and associations. The majority of proposals submitted to DUE are considered by panels of peer reviewers. Each panelist reads and writes an individual review for all proposals assigned to the panel. The panel then convenes as a group to discuss the proposals. Following these discussions, panelists complete their individual reviews and one panel member writes a summary of the discussion for each proposal. Reviews are used by NSF Program Directors to inform funding decisions, and anonymous copies are sent to all proposers. NSF evaluates proposals on the basis of two general criteria. The criteria can be found in Chapter III, Section A, of the GPG. These criteria, as they relate to education, are defined below. I. Intellectual Merit What is the intellectual merit of the proposed activity? This criterion is used to assess the importance of the proposed activity to advancing knowledge and understanding within the context of undergraduate SMET education. This criterion also relates to the quality, currency, and significance of the scientific/technical content and related instructional activity, the capability of the Principal Investigator(s), the extent to which the proposed activity applies innovative approaches or explores creative concepts, the technical soundness and organization of the proposed approach, and the adequacy of the institutional resources available. Typical questions raised in the review process include: * Does the project address a major challenge facing SMET undergraduate education? * Are the goals and objectives, and the plans and procedures for achieving them, innovative, well-developed, worthwhile, and realistic? * Does the project have potential for improving student learning of important principles of science, mathematics, engineering, or technology? * Is the project informed by research in teaching and learning, current pedagogical issues, what others have done, and relevant literature? * Does the project provide for effective assessment of student learning, which reflects the proposed educational objectives and practices? * Does the project design consider the background, preparation, and experience of the target audience? * Does the project have the potential to provide fundamental improvements in teaching and learning through effective uses of technology? * Is the project led by and supported by the involvement of capable faculty (and where appropriate, practicing scientists, mathematicians, engineers, technicians, teachers, and student assistants), who have recent and relevant experience in education, in research, or in the workplace? * Is the project supported by adequate facilities and resources, and by an institutional and departmental commitment? II. Broader Impacts What are the broader impacts of the proposed activity? This criterion relates to the extent to which the activity advances discovery and understanding while promoting teaching and learning, how well it broadens participation of underrepresented groups (e.g., based on gender, ethnicity, disability, geography, etc.), the extent to which it enhances the infrastructure for research and education (e.g., facilities, instrumentation, networks, partnerships), the degree to which it plans broad dissemination to enhance scientific and technological understanding, and the benefits of the activity to society. Typical questions raised in the review process include: * To what extent will the results of the project contribute to the knowledge base of activities that enhance student learning? * Are the proposed course, curriculum, faculty or teacher professional development, experiential learning, or laboratory activities integrated into the institution's academic program? * Are plans for evaluation of the project appropriate and adequate for the project's size and scope? * Are the results of the project likely to be useful at similar institutions? * What is the potential for the project to produce widely used products which can be disseminated through commercial or other channels? Are plans for producing, marketing and distributing these products and communication of results appropriate and adequate? * For ATE projects, does the project address the current and future needs of industry for technicians? Does the project enhance the current status of technician education? * Will the project result in solid content and pedagogical preparation of faculty and teachers of science, mathematics, engineering, and technology? * Does the project effectively address one or more of the following objectives: --ensure the highest quality education for those students planning to pursue SMET careers? --increase the participation of women, underrepresented minorities, and persons with disabilities? --provide a foundation for scientific, technological, and workplace literacy? --develop multi- and interdisciplinary courses and curricula, that are aligned with SMET standards, as appropriate? Additional Questions Relevant to NSF Collaboratives for Excellence in Teacher Preparation (CETP): I. Intellectual Merit * Is the rationale for selecting particular activities or components for development or adaptation clearly articulated? * As appropriate is there evidence of collaboration among faculty and departments in the sciences, mathematics, technology, education, and/or engineering. * For multi-institutional projects, is there significant evidence of participation and commitment by the member institutions including school personnel (teachers, supervisors, administrators) in proposal preparation and in the planning and implementation of the project? * Is there demonstrated leadership from the science, mathematics, and/or engineering faculty in close collaboration with the science and mathematics education faculty? Does the institutional structure and culture promote the requisite collaboration between the institutions, departments and faculties involved? * Is there integration of mathematics and science, use of advanced technologies, applications to engineering and technology, and/or new methods of student assessment appropriate to the teaching methodologies? * Does the project contain exemplary mentoring and field experiences (e.g., student teaching, laboratory research opportunities, support for novice teachers)? * Are there strategies for recruiting, supporting, and graduating high- quality prospective mathematics and science teachers, particularly from underrepresented groups including persons with disabilities? * Are there creative plans to maintain continuing relationships with graduates of the proposed Collaborative program to encourage their retention in science and mathematics teaching? II. Broader Impacts * Is the evidence for institutional support clear and compelling? * Will the project contribute to the preparation of preK-12 teachers who are: knowledgeable in, and comfortable with science, mathematics, and technology; confident in their abilities in these disciplines; and able to effectively use a variety of pedagogical approaches and technology to improve student learning? * Does the proposal indicate how the project relates to a teacher preparation program? Is there significant redesign of activities, including discipline courses, which serve prospective teachers as part of the audience, and are these activities integrated into the curriculum and institutional requirements? * Will the project result in increased involvement of mathematics, science and, as appropriate, engineering and technology departments and their faculty in the preparation of prospective teachers? * Is there evidence that programs initiated by the collaborative entity will become established within the participating science, mathematics, education and/or engineering departments and the sponsoring institution or institutions? Are there effective mechanisms included to promote the incorporation of successful models or results into statewide practice and policy? * Is there significant cost sharing by the institution or each of the institutions within the Collaborative? * Is there cognizance of and cooperation with other programs in the region (LSC, SSI, USI, RSI, AMP and large systemic efforts in preK-12 curriculum reform) designed to improve the teaching of math and science? * Are adequate systems provided to facilitate the collection of baseline and subsequent data to measure program impact? Announcement and Administration of Awards ANNOUNCEMENT The review and processing of proposals will require approximately six months. Decisions will be announced individually through written notices to the institution and to the Principal Investigator. Proposers are strongly urged to consult the FastLane system located at the NSF Web site (http://www.nsf.gov) for the most up-to-date information about their proposals. Decisions on awards will be announced as soon as they are made, not simultaneously. Thus, it is normal for some proposers to receive a decision earlier than others. The number of awards will depend on the quality of the proposals received and the availability of funds. ADMINISTRATION OF AWARD Awards resulting from this announcement will be administered in accordance with the terms and conditions of the latest editions of NSF GC-1, "Grant General Conditions," or FDP-III. Additional information can be found in the Grant Proposal Guide (GPG, NSF 98-2). Copies of these documents as well as the more comprehensive information contained in the NSF Grant Policy Manual (GPM, NSF 95-26), are available from the Documents online button at the NSF Web site (http://www.nsf.gov). Responsibility for Results and Their Dissemination The Foundation does not assume responsibility for project results or their interpretation. The grantee institution is wholly responsible for the conduct of the project and for preparation of the results for publication. However, the Foundation strongly encourages dissemination of the results of the projects it funds as discussed in the section on General Program Information. If it is anticipated that projects proposed in response to this announcement will result in commercial publication or distribution of materials developed under a resulting NSF supported award, grantees are responsible for developing publication plans, and approving publication and distribution contracts and other agreements. The Grantee must maintain written justification and documentation to support such plans and arrangements. At a minimum, the Grantee's publication/distribution plan should address the following: a) identification and brief description of materials, proposed media and format, objectives of the materials, intended grade levels and expected market, expected market life, expected need for revisions, existing or proposed materials with which they might compete; b) expected interest by commercial publisher(s)/ distributor(s) and explanation; c) alternative publication/distribution arrangements being considered and advantages/disadvantages of each; d) procedures to be followed for the competitive selection of publisher(s)/distributor(s), or justification for non-competitive selection, including a description of the means for publicizing the opportunity to submit proposals, and for disseminating the solicitations and a list of publisher(s) or distributor(s) to be solicited directly. The Grantee shall maintain a code or standards of conduct comparable to those described in OMB Circular A-110.42 that shall govern the performance of its officers, employees or agents engaged in the awarding and administration of contracts or licenses for the publication/distribution of materials developed under an NSF supported award. All publication and distribution agreements should include provisions (1) providing the Government with a royalty-free license to use the materials for Government purposes; (2) granting the Government the right to examine, audit and copy publisher's or distributor's records relative to the NSF support and a disclaimer substantially as provided in Section 744.a.2 of the Grant Policy Manual (GPM, NSF 95-26). Income generated as a result of commercial publication and/or distribution of NSF-supported materials shall be used in accordance with guidance provided in Section 750 of the Grant Policy Manual (GPM, NSF 95-26) unless stated otherwise in the award letter. The Grantee is required to retain appropriate financial and other records relating to project income earned during the grant period and for three years beyond the end of the grant period. Material produced as a part of this project, including World Wide Web pages and other complementary materials, must include a clear indication of NSF support (including, as appropriate, the NSF logo) in a manner to be approved by NSF. Final and Progress Reports Within 90 days after the expiration of a grant (including any automatic or other extensions), the Principal Investigator is required to submit a Final Project Report (NSF Form 98A), including the Part IV Summary. This can be done using the FastLane system available from the FastLane button at the NSF Web site (http://www.nsf.gov). Applicants should review this form prior to proposal submission so that appropriate tracking mechanisms are included in the proposal plan to ensure that complete information will be available at the conclusion of the project. Final expenditure information is supplied by grantee institutions through the Federal Cash Transactions Report (SF 272), normally submitted by the grantee institution's financial officer. Annual reports of progress are required of grantee institutions, in accordance with Article 15 of NSF GC-1 (10/95), "Grant General Conditions," and Article 8 of FDP-II. Failure to provide final technical reports (NSF Form 98A) will delay NSF review and processing of pending proposals for all project Principal Investigators. Change in Principal Investigator If a Principal Investigator or Co-PI leaves a project before its completion, the grantee institution must explain the circumstances in a letter to the Program Director named in the grant letter and nominate a suitable replacement. This letter should include the nominee's qualifications, biographical sketch including the nominee's Social Security number, and statement of the nominee's current and pending support (NSF 1239), and must be signed both by the nominee and by an official authorized to act for the institution in such matters. The appointment of a new Principal Investigator or Co-PI is not effective until confirmed by the NSF via an amendment to the grant. No-Cost Extension a. Grantee Authorized Extension Grantees may authorize a one-time extension of the expiration date of the grant of up to 12 months if additional time beyond the established expiration date is required to assure adequate completion of the original scope of work within the funds already made available. This one-time extension may not be exercised merely for the purpose of using unspent balances. The grantee shall notify the NSF Grants Officer in writing, providing reasons for the extension and the revised extension date, at least ten days prior to the expiration date specified in the grant to ensure accuracy of NSF's grant data. For extensions provided by organizations, no amendment will be issued. This extension notification can also be done using the FastLane system (details available from the FastLane button at the NSF Web site (http:\\www.nsf.gov)). Do not send a letter requesting such an extension, as this triggers a different procedure (described below) that requires Program Director action and is not automatic. b. NSF-Approved Extensions 1. If additional time beyond the extension provided by the grantee is required and exceptional circumstances warrant, a formal request must be submitted to NSF for approval. Two copies of the request, signed by the Principal Investigator and an Authorized Organizational Representative, must be received by the cognizant NSF program office at least 45 days before the expiration date of the grant. 2. Any approved no-cost extension will be issued by an NSF Grants Officer in the form of an amendment to the grant specifying a new expiration date. Grantees are cautioned not to make new commitments to incur new expenditures after the expiration date in anticipation of a no-cost extension. APPENDIX I Advice to Proposal Writers DUE staff often provide informal guidance to proposers. The following comments include advice frequently given. For further information, consult Shaping the Future (NSF 96-139) and A Guide for Proposal Writing (NSF 97-83) available from the Documents online button at the NSF Web site (http://www.nsf.gov). For examples of successfully funded projects (titles and abstracts), refer to DUE's Web site (http://www.nsf.gov/EHR/DUE/start.htm). Planning the proposal * How will the project fit the objectives of the Division of Undergraduate Education? * Which DUE program/track is most appropriate? * What makes a good proposal? A good proposal stems from a good concept and will be a significant improvement over current practice. The better the idea the more likely the proposal is to be funded. The best proposals are those to which the reviewers respond, "I wish I had thought of that!" What reviewers look for * Whether student learning is likely to be improved * A clear, concise definition or description of the project * A clear presentation of the problem to be addressed * A realistic budget * The competency of the PIs to carry out the project * A significant degree of institutional and departmental support * Plans to disseminate concrete products of the project * A clear plan that includes well-defined tasks, checkpoints, and deliverables * Faculty and student support * Collaboration within and without the institution including industry * Knowledge of similar prior or concurrent efforts * Integration of the results into the institutional academic structure * A well thought out plan for evaluation of the outcomes * A plan for wide dissemination in writing, at conferences, and electronically * Commitment to continue the project after the period of federal support has ended Writing the proposal * Read the program announcement carefully! The proposal should conform to the formal requirements such as page limits, font size, budget limits, matching funds, deadline dates, etc. The proposal should be concise and clearly written. Proofread carefully before submitting the proposal, checking for spelling and grammatical errors and inconsistencies. The first time you use an acronym, write out what it stands for and put the acronym in parentheses. Check references. * Narrative: Describe clearly how your project will affect student learning. Be specific about the proposed activities. Provide details of the project's organization, the course content, laboratory and other inquiry-based experiments, and participant activities. Describe in detail the roles of the various people and institutions involved in the project. Identify project leaders, and describe their roles, qualifications and credentials to undertake specific project tasks. A time line can be particularly effective. * Evaluation: What formative and summative measures will you use to assess the success of your project and its impact on student learning? Use summative and formative measures. * Dissemination: Explain in detail how you will disseminate information on the success and content of your project to others. What products- texts, software, CD-ROMs, manuals, or other publications-might result, and what plans are in place to distribute them effectively? Which conferences and journals will you choose to present your results? * Target Audiences: If the project intends to address women, underrepresented minorities, or persons with disabilities as an audience, the proposal should explicitly identify components that will result in increased participation by and success of these groups. * Budget: The budget request should be realistic and consistent with the requirements of the particular program. Request sufficient resources to carry out the project. Institutional and other leveraged commitments toward the budget is an excellent way to demonstrate institutional support of the project. Consult this program announcement for eligible and ineligible budget items. * Local Review Before Submission: If possible, have someone not connected with the project, perhaps a friend at another institution, read and comment on a draft of the proposal. * Project Summary and Project Data Form: Write the summary (abstract) clearly and concisely. The summary is what NSF publishes about your project should it be funded. The numbers given on the Project Data Form (NSF Form 1295) concerning student impact should be as accurate as possible. Afterwards * If Successful: Make the best possible use of the funds awarded. Consider the reviewers' comments and suggestions. Within broad limits described in the grant conditions and within the overall budget, changes in your plans may be necessary to accomplish the goals of the project. Let others know about your project. This includes disseminating products and results and may include providing advice or assistance to faculty developing similar projects. Finally, acknowledge support from the National Science Foundation in all presentations and publications. * If Not Successful: Consider the reviews and NSF staff comments objectively, consult the staff if necessary and, unless the feedback indicates otherwise, submit a revised or new proposal the following year. Many awards made in the programs have been for proposals that were revised thoughtfully and resubmitted after having been declined initially. APPENDIX II Instructions and Codes for Completing Project Data Form (Form 1295) Item 1 Indicate the program-track to which the proposal is being submitted: CCLI: Course, Curriculum, and Laboratory Improvement CCLI-EMD Educational Materials Development CCLI-A&I Adaptation and Implementation CCLI-AA Chemistry Initative-Adapt and Adopt CCLI-ND National Dissemination CETP: NSF Collaboratives for Excellence in Teacher Preparation CETP-IF Collaborative Track 1: Institutional Focus CETP-SF Collaborative Track 2: System-wide Focus ATE Advanced Technological Education Item 2 Enter the Name of the Principal Investigator/Project Director. Item 3 Enter the Name of the Submitting Institution, including the branch or campus. Item 4 List any Other Institutions Involved in the operation of the project: directly, through subcontracts, or through shared use of equipment. Code A Select a two-digit Major Discipline Code that is most descriptive of the general area for your proposal (see attached table). Code B Enter Academic Focus Level Code of the project. That is, the project or workshop will develop or implement curricular or laboratory material for eventual presentation at what academic level: LO = lower division undergraduate courses; UP = upper division undergraduate courses; BO = both divisions of undergraduate courses; PC= pre-college courses (preK-12); AL = pre-college and undergraduate courses. Code C Enter the Highest Degree Code to indicate the highest degree offered in science, mathematics, or engineering by any department on the campus submitting this proposal: (A = Associate; B =Baccalaureate; M = Masters; D = Doctorate; N = Non-academic institution). Code D Enter the proper Category Code depending on the program: CCLI: Indicate whether the project scope is at the X = "proof-of-concept" or single course/lab level; or at the Y = full development or comprehensive curriculum level. CETP: Indicate whether the project focuses on preparing ET = elementary school teachers; MS = middle school teachers; SS = secondary school teachers; or is CM = comprehensive. ATE: Indicate whether the project focuses on a CE = Center; or PR = Project Code E If the project has major participation by the private sector (commercial and industrial organizations), indicate by entering PS; otherwise leave blank. Code F For those proposals where a significant component of the project is the education of the following groups, indicate the proper Audience Code(s). Each group indicated must be discussed explicitly and substantively in the proposal narrative. Codes: W = Women; M = Minorities; D = Persons with Disabilities; T = Pre-Service Teachers; H= Technicians and Technologists; I = In-Service Teachers; S = Secondary School Students; F = Faculty Professional Development Code G Enter the Institution Code to indicate whether the performing institution is: PUBL = Public; PRIV = Private; CONS = Consortium; NACD = Non-academic. Code H If applicable, indicate that the project has a strategic area focus by entering an appropriate code according to the following:GC = Global Change; HPC = High Performance Computing; EN = Environment; MA = Manufacturing; BT = Biotechnology; AMP = Advanced Materials and Processing; CI = Civil Infrastructure Systems; KDI = Knowledge and Distributed Intelligence. Code I If applicable, indicate whether the project involves any of the following activities. Include up to five of the following Project Features: 1 = Research on Teaching and Learning 2 = Integration of Research and Education (e.g., direct undergraduate student research; research processes and/or data integrated into coursework; sharing research results via training courses for faculty, teachers, or industry groups; and encouraging greater balance in faculty teaching and research activities by altering rewards, review policies, and resources) 3 = Educational Uses of Technology (e.g., computers, portable instrumentation, distance learning, e-mail and other electronic communication, etc.) 4 = Field Experiences (i.e., outside the classroom) 5 = Connections with Business and Industry 6 = Science Literacy for Non-SMET Majors 7 = International Activities Codes J-M Give your best estimate of the numbers of persons in the indicated categories who will receive immediate benefit from the project (primary effect) and are likely to immediately benefit as a result of another person's participation (secondary effect) during the period the project is in operation (including intermediate periods for seasonal projects). Major Discipline Codes CODE FIELD 11 ASTRONOMY 61 BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES 12 CHEMISTRY COMPUTING 31 Computer Science 32 Computer Engineering 33 Information Science and Systems 34 Software Engineering 35 Computing-Other; Includes Computational Science and Systems. (Note: Computer applications should be coded under specific disciplines.) EARTH SCIENCES 40 Earth Systems Science 41 Atmospheric Sciences 42 Geology 44 Oceanography ENGINEERING 51 Aeronautical Engineering 53 Chemical Engineering 54 Civil Engineering 55 Electrical Engineering 56 Mechanical Engineering 57 Materials Science and Engineering 58 Engineering Technology 59 Engineering-Other; Includes Agricultural; Bioengineering; Industrial and Management; Nuclear; Ocean Engineering; Manufacturing; Systems Engineering; and Interdisciplinary/Multidisciplinary projects that involve Engineering disciplines only. 99 INTERDISCIPLINARY / MULTIDISCIPLINARY 21 MATHEMATICAL SCIENCES 13 PHYSICS SOCIAL and BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES 71 Biological Psychology 72 Social Psychology 73 Cognitive Psychology 81 Anthropology 82 Economics 83 History 84 Linguistics 85 Political Science 86 Sociology 88 Geography 89 Social Sciences-Other 91 Science & Technology Assessments; Effects of Sciences and Technology on Society; Ethical Considerations; Science Policy NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION Division of Undergraduate Education NSF FORM 1295: PROJECT DATA FORM The instructions and codes to be used in completing this form are provided in Appendix II. 1. Program-track to which the Proposal is submitted: __________ 2. Name of Principal Investigator/Project Director (as shown on the Cover Sheet): ____________________________________ 3. Name of submitting Institution (as shown on Cover Sheet): ____________________________________ 4. Other Institutions involved in the project's operation: ____________________________________ ATE and CETP only Preliminary Proposal Number(s) that led to this proposal: _______________ Project Data: A. Major Discipline Code: __ __ B. Academic Focus Level of Project: __ __ C. Highest Degree Code: __ __ D. Category Code: __ __ E. Business/Industry Participation Code: __ __ F. Audience Code: __ __ __ __ G. Institution Code: __ __ __ __ H. Strategic Area Code: __ __ __ I. Project Features: __ __ __ __ __ Estimated number in each of the following categories to be directly affected by the activities of the project during its operation: J. Undergraduate Students: ______ K. Pre-college Students: ______ L. College Faculty: ______ M. Pre-college Teachers: ______ Project Summary: On a separate sheet of paper provide a summary of the proposed work. The Project Summary should be a concise description of the project. It is limited to 22 single-spaced lines of standard-sized 12 point font. See the instructions in Subsection 3 under Formal Proposal Preparation in Preparation and Submission of Preliminary and Formal Proposals on page 25. NSF Form 1295 (11/97) NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION ARLINGTON, VA 22230 Notices from the National Science Foundation The Foundation provides awards for research in the sciences and engineering. The awardee is wholly responsible for the conduct of such research and preparation of the results for publication. The Foundation, therefore, does not assume responsibility for the research findings or their interpretation. The Foundation welcomes proposals from all qualified scientists and engineers, and strongly encourages women, minorities, and persons with disabilities to compete fully in any of the research and related programs described here. In accordance with federal statutes, regulations, and NSF policies, no person on grounds of race, color, age, sex, national origin, or disability shall be excluded from participation in, denied the benefits of, or be subject to discrimination under any program or activity receiving financial assistance from the National Science Foundation. Facilitation Awards for Scientists and Engineers with Disabilities (FASED) provide funding for special assistance or equipment to enable persons with disabilities (investigators and other staff, including student research assistants) to work on an NSF project. See the program announcement or contact the program coordinator at (703) 306-1636. Privacy Act and Public Burden. Information requested on NSF application materials is solicited under the authority of the National Science Foundation Act of 1950, as amended. It will be used in connection with the selection of qualified proposals and may be used and disclosed to qualified reviewers and staff assistants as part of the review process; to applicant institutions/grantees; to provide and obtain data regarding the application review process, award decisions, or the administration of awards; to government contractors, experts, volunteers, and researchers as necessary to complete assigned work; and to other government agencies in order to coordinate programs. See Systems of Records, NSF-50, Principal Investigators/Proposal File and Associated Records, and NSF-51, 60 Federal Register 4449 (January 23, 1995). Reviewer/Proposal File and Associated Records, 59 Federal Register 8031 (February 17, 1994). Submission of information is voluntary. Failure to provide full and complete information, however, may reduce the possibility of your receiving an award. Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 120 hours per response, including the time for reviewer instructions. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspects of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Gail A. McHenry, Reports and Clearance Office, Contracts, Policy, and Oversight, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230. The National Science Foundation has TDD (Telephonic Device for the Deaf) capability, which enables individuals with hearing impairment to communicate with the Foundation about NSF programs, employment, or general information. To access NSF TDD dial (703) 306-0090; for FIRS, 1-800-877-8339. Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance: CFDA 47.076 OMB 3145-0058 PT 25, 18 KW 0502031 0502023 NSF 98-45 (Replaces NSF 97-29)