Five long-term goals of EHR promote delivery of quality SMET education to all students, especially those from population groups traditionally underrepresented in these disciplines. These goals ensure that:

• high-quality SMET education is available to every child in the United States, enabling all who have interest and talent to pursue scientific and technical careers at any level and supporting scientific literacy of all citizens;
• educational pipelines carrying students to SMET careers yield sufficient numbers of well-qualified individuals to meet the demands of the technical workplace;
• those who select careers in science or engineering disciplines have high-quality educational opportunities available;
• interested non-specialists have opportunities to broaden their scientific and technical knowledge; and
• the public has opportunities to develop a better understanding of scientific and technological developments and processes.

While all NSF research directorates support SMET education activities, EHR has primary responsibility for NSF’s education mission, especially in elementary, secondary, and lower-division undergraduate levels, as well as public science literacy. The above-mentioned goals provide the foci of activities within EHR’s organizational units:

The Division of Elementary, Secondary, and Informal Education (ESIE) programs and funding decisions rely heavily on research that informs the teaching and learning of science, mathematics, and technology (SMT) in both formal and informal education settings. Although the quality and quantity of research findings vary by academic level, disciplinary area, and educational setting, an expanding body of knowledge guides development of new programs and the evolution of existing ones. ESIE is placing greater emphasis on strengthening assessment and applied research in order to lay a stronger research foundation for its programming.

Considerable research, for example, exists concerning the effectiveness of different models of teacher professional development that guides the Teacher Enhancement (TE) program and its portfolio of Local Systemic Change (LSC) projects. Recent studies find that improved teacher content knowledge may change teaching practice (Cohen and Hill, 1997). When teachers cover topics about which they are well prepared, they encourage student questions and discussions, spend less time on unrelated topics, permit discussions to move in new directions based on student interest, and generally present topics in a more coherent way (Leder, 1990).

Other studies also provide evidence that professional development experiences enhancing teachers’ subject matter knowledge and expanding their range of teaching practices are likely to improve student achievement (Chaney, 1995; Cohen and Hill, 1997; Monk, 1994). Monk has found that additional coursework taken by teachers in specific areas (e.g., number and kinds of science and mathematics courses) has a positive effect on student learning, while additional coursework by teachers in unrelated subjects has no, or a negative, effect on student learning. Further, Chaney found that better prepared teachers are more likely to include college preparatory subjects such as algebra for students in general mathematics courses. Thus, research suggests that professional development experiences should be solidly based on specific content areas.

Instructional Materials Development (IMD) efforts are informed by the findings of the recent TIMSS assessment. A consortium of U.S. districts entitled, First in the World Consortium (FITWC), involves multiple districts along the North Shore of Lake Michigan. Analyses of the materials and instruction in 8^th grade mathematics across high achieving countries, the U.S., and the FITWC provide insights on effective curricula. Teachers in the FITWC taught fewer topics than their counterparts in other U.S. districts (12 compared to 19). Even this reduced number, however, was significantly more than the six core topics taught in the Czech Republic and the five topics taught in Japan (two high achieving nations). An independent, secondary analysis of TIMSS findings in mathematics (Slowinski, 1999) concludes that the success of students in high-performing TIMSS nations, as well as in the Consortium, strongly indicates that a shift from skill building to mathematical understanding is needed. The focus of teachers in the FITWC schools (and in Japan and the Czech Republic) is on developing the ability to comprehend mathematical concepts rather than on memorization and use of procedural methods. ESIE’s instructional materials development projects reflect the importance of developing conceptual understanding. New program directions furthermore reflect research findings that speak to the power of providing professional development that is aligned with curricula in increasing student performance. Increasingly, professional development activities are being integrated with curricula development so that teachers are prepared to fully implement the new materials.

People of all ages learn science, technology and mathematics from experiences in science museums, from watching films and other media, and from participating in community activities. The impact of informal experiences on science learning has been studied for many years and some studies point to positive outcomes for individual learners (Crane, 1974; Bitgood, et. al., 1994; Hein, 1998). The Informal Science Education (ISE) program encourages use of those findings to strengthen supported projects. In addition, ISE strongly encourages systematic evaluation of its projects, as well as the incorporation of research efforts that can identify the most effective strategies for delivering informal education to various audiences.

Goals. ESIE programs support projects designed to enable all students, pre-kindergarten through grade 12 (preK-12), to succeed in their SMT studies and to increase the scientific and technological literacy of students of all ages. Its programs provide the educational foundation for future generations of scientists, engineers, and technologists; for those pursuing post-secondary education in other disciplines; and for those who enter the workforce directly from secondary school. ESIE programs promote the achievement, competency, and literacy considered essential to inform citizens about the SMT issues that impact their lives, providing effective advocacy for high-quality education in these fields.

Objectives. To provide leadership and promote development of the infrastructure and resources needed to improve SMT education throughout the United States, ESIE programs:

• Strengthen skills of the teacher workforce by:

• Develop alternative models of instructional materials that are consistent with the national standards for content, teaching, and assessment that:

• Capitalize on educational technologies and electronic networking in the development of all materials and instructional strategies in a manner that ensures accessibility to a quality education for all students.
• Promote transitions between secondary school and the workplace, as well as transitions within the workplace, through development of exemplary materials, varied instructional environments, and other activities. And, facilitate transitions to higher education by providing high quality SMT education for all students.

• Provide stimulating opportunities outside school:

To achieve its objectives, ESIE provides stimulating opportunities outside of school to promote appreciation, interest, and understanding of science, mathematics, and technology for youth and adults through its Informal Science Education (ISE) program; supports the development of high-quality course and curriculum materials for all students through its Instructional Materials Development (IMD) program; and strengthens teachers’ content knowledge and pedagogical skills and creates an infrastructure of professional educators, educational researchers, and administrators to support SMT education reform through its Teacher Enhancement (TE) program. In addition, its Presidential Awards for Excellence in Mathematics and Science Teaching (PAEMST) program creates a national network of teacher leaders recognized for their career achievement.

Bitgood, S., Serrell, B., & Thompson, D. (1994). The impact of informal education on visitors to museums. In Crane, V., Nicholson, H., Chen, M., & Bitgood, S., Informal science learning: What research says about television, science museums, and community-based projects. Dedham, MA: Research Communications Ltd.

Briars, D.J. and Resnick, L.B. (2000). Standards, assessments—and what else? The essential elements of standards-based school improvement. Pittsburgh, PA: Pittsburgh Public Schools (PPS) Unit of Teaching, Learning, and Assessment, Unpublished manuscript.

Chaney, B. (1995). Student outcomes and the professional preparation of eighth grade teachers in science and mathematics. Report prepared for the National Science Foundation. Rockville, MD: Westat, Inc.

Cohen, D.K., & Hill, H. (1997). Instructional policy and classroom performance: The mathematics reform in California. Unpublished manuscript.

Crane, Valerie (1994). An introduction to informal science learning and research. In Crane, V., Nicholson, H., Chen, M., & Bitgood, S., Informal science learning: What research says about television, science museums, and community-based projects. Dedham, MA: Research Communications Ltd.

Gregory, K. (1999). TIMSS Physics Achievement Comparison, Unpublished Paper: IEA’s TIMSS & PIRIS International Studies. Chesnut Hill, MA: The International Study Center at Boston College (ISC).

Hein, George E. (1998). Learning in the Museum. New York: Routledge.

International Technology Education Association (2000). Standards for technological Literacy: Content for the study of technology. Reston, VA: International Technology Education Association. [See URL: http://www.iteawww.org]

Leder, G. (1990). Teacher/student interactions in the mathematics classroom: A different perspective. In E. Fennema & G. Leder (Eds.), Mathematics and Gender (pp.149-168). New York: Teachers College Press.

Monk, D.H. (1994). Subject area preparation of secondary mathematics and science teachers and student achievement. Economics of Education Review. 13, (pp. 125-145).

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (2000). Principles & Standards for School Mathematics. Reston, VA: The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, Inc. [See URL: http://www.nctm.org/standards/]

National Research Council (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards: A guide for teaching and learning. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. [See URL: http://www.nap.edu/catalog/9596.html]

National Research Council (1996). National Science Education Standards. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

Slowinski, J., Laine, S., & van der Ploeg, A. (1999). Benchmarking against the TIMSS lessons from first in the world, (Policy Issues 2). Oak Brook, IL: North Central Regional Educational Laboratory (NCREL).

Informal Science Education (ISE) activities provide rich and stimulating opportunities outside formal school settings where individuals of all ages, interests, and backgrounds increase their appreciation and understanding of science, mathematics, engineering, and technology. ISE projects take place in diverse environments (e.g., museums, zoos, aboreta, community centers, homes) and involve the use of various media (e.g., broadcast, film, interactive technology, print, exhibits). Projects typically are designed to reach large audiences or to have the potential for significant national or regional impact. To broaden its impact, ISE promotes collaborations among organizations that have similar goals, especially when projects can bridge the informal and formal education communities. Through collaborations, partners combine their resources and expertise to develop effective strategies for reaching target audiences. A special class of projects, NSF After School Centers for Exploration and New Discovery (ASCEND), is being sought as part of ISE’s community-based program activities.

• ISE – Informal Science Education
• PAEMST – Presidential Awards for Excellence in

• TE – Teacher Enhancement

• are based on clear theoretical foundations and include a thorough review of relevant research and evaluation literature;
• have clear research questions that address areas of interest fundamental to ESIE’s mission and goals;
• employ appropriate methodologies; and
• have a high likelihood of generating data that will contribute to the cycle of design, research, and redesign of ESIE’s programs and portfolios.

Questions that might be addressed through applied research include: Is enhanced student learning an outcome of using ESIE-funded instructional materials? In what ways and under what circumstances? Do ESIE-funded instructional materials enhance other desirable student outcomes (e.g., increased enrollments in upper level science and mathematics courses)? How can the degree of implementation of instructional materials in classrooms be assessed? What kind of content and pedagogical experiences improve teachers’ abilities to teach in ways that lead to student achievement gains? What are the characteristics of teachers and classroom environments that lead to student achievement gains? How do exhibits, films, and other media most effectively meet the needs of learners?

Applied research proposals must demonstrate familiarity with recent literature, identify the research questions to be addressed, include the relevant qualifications of key personnel, and discuss the potential for contributing to the knowledge base. The cost of the proposed research effort must be clearly delineated. Studies may be of three different types:

• a well-defined component of a proposed IMD, ISE, or TE project;
• a supplement to a current project for which the proposed research addresses questions that have arisen during the course of implementation (in this case, the proposed study must generate important feedback to the on-going project); and
• a separate applied research effort that grows out of completed projects or from questions that arise through analysis of an issue of priority to ESIE.

Principal Investigators interested in supplementing a current project with a related applied research effort should contact their cognizant Program Officer. Individuals seeking support for a separate research project (see bullet 3 above) should contact Janice Earle at 703-292-8613. Approximately $1.5 million will be available for separate projects in fiscal year 2001. Stand-alone proposals will be reviewed in collaboration with the EHR Division of Research, Evaluation and Communication (REC). ESIE will not accept proposals being considered for funding by REC. Preliminary proposals are required for stand-alone research projects and must be submitted by August 14; full proposals are due October 23.

Technology Education. Technology education in grades K-12 has the goal of promoting technological literacy. Its focus is the human built environment with content ranging over practical domains such as construction, transportation, communication, manufacturing, power and energy, and biotechnology. These content domains provide contexts for problem-solving and afford opportunities for understanding SMT concepts. Use of tools and materials processing are essential and distinctive features of technology education.

• development, pilot- and field-testing of exemplary instructional materials for grades K-6 and 10-12 that effectively integrate SMT disciplines;
• development of innovative professional development programs that target elementary teachers and focus on teaching and learning technology in the early grades;

• development and validation of grade-specific instruments that are aligned with standards for assessing student learning or technological literacy;
• partnerships that focus on technology through informal education or through extra-curricula activities; and
• development of exemplary materials that foster connections between technology education and scientific and technological careers.

Presidential Awards for Excellence in Mathematics and Science Teaching. NSF administers the Presidential Awards for Excellence in Mathematics and Science Teaching (PAEMST) program on behalf of the White House. PAEMST rewards career excellence for teachers at both elementary and secondary grade levels. Over the years, Awardees have come to constitute a national network of outstanding leaders in science and mathematics education that are a rich resource for the improvement of science and mathematics education throughout the nation. See details that follow.

Presidential Awards for Excellence in Mathematics and Science Teaching

A preliminary proposal provides NSF staff with opportunities to comment on its responsiveness to program goals and priorities and on its potential to compete successfully with other proposals in the merit review process. See Preliminary Proposal section under General Submission Requirements. Preliminary proposals must be submitted via FastLane on or before the listed target dates. A PI should submit a preliminary proposal as early as possible prior to the target date in order to ensure adequate time to obtain staff reviews that provide input for developing the final proposal.

Eligible Fields and Disciplines. Proposals may be submitted for projects in any field of science, mathematics, engineering, and technology that is typically supported by NSF. Projects involving fundamental concepts within technical, professional, or pre-professional programs are eligible. Multi-disciplinary and interdisciplinary proposals are encouraged.

NSF does not support projects that address clinical fields such as medicine, nursing, clinical psychology, or physical education, nor ones that primarily address social work, home economics, business, the arts, or the humanities. Innovative projects that link scientific and technical study with the humanities are permissible. For further information, please consult the GPG (NSF 00-2).

Eligible Institutions and Departments. Organizations with a scientific or educational mission are eligible to submit proposals. These organizations include: colleges and universities, state and local education agencies, school districts, professional societies, museums, research laboratories, media producers, private foundations, private industry, publishers, and other public and private organizations whether for profit or not-for-profit. Proposers are strongly encouraged to involve participation from diverse sectors. See program descriptions for specific requirements.

Applicable Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) No.: 47.076 — Education and Human Resources

• Anticipated date of award: November and May

ASCEND—5:00 PM local time, August 14 (FastLane)

• Full Proposal Deadline: Regular ISE--5:00 PM, local time May 31 (FastLane)

Preliminary, No Later than--March 5; Full—May 31
Preliminary, No Later Than--August 2; Full--November 15

ASCEND Projects
Preliminary, No Later Than--August 14; Full--November 15

Telephone: 703-292-8620

Informal Science Education (ISE) supports projects designed to increase public understanding of science, mathematics, and technology. All ISE projects have as their primary audience the informal learner. Informal learning is the lifelong process in which every person acquires knowledge, skills, attitudes, and values from daily experiences and resources in his or her environment. Informal learning, in contrast with formal learning, occurs outside formal classroom settings and is not part of a school program, activity, or assignment. Informal learning is voluntary, self-directed, lifelong, and motivated mainly by intrinsic interests, curiosity, exploration, fantasy, task completion, and social interaction. Informal learning can be linear or non-linear and often is self-paced and visual- or object-oriented. It provides an experiential base and motivation for further activity and learning. The outcomes of an informal learning experience in science, mathematics, and technology (SMT) include a better understanding of concepts, topics, processes, and thinking in scientific and technical disciplines, as well as increased knowledge about career opportunities in those fields. While ISE projects are aimed primarily at the informal learner, the ISE program encourages linkages to formal education.

The goals of the ISE program are to produce significant positive changes that:

• increase the number of youth, particularly from underrepresented groups (e.g., minorities, women and girls, persons with disabilities) who are excited about SMT and who pursue SMT activities both in-and out-of-school;

• promote linkages between informal and formal education, creating a synergy that strengthens SMT education in many learning environments;
• stimulate parents and other adults to become effective proponents for higher quality and universally available SMT education in both informal and formal settings;
• encourage parents and other primary caregivers to support their children's SMT endeavors in the home and elsewhere;
• bring informal science education programs and activities to areas that are currently without, or minimally reached by, SMT opportunities (e.g., rural and inner city environments);
• improve the scientific and technological literacy of children and adults so that they are informed about the implications of SMT in their everyday lives, are motivated to pursue further experiences in these areas, and are aided in making informed, responsible decisions about SMT policies that have societal implications; and

• strengthen SMT education, as well as the ISE program and its supported activities, through applied research about informal learning.

The ISE program especially encourages projects that provide creative and innovative informal learning activities that reflect and apply recent research in SMT education. Projects should contribute to strengthening the infrastructure of informal science education through activities such as electronic networking, technical assistance, and professional development of informal science educators. Projects should conduct research on the informal education process to determine the effectiveness of innovative techniques for motivating interest in, and informing the public about, SMT topics.

ISE projects provide rich and stimulating opportunities that primarily are not part of formal school programs, activities, or assignments. Through such opportunities individuals of all ages, interests, and backgrounds may increase their appreciation, understanding and use of science, mathematics, and technology. When appropriate, projects are expected to align with national science, mathematics, and technology standards to guide project content and to promote linkages with formal education. Projects include, but are not limited, to: television series and programs for youth or for the general public; films on SMT topics; exhibits or educational programs at science and natural history museums, science-technology centers, aquaria, nature centers, botanical gardens, arboreta, zoological parks, and libraries; and educational programs and activities through community/youth-based programs.

Most ISE projects are designed to reach large audiences and to have a significant regional or national impact. ISE does not support local projects that reach relatively few people, nor does it support general operating expenses or capital development costs for informal science institutions. The Program does, however, encourage development of projects that address critical needs for informal science education in less populated regions of the country. All projects are expected to disseminate effective designs or materials in order to maximize their impact. All ISE projects should include plans for rigorous evaluation, based on comprehensive quantitative and qualitative information, in order to document project impact and demonstrate potential for dissemination and replication.

ISE encourages the field to strengthen its many current positive approaches to informal education for the American public. The field is challenged also to expand the scope of informal science education activities in order to have greater impact in areas of particular need. Specifically, ISE expects informal science education institutions to become significant players in the total science and mathematics education of our nation’s youth. To accomplish this, they must establish new relationships with major scientific research efforts that enable them to inform the public of the latest scientific advances; explore new ways to engage the public in SMT activities; and inform the public about the need for high-quality, standards-based SMT education. ISE will place special emphasis in the following areas:

As part of its community-based programming effort, ISE will accept proposals for innovative projects for engaging youth in substantive out-of-school activities in specific areas of science, mathematics, and engineering. This effort is established by NSF in accordance with the American Competitiveness and Workforce Improvement Act of 1998 (P.L. 105-277). The Act reflects the national need to provide "opportunities for enrollment in year-round academic enrichment," particularly in support of developing a technologically literate U.S. workforce. ESIE is interested in projects that would provide unique opportunities for middle and high school students to explore science, mathematics, and engineering in creative after-school and/or weekend programs. Such projects should not be extensions of the formal programs offered during the regular school day but rather should explore new content and strategies to interest youth in on-going discovery as well as careers in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology fields.

Proposals should follow the general criteria of the ISE program regarding such areas as staffing, advisors, evaluation, and ancillary materials. The following additional parameters and criteria are specific to ASCEND activities.

• Project goals. Project goals should be stated in terms of intended student outcomes.
• Level and depth of instruction. Content and instruction should reflect relevant national standards for science, mathematics, and/or technology appropriate to the age level(s) of targeted participants.
• Minimum/maximum length of instruction/student involvement. Participants must become engaged in meaningful long-term experiences; investigations must lead to knowledge and understanding of complex scientific and technological concepts and processes; and activities must relate to the development of workplace skills.

• Recruitment. Proposals must include a plan for identifying potential participants and for encouraging their participation. Mechanisms to facilitate access by students from underserved populations (including girls, underrepresented minorities, and persons with disabilities) should be incorporated into the project.
• Type of institution eligible. All institutions with an education mission are eligible. Such institutions include, but are not limited to, two- and four-year colleges and universities, industries, informal science education institutions, professional societies, middle and secondary schools, and community agencies.

• Length of Project. Projects are expected to be of two to three year duration.

• Partnerships. Partnerships with industry, the local community, the scientific and/or business community, and others that might enhance the scope of the project and/or the ability of the project to serve participants effectively are strongly encouraged. Partners may bring additional +experience with real science, mathematics, and engineering endeavors in the local community, in industry, and in the research laboratory. If appropriate, projects may connect with, and build upon, existing informal education projects that engage students in real-world science and technology experiences.

• Parental Involvement. Whenever possible, parents or primary caregivers should be included as partners in order to provide at-home continuity and support for students' learning experiences.
• Scope. Projects are expected to be either local or regional in scope.
• Link to systemic reform efforts. In those areas with systemic reform projects, ASCEND projects should be linked with existing systemic reform projects.
• Research and Evaluation. Projects should include a plan to track participation and assess effectiveness in order to determine strengths and weaknesses and to make interim adjustments. A plan for summative evaluation should be developed for assessing the impact on the youth that participate in the project across such dimensions as enhanced performance and interest in formal SMET study, decisions to pursue SMET careers, increased opportunities for summer job opportunities related to SMET careers, etc. The final report should include documentation suitable for others to use as guidance for project replication.

Please note: ISE typically contributes up to one third of the total production cost and one half of outreach and evaluation costs for most media projects. For museum and community/youth-based projects, ISE generally supports up to two-thirds of total project costs. Additional resources can be obtained from sources not allowable as cost-share such as other Federal agencies. These resources can be identified as leveraging, but not listed as cost share.

Evaluation. Competitive proposals must have a well-developed, comprehensive evaluation plan. When appropriate, ISE projects should include three stages of evaluation at a level commensurate with the nature and scope of the proposed project: baseline, formative, and summative evaluations. Applicants must provide adequate time at the end of a project to conduct a summative evaluation. The evaluation plan should clearly detail evaluation goals, design, and methodologies, as well as indicate individual(s) responsible for conducting the evaluation and their expertise. The budget should clearly reflect both internal and external evaluation costs. A letter of commitment from external evaluators should include a summary of the planned work. It should be clear what the external evaluator is responsible for and to whom s/he reports.

Full Proposals. General information on submission of full proposals (including planning grants, conference grants, and Small Grants for Exploratory Research (SGER)) is contained in the section, Preparation and Submission of Proposals, at the back of these Guidelines. For ISE, the narrative should include results from prior NSF support, a project overview, goals and objectives, general project description, qualifications of key personnel who will be conducting the project, anticipated results, and evaluation and dissemination plans. Substantive information essential to understanding the details of complex projects should be placed in appendices with explicit references in the narrative. For example, for a television series, the narrative would outline the scope of the series, briefly describe the programs (outlines, treatments, or scripts would be in an appendix); provide a general description of evaluation plans (detailed plans would be in an appendix); and describe major elements of outreach plans (detailed plans would be in an appendix).

Cognizant Program Officer(s): Dr. John Bradley, Room 885, Division of Elementary, Secondary and Informal Education, telephone 703-292-8620, e-mail: jbradley@nsf.gov

Applicable Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) No.: 47.076 — Education and Human Resources

• Full Proposal Deadline: 5:00 PM, local time August 15 (FastLane)

• Special grant conditions anticipated: Additional award conditions may be made addressing the pilot-testing and evaluation of materials on preK-12 students and, as applicable, the distribution or commercial publication of materials developed, a license for government use, and program income.

• Special reporting requirements anticipated: None

The Instructional Materials Development (IMD) program supports the development of instructional materials and assessment tools to improve science, mathematics, and technology (SMT) education for all students, pre-Kindergarten through grade 12 (preK-12). Projects range from the substantial revision of effective materials to the creation of new ones; from development of a single module for one grade level to development of comprehensive curricula for several school years; from addressing a single topic to the integration of several disciplines; and from the development of assessments embedded in instructional materials to the creation of items and assessment programs for use by districts and states. While IMD projects focus on the development of student materials, they also include accompanying materials for teachers, administrators, parents and other caregivers in order to promote the adoption and enhance the effectiveness of the implementation of student instructional materials in classrooms. Development of materials designed solely for the professional development of practicing teachers is supported by the Teacher Enhancement (TE) program, see the section, Professional Development Materials, in the TE section of these Guidelines.

IMD supports projects that are national in scope and significance. These projects should have the potential to enhance student learning and make a significant and noticeable impact on the national market for instructional materials. IMD also supports innovative, high-risk projects that develop and test prototypes of instructional materials and learning technologies. Proposals for such high-risk projects must demonstrate promise for advancing the state-of-the-art development of curriculum and assessment materials and for testing the limits of instructional and assessment materials to promote student understanding of SMT concepts and processes.

The goal of the IMD program as a whole is the development of high-quality instructional and assessment materials to enhance SMT content knowledge, as well as the thinking skills and problem solving abilities of all students, regardless of background, ability, or future education plans. The materials should promote positive student attitudes toward SMT and positive perceptions of themselves as learners. The materials also should encourage a broad cross section of students to pursue SMT education through the use of real-world contexts and/or providing an understanding of role of SMT in the workplace. Achievement of these goals often requires improvement of teachers’ content knowledge and pedagogical strategies. IMD projects, therefore, often need to provide support to teachers to help them extend their content knowledge and pedagogical skills.

Proposed instructional materials must exhibit a coherent content framework that is aligned with national standards; fosters inquiry, including critical thinking, problem solving, decision making, and communication at increasing levels of complexity; and focuses on appropriate and important topics at each grade level. Projects should be grounded in the recent research in teaching and learning (e.g., Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 1999) and further an understanding of the connections between science, mathematics, and technology. Projects should be planned and implemented by teams consisting of appropriate combinations of practicing scientists, mathematicians, and engineers, SMT educators, classroom teachers, assessment experts, and technology experts.

Incorporation of instructional technologies should be considered, especially when those technologies are used to provide learning experiences that enhance student understanding. Strategies for ensuring equity in materials use and in student learning should be part of the development and implementation process. In addition, when appropriate, IMD projects should include products designed to help parents understand the materials. It is important that projects include strategies and tools to assess the impact of the instructional materials on student learning. Project evaluation should document changes in student learning; improvements in the SMT performance and participation of female and underrepresented minority students; and modifications in instructional approaches associated with the use of the new instructional materials. These data should be presented in ways that help teachers, administrators and parents make informed decisions about curriculum adoptions.

Full Proposals. For information on requirements for proposal submission, see section, Preparation and Submission of Proposals.

Duration. Project duration is expected to be from two to five years with an award amount not to exceed $1.5 million in any individual year of the project. The maximum total request of any project may not exceed $6 million.

Typical Funding Levels. The level of funding for IMD grants depends upon the scope of the project. Amounts range from $200,000 to $300,000 for the development of one or two modules to several million dollars for projects seeking to develop comprehensive materials that span several years.

Budget. The majority of IMD project costs support personnel time and personnel-related costs; modest requests to support acquisition of materials, supplies, equipment, and computing services are allowable. Grantees are expected to have the computing facilities, most of the equipment, and the physical environment to achieve project goals. IMD will not fund the purchase of classroom equipment necessary to pilot, field-test, or implement instructional materials.

Cost-sharing. Cost-sharing of 20% of the requested total amount of NSF funds is required for revision of published materials; cost-sharing of 5% of the total amount of NSF funds is required for all other proposals. Proposed cost-sharing must be shown on line M on the proposal budget (NSF Form 1030). For information on requirements for proposal submission, see section, Preparation and Submission of Proposals.

Special Projects. Information about conference grants, Small Grants for Exploratory Research (SGER), and planning grants can be found in the section, Special Categories of Full Proposals, located toward the back of these Guidelines. An IMD Program Officer should be contacted before any such submission.

The project description should present the following information.

• Development process. Explain how the materials will be created, reviewed, pilot-tested, field-tested, evaluated, and published. In virtually all cases, projects should (1) identify the desired learning outcomes for students, (2) create methods for determining whether students have attained those outcomes, and (3) design instructional materials and approaches that enable students to successfully demonstrate attainment of those outcomes. Draft materials must be pilot-tested with master teachers, and field-tests must include a broad range of teachers serving students from diverse backgrounds. It is expected that results of these trials will be used to inform revisions of the materials and that both the results and the revisions will be submitted to NSF. The proposal should contain a detailed plan of work, including a complete timeline. If the materials are modular or supplemental in nature, they must have a clear and limited content focus; utilize appropriate scientific, computational, and educational technologies; and demonstrate connections to comprehensive curricula. If the materials span one or more years of instruction, there must be an external review to ensure accuracy of the content, appropriateness of the pedagogy, and suitability of the contexts, language, etc. for the intended audience. External reviewers must be selected in consultation with the cognizant Program Officer at NSF.

• Content and pedagogical strategies. Describe how the materials’ content and pedagogical strategies are aligned with national standards; how the materials will prepare and motivate students to continue to study SMT at higher grade levels; and how the materials will account for potential differences in students’ prior knowledge. Resources (e.g., computer expertise) that will be needed at the school level for implementation of the materials also must be specified. The proposal should provide a detailed description of specific learning activities to be developed, including experiments, student projects, assessments, etc. Reviewers often find prototypes of materials to be useful in the review process; they may be included in appendices.

• Assessment. Describe the tools and strategies for student assessment that will be included with the instructional materials. It is critical that student assessments be clearly aligned with the desired student learning outcomes and be informed by the national standards in mathematics, science, and/or technology. Assessments should address both formative and summative aspects of learning. That is, assessments should include not only strategies for teachers to use during instruction to determine what students are learning, but also tools (e.g., tests, performance tasks) for teachers to use at the end of a substantive "unit" of instruction to determine the depth of student learning. Development and validation of assessment tools should occur in both the pilot-and field-testing components of the project. To the extent possible, there should be a variety of assessment strategies that are responsive to the different ways that students communicate understanding of content.
• Professional Development. Describe the products to be developed that will support teachers and administrators to accurately and effectively implement the materials. This component should include teaching guides (e.g., print, CD-ROM, web-based) to accompany the student materials, but may also include other products. If the materials span one or more years of instruction, there must be separate professional development materials to help teachers learn more about the content and pedagogy of the materials. There should be plans for sustaining the use of the professional development materials after the end of the project and for informing teacher educators about the new materials in order to incorporate them into preservice teacher education programs. The creation of the professional development materials must meet the guidelines for Teacher Enhancement (TE) program’s Professional Development Materials, see relevant sections of these Guidelines.
• Parents, caregivers, and other community members. Describe ways to communicate to the community how the materials are designed to enhance learning of significant subject matter content and to increase student interest in science, mathematics, and technology. Attention should be given to communicating how the materials may differ from those with which community members may be familiar. Further, parent/community materials should assist parents and caregivers in helping their children in SMT education.

• Evaluation. Describe the evaluation plan, including key questions to be answered, methodologies, instruments, data collection, and analysis frameworks. At least two kinds of evaluation are needed: first, and most important, is evaluation of the success of the materials in improving student content knowledge and conceptual understanding. The instruments for this part of the evaluation might be the same as those used to assess student learning within the materials themselves. Second, is an evaluation of the process of developing the materials; that is, whether the materials were produced in an effective and cost-efficient manner. For both types of evaluation, both internal and external evaluation plans may be needed. The internal evaluation might be conducted by project staff and would be designed to affect continuing materials development. External evaluation would be designed to ensure the field that the project’s work is of high quality. The external evaluation should be reported in ways that can be easily accessed and understood by potential users. The proposal should provide evidence of the qualifications of the internal and external evaluators.
• Dissemination and Implementation. Explain how information about the materials will be shared with professionals in SMT education communities both during and after the project. Instructional materials typically will be published and distributed commercially, although in a few instances, "free" distribution (e.g., through a refereed and highly visible web site) might be an appropriate outlet. Proposals should provide a timeline for securing a publisher (or identifying another distribution outlet). This step typically should occur within the first two years of the project. Distribution outlets must be firmly established (e.g., through a contract with a publisher or distributor) by the end of the third year of the project. Dissemination plans that project potential sales income during the duration of the grant should specify how that income will be used to support the implementation, revision or continued development of materials.

• Personnel. Describe the expertise and experience of the key personnel. It is expected that the development team will include, as appropriate, scientists, mathematicians, and engineers; science and mathematics educators; classroom teachers; assessment and evaluation experts; technology experts; and instructional and educational technologists. The proposal should include a detailed description of the role and commitment level of each of the key personnel.

• Results of prior NSF support. Describe results of prior NSF support for educational projects in which senior personnel have been involved. For projects that have developed materials related to the proposed work, the proposal must include a summary of the past project evaluation that provides compelling evidence of the quality and effectiveness of the materials developed.

• Technical Assistance. New approaches are needed to provide technical assistance to schools and districts in adapting and implementing available assessment items, tasks, or tests.
• Communication. Materials and strategies may be developed to help schools and districts communicate effectively with teachers, administrators, school board members, parents, and the general community about the role of assessment and how to be critical consumers of the assessment results.
• Measuring Teacher Knowledge and Performance. Information about effective ways to measure teachers’ knowledge and performance is needed, as well as instruments to collect that information.
• Informal Education. Assessment instruments that build on the current knowledge-base and examine children’s learning in informal settings, such as museum exhibits, television, films are needed. Projects should consider any connections (in terms of both content and psychometric approaches) with classroom assessment efforts.
• New Technologies. Examination of effective applications of technologies for assessment is needed; studies examining unique contributions of various technologies to assessment are encouraged.

Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

TE encourages the following major categories of proposals: (1) Local Systemic Change projects, both comprehensive and pilot efforts; (2) Teacher Retention and Renewal; (3) Mathematics and Science Courses for Improving Teacher Qualifications; (4) Professional Development Materials; and (5) Professional Development with Emerging Technologies. Proposals that target communities with the greatest need (e.g., geographic areas with high percentages of underrepresented and underserved populations—urban, rural, and resource-poor school districts) are especially encouraged. It should be noted that the TE program requires professional development to be aligned with the curriculum and instructional materials used in participating schools and that the instructional materials implemented are of high quality and aligned with national standards. TE does not support the development of curriculum or instructional materials for students.

Cognizant Program Officer(s): Dr. Susan Snyder, Room 885, Division of Elementary, Secondary and Informal Education, telephone 703-292-8620, e-mail: ssnyder@nsf.gov

Applicable Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) No.: 47.076—Education and Human Resources

• Limitation on the categories of organizations that are eligible to submit proposals: Local Systemic Change projects require establishment of partnerships among school districts or coalitions of school districts and at least one organization with a scientific or educational mission. Among the latter are the following: colleges and universities, state and local education agencies, professional societies, research laboratories, private foundations, and other public and private organizations whether for-profit or not-for-profit. NSF-supported SSI, USI, USP, and RSI projects are ineligible to apply for LSC Pilot projects.
• PI eligibility limitations: An individual may serve as the Principal Investigator (PI) on no more than one proposal per round of competition.
• Proposals may be submitted for projects in any field of science, mathematics, engineering, and/or technology, typically supported by NSF.
• Limitation on the number of proposals that may be submitted by an organization: None

• Type of award anticipated: Standard Grant or Continuing Grant
• Number of awards anticipated in FY 2001: 45 - 55
• Amount of funds available: Approximately $30 million, pending availability of funds.
• Anticipated date of award: February or April (depending on submission date of full proposals, see below).

For Comprehensive LSC and Professional Development Materials

• Preliminary Proposal Deadline: 5:00 PM local time, April 4 (FastLane)
• Full Proposal Deadline: 5:00 PM, local time August 25 (FastLane)

• Merit Review Criteria: Standard National Science Board approved criteria, plus additional criteria detailed in the TE section of these Guidelines.

• Grant Award Conditions: GC-1 or FDP III
• Special reporting requirements anticipated: Local Systemic Change projects require participation in a standardized evaluation.

For Comprehensive LSC and Professional Development Materials
Preliminary, No Later Than—April 4; Full—August 25

• to strengthen the teacher workforce by

• expanding and deepening understanding of content, pedagogy, curriculum, and assessment;
• increasing understanding of appropriate and effective applications of educational technologies; and
• heightening awareness of and deepening the understanding of the diverse experiences, strengths, and needs of students.

• to develop a cadre of teachers, administrators, teacher educators, and professional development providers who have an understanding of national SMT standards and who can lead reform in SMT education effectively;
• to develop school, home, and community cultures supportive of teacher professional development and of the reform in SMT education with attention placed on helping teachers develop the strategies and backgrounds needed to communicate effectively with parents and community members;
• to develop and strengthen the system components necessary to support implementation of standards-based SMT curricula;
• to support the use of technology in the teaching of SMT at the preK-12 level and in the professional development of teachers; and
• to encourage research and evaluation that will contribute to the design of future programs.

In order to accomplish its goals, TE encourages projects within the following categories: (1) Local Systemic Change--comprehensive and pilot projects, (2) Teacher Retention and Renewal, (3) Mathematics and Science Courses for Improving Teacher Qualifications, (4) Professional Development Materials, and (5) Professional Development with Emerging Technologies.

Proposals are encouraged that target areas of greatest need, including geographical areas with high percentages of underrepresented and underserved populations, as well as urban, rural, and resource-poor school districts. All professional development activities must be research-based and aligned with standards-based curricula, instructional materials, and assessments.

Comprehensive LSC projects represent a shift in focus from the professional development of individual teachers to professional development of all teachers responsible for teaching science and/or mathematics within an entire school organization. Projects should establish professional communities that empower teachers to change practice and to reflect on their own teaching and learning, and they should result in increased learning by students. In LSC projects, teachers learn and adopt new beliefs, skills, and behaviors within a supportive school district culture. As a systemic approach to implementing national standards, each LSC project needs to consider the quality and amount of support provided to administrators, teachers, school board members, parents, and community members in order to successfully carry out the changes proposed.

• Eligibility. School districts or coalitions of school districts in partnership with at least one institution of higher education are eligible for a Comprehensive LSC project. ¹ Other partners may include two- and four-year colleges and universities, state and local education agencies, professional societies, research laboratories, informal science education centers, private foundations, and other public and private organizations whether for-profit or not-for-profit.
• Focus. Although projects must clearly be placed in the context of a comprehensive reform for grades K-12, they may address one or more components of the educational system. For example, Comprehensive LSC projects for grades K-8 could target all K-8 teachers of science and/or mathematics; all teachers of grades K-5; all middle school mathematics and/or science teachers; all science and/or mathematics teachers in a particular set of schools within a large system. Similarly, projects for grades 6-12 could target all mathematics or science teachers at those grade levels or a subset (e.g., all mathematics teachers, grades 6-12, all science teachers, grades 9-12) in a particular set of schools within a large system.
• Coverage. LSC projects must include at least 100 teachers of science, mathematics and/or technology as participants. To be considered a participant, a teacher must participate in no fewer than 130 contact hours of professional development. If science and mathematics are both a focus of a K-6 project, then teachers must participate in no fewer than a total of 160 contact hours across both areas. The involvement and commitment of district administrators, school board members, and parents are essential to ensure long-term, institutionalized support for standards-based SMT education. Thus, projects should work with those groups to develop the goals of the LSC project and to ensure long-term, sustainable reform.
• Duration. Comprehensive LSC projects are expected to be of three to five years duration.

• Vision. The project must be based on a shared, comprehensive vision of SMT education reform among major stakeholders and on a research-based professional development strategy. The vision should include goals and objectives for student and teacher learning that are consistent with the national standards for curriculum, instruction, assessment, programs, and systems. The project must encourage changes in the education system that are essential to support improved SMT education (e.g., district-wide assessment systems; procurement, distribution, replenishment of materials; equity issues in access and retention). Comprehensive LSC projects should address science and/or mathematics comprehensively by articulating a coherent vision for K-12 SMT education.
• Needs Assessment. The proposed project must be based on an accurate assessment of the district(s) strengths and weaknesses. This assessment should identify teacher needs based on the current status of instruction and the chosen curriculum; administrative understanding of, and support for, reform-based science or mathematics education; parent and community support for reform in science or mathematics education; staff, materials, and community resources available to support the reform effort; related activities (both NSF and others) impacting the district(s); and state and local policies directly influencing content, instruction, and assessment.
• Instructional Materials Implementation. Participating school districts must delineate the curriculum framework for their LSC project. Selected student instructional materials must be aligned with science and mathematics education standards and must demonstrate effectiveness based on extensive field-testing. The proposal must identify the instructional materials to be implemented or submit a list of instructional materials to be considered for adoption, accompanied by criteria for selection. The materials selection process must be completed during the first year of the grant. If it is likely that members of the review panels will not be familiar with the identified instructional materials, representative samples should accompany the proposal. The professional development strategies, program support, and resource levels described and committed to in the proposal must be sufficient to implement the selected instructional materials throughout the project’s schools.
• Strategic Plan. The project design must be consistent with its articulated vision for K-12 SMT education. The strategic plan should be grounded in the needs assessment of the targeted district(s) and should be based on current research on teacher and system change, effective teacher enhancement models, and the exemplary instructional materials and programs selected. It should include appropriate student assessments, effective use of technology for students and teachers, follow-up and ongoing support for teachers, involvement of administrators and parents, and strategies for institutionalizing the new programs and sustaining the newly established partnerships.

Pilot LSC projects provide opportunities for districts to explore directions for enhancing their K-12 mathematics and/or science programs. A successful pilot project will create opportunities to try out exemplary instructional materials and effective instructional strategies, as well as to build a cadre of leaders who can support their peers. In particular, such projects should create platforms for:

• teachers to explore exemplary instructional materials and identify the content knowledge and pedagogical skills needed to support implementation;
• teachers and administrators to gain significant experience in classroom use of materials and to acquire the leadership skills needed to serve as models and coaches for their peers beyond the life of the pilot project; and
• districts to put together appropriate parent and community collaborations to support reform efforts and to develop rigorous applied research plans for future large-scale implementation efforts.

A Pilot LSC project is intended to build a foundation for systemic reform that may lead to a Comprehensive LSC project. Thus, projects are expected to exhibit strategies consonant with the nature of the LSC philosophy. In particular, Pilot projects are expected to include substantial professional development for participating teachers built around exemplary instructional materials for the discipline and grade levels targeted. Professional development activities should focus on enhancing teachers' content knowledge in mathematics and/or science, as well as support their pedagogical skills and strategies. Administrators are expected to take part in professional development designed to acquaint them with the curriculum and instructional strategies utilized by Pilot LSC teachers.

The proposal must identify targeted grade levels and the instructional materials to be piloted. TE particularly encourages Pilot LSC projects that focus on secondary science. The proposal should articulate a rationale for the choice of materials to be piloted and grade levels to be targeted within the context of the district's existing K-12 mathematics and science curriculum and learning goals. Projects are encouraged to develop connections with the NSF-funded Curricula Implementation and Dissemination Projects (see Appendix B) for expertise and guidance in these efforts. Teacher enhancement activities should include development of leadership skills needed to coach and engage their peers in the implementation of chosen instructional materials. Proposals also are expected to articulate a strategy for working with parents and the public to increase understanding of the curricular and instructional changes being considered in the district's K-12 mathematics and/or science program(s). In addition, models that address issues of scale are encouraged.

Eligibility. A school district, coalition of districts, or coalition of schools must form a partnership with a college or university. Partnerships may also include informal science education institutions, regional or state agencies, curriculum developers and publishers, and the business community.

Funding Levels. Funding will be dependent upon the number of teachers involved, but the total request from NSF may not exceed $200,000. Funds may be used to purchase instructional materials for use in pilot classrooms, as well as for district/building administrators and project participants to travel regionally to established LSC project sites and NSF-supported Curricula Implementation and Dissemination projects.

The growing number of teachers leaving the profession before retirement is a significant cause of teacher turnover and subsequent teacher vacancies. Compounding this situation is the fact that top undergraduates (as measured by their scores on college entrance tests) who become teachers are more likely than their peers to leave within three to five years. In addition, analysis of data from the five-year Baccalaureate and Beyond study indicates that teachers, who have not participated in induction or mentoring programs during their first few years of teaching, are twice as likely as those who have participated to leave after their first three years of teaching. The shortage of SMT teachers is more severe than it is in other areas, making SMT teacher retention a national priority. Teacher Retention and Renewal projects focus on efforts to retain effective teachers in the SMT workforce and to increase the probability that novice teachers will choose to continue in the profession beyond the first few years of service.

Creating and maintaining a well-informed cadre of science and mathematics teachers requires that school districts have access to personnel who can support SMT teachers. Teacher Retention and Renewal projects will provide opportunities for districts to build cadres of science and mathematics teachers who can (1) serve as mentors to novice SMT teachers during their induction years and/or (2) act as change agents responsible for implementing standards-based SMT programs through modeling standards-based teaching or providing professional development opportunities for their peers. Proposals may address either or both of these categories.

Projects should afford participants opportunities to learn advanced science and/or mathematics content, standards-based instructional strategies, and leadership and adult educational skills. In addition, projects should include opportunities to examine and use quality instructional materials and educational technologies, as well as focus on the processes of educational change. The professional development provided should model standards-based approaches to teaching and assessment. Projects also might provide participants with opportunities to take part in disciplinary research experiences or to expand their understanding of the workplace. To adequately prepare such teachers, there is particular interest in supporting projects housed at institutions of higher education that offer opportunities for graduate degree programs and internships.

It is anticipated that mentor teachers will have responsibilities for guiding and supporting novice SMT teachers during their induction period. The participants in the projects will be highly successful, experienced SMT teachers who will receive professional development in content, pedagogy, and mentoring to prepare them to assist new teachers in the implementation of standards-based curricula and teaching. Participants should both learn and practice the skills necessary to ensure that SMT teachers become effective professionals whose students are successful in learning science and mathematics.

The support requested from NSF should be commensurate with the anticipated involvement of teachers and the commitment of a school district or community to participate in subsequent activities. Each participant's school or district must provide sufficient time, support, and resources to enable the participant to apply the knowledge and leadership skills gained from the project to support reform of SMT education. Typical Teacher Retention and Renewal projects will include the equivalent of six weeks of study/participation. NSF encourages long-term, multiple-year activities through summer institutes and/or academic year programs. Projects must include adequate time for in-depth study, reflection, and guided practice.

Research shows that students achieve at higher levels and are less likely to drop out of school when taught by teachers with strong disciplinary backgrounds and with teaching certification in the appropriate discipline. There is growing evidence of a SMT teacher shortage that has resulted in a large number of teachers teaching classes outside of their field of specialization. NSF is, therefore, interested in funding the creation of pilot courses for teachers who are currently: (1) SMT teachers teaching courses out of their field of certification (e.g. biology certified teachers teaching physics); (2) teachers with inadequate backgrounds in SMT (e.g., middle school teachers with elementary certification); and (3) SMT teachers who wish to move to another grade level (e.g., middle school SMT teachers who are preparing to teach high school).

Courses should include relevant content and pedagogy, be based on national standards, relate the content and pedagogy to student learning, and use teaching strategies effective with adult learners. The courses should be based on current research on teaching and learning and should include instruments to assess participant learning and provide evidence of the effectiveness of courses. Institutions may develop alternative approaches for delivering science and mathematics content, as long as the approach leads to the teaching certification appropriate for the position.

Proposals should be based on a needs assessment of the identified geographic area and include recruitment strategies and incentives for potential participants, a plan for meeting the state certification requirements, a mechanism for providing on-site support to newly certified teachers, a plan for the institutionalization of the courses, a plan for course dissemination to other institutions of higher education, and a comprehensive evaluation plan.

Projects may request funding for up to three years at a maximum amount of $400,000 per year, dependent upon the number of courses to be developed. During the period of course development and field testing, NSF funds may be used to deliver courses to teachers. After the period of development and revision, colleges and universities, states, districts, or teachers will be expected to cover any tuition/fee costs. It is expected that there will be extensive collaboration among education departments, relevant disciplinary departments, and school districts.

Eligibility. Colleges and universities that grant graduate credit are eligible to apply.

Major reform efforts in SMT education have increased the need for professional development materials that can be used to enhance teachers’ understanding, adoption, and implementation of standards-based teaching practices and use of state-of-the-art instructional materials, assessment strategies, and educational technologies. The TE program, therefore, supports the development of such materials for K-12 SMT teachers and instructional leaders.

Projects should address critical content and/or pedagogical issues in SMT education. For example, materials might focus on critical concepts in a discipline (e.g., force and motion), cross-discipline concerns (e.g., biocomplexity for secondary school), pedagogical strategies (e.g., using technology in elementary school mathematics), or critical issues (e.g., equity in SMT classes, reducing SMT teacher attrition). Materials also might focus on content for a particular grade band (e.g., primary grade mathematics, middle school science).

Materials may be organized as courses, workshops, and/or self-study units, and they may be produced in print/text, video, and/or virtual formats. Materials may be created "from scratch" or they may be revisions of existing materials that respond to innovations in student curricula and/or instruction. Materials may support specific comprehensive student materials or provide teacher enhancement for targeted SMT content and/or pedagogy. In all cases, however, the materials should engage teachers in significantly extending their knowledge of content and pedagogy.

Project Characteristics. Proposed professional development materials/curricula are expected to be developed by experts in SMT education and should exhibit the following design characteristics.

• Goals and Objectives. The learning goals of the materials should be clearly defined and aligned with appropriate national standards not only for content, instructional strategies, and assessment, but also for professional development. Because of the alignment with national standards, the materials should be national in scope so teachers in many different educational environments may benefit from them.
• Development Process. The materials should be developed with input from experts in the academic disciplines, in pedagogy, and in adult learning. Likewise, teachers similar to those who will ultimately be the audience for the materials should be included in development and field-testing. The materials must specify learning goals and include final assessments to determine the extent to which the goals are achieved. The materials should be grounded in recent advances in research on teaching and learning and reflect the importance of teachers' motivation and prior knowledge as ways to stimulate adult interest and understanding. Materials should incorporate information technologies as appropriate both to support the learning of content by teachers and students and to serve as vehicles to deliver professional development to teachers.
• Evaluation. The materials should be subjected to careful evaluation at every stage and have a timeline generous enough to allow feedback to inform multiple revisions of materials. A variety of techniques should be employed for obtaining feedback on the quality of the materials (e.g., focus groups, small-scale trials, large-scale field-tests). The evaluation must document knowledge acquisition of teachers who receive professional development with the materials. Other components of the evaluation plan may assess changes in classroom practice, changes in student learning, changes in learning environments, etc. In addition, the project itself should have an external evaluation to determine if the proposed materials have been produced in an effective and cost-efficient way.
• Dissemination. A clear plan should be presented for the long-term dissemination of materials. This plan must include a strategy for publication and wide distribution of the materials; it also should include mechanisms for educating professional development providers on the effective use of materials. Dissemination might include commitments from publishers to support use of materials and/or cooperation with professional organizations to develop mechanisms to use the materials in professional development programs. These techniques should be piloted during the life of the project, and plans for successful dissemination after NSF support terminates should be described. The dissemination plan should address ways of informing SMT teacher education faculty about the materials for possible use in preservice SMT teacher education programs.

NSF seeks to support a small number of high-risk projects that develop and test new paradigms for education. Proposals to this area are expected to push the educational envelope and anticipate changes in formal education brought about by changes in access and the capabilities of technology. They may relate to preparing teachers, supporting teaching activities, or enhancing other professional activities.

Projects involving emerging technologies may be combined with Teacher Retention and Renewal, Mathematics and Science Courses for Improving Teacher Qualifications, or Local Systemic Change projects. Emerging technology projects may be one or any combination of the following three types.

• Implementation of new technologies that provide professional development experiences and on-going support for the dissemination and adoption of innovative instructional materials. Eligible projects might deliver in-service courses and support teachers in isolated communities. They should be cost effective, sustain change, and extend teacher enhancement opportunities.

• Use of innovative technologies to support new or changing areas of content or technologies that are used in the community and/or in the workplace. Proposals could address new areas of content (e.g., biotechnology, computational science); approaches to learning (e.g., data acquisition and analysis, computer modeling); or methodologies for learning (e.g., using data base resources, supporting student on-line collaboration). Projects should respond to specific curricular needs, demonstrate potential for broad impact, and be connected to existing classroom instructional materials.

• Development of technology tools or utilities for improving teaching. Projects should support the delivery of instruction by offering teachers additional capabilities (instructional tools), access to resources (mentors, databases, peers), or collaboration tools which allow interactions with the broad education community (e.g., teachers, teacher educators, scientists, mathematicians, engineers, technologists, the informal science community, and the private sector).

Proposals must carefully delineate the aspects of the project that make it original. Proposals must define expected outcomes in comparison with traditional approaches, cite relevant and related work, describe the techniques of evaluation, and formulate strategies for national impact. Evaluation will be a major component of these projects.

Budget Items Affecting Participants. The policies outlined below apply to allowable participant expenses within a project. Indirect costs cannot be applied against these budget categories.

• Participant Stipends. A direct stipend of up to $75 per day, prorated for partial days, (for participation in formal professional development activities occurring outside of paid school time) is allowable from NSF funds. The total stipend may exceed that amount if supplemented from other sources.

• Costs for Substitute Teachers. The cost of hiring substitute teachers is allowable under the following conditions: (1) it is necessary to the project’s administration, and (2) it can be certified that substitute teachers are directly replacing teachers participating in the NSF-funded project during their time on the project. Substitute teachers are to be paid in accordance with established school district policies and in lieu of paying the teachers participating in the project. Records must be maintained by the accounting office on the hiring of substitutes and their relationship to the project.
• Other Support Costs. Funds for tuition and/or fees may be requested from NSF or from participating teachers only if NSF funds are not used to support project administration, instruction, or indirect costs. If NSF funds are requested for any of the three above items, tuition and/or fee waivers may not count as institutional cost-sharing. Indirect costs are not allowed on participant support costs.

Equipment Purchase. In general, funds should not be requested to purchase equipment. Organizations conducting instructional activities are expected to provide laboratory, computing, and other equipment for use by staff and participants. The purchase and maintenance of equipment for use by participants and their students in schools are the responsibility of state and local agencies.

Cost-Sharing. Cost-sharing of 20% of the requested total amount of NSF funds is required for most categories of TE projects; 10% is required for Professional Development Materials Projects. Cost-sharing information should be detailed in the budget. Cost-sharing per year should be shown on NSF Budget Form 1030, Line M.

Annual Reports. Annual reports are required for all multi-year awards. In addition to the requirements for annual reports described in the section, Announcement and Administration of Awards, TE annual reports must include findings from evaluation activities, a summary of the professional development activities, and the impact of the project on classroom instruction. A listing and explanation for any significant changes in the plan for the upcoming year, including any changes in the amount of PI and/or Co-PI time devoted to the project, are required. To ensure uniform reporting, LSC projects will be provided a reporting framework. Continuation of LSC funding depends upon submission of relevant evaluation data for the mandatory standardized Core Evaluation. Teacher Retention and Renewal, Mathematics and Science Courses for Improving Teacher Qualifications, and Professional Development and Emerging Technologies projects will be expected to participate in a standardized data collection effort that requires submission of program and participant data. In addition, all participants will be expected to complete a background data sheet when entering the program. PIs will receive complete instructions on all requirements after an award has been made. Additional reporting requirements can be found in the section, Award Administration Information.

Final Project Reports. Submission of a final report is required of all projects; see Award Administration Information for additional information. As appropriate, all TE projects--other than LSC projects--require submission of the following:

• participant list complete with addresses, school affiliations, subject expertise, and levels taught (i.e., elementary, middle, high school), if such lists have not been made available to NSF during the project; and

• information on summative evaluation efforts, including evaluator reports, as available.

LSC projects, as part of NSF’s Core Evaluation, must report on professional development activities; teacher involvement; teacher knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs; classroom implementation; project sustainability; student achievement and support for reform. Projects that produce professional development materials for teachers must submit two copies of all materials with their final report. In addition, published copies must be forwarded when available and one published copy must be submitted to the Eisenhower National Clearninghouse (ENC).

All programs listed in this solicitation require submission of preliminary proposals. In order to be eligible for submission in the ISE, IMD, and TE programs, a full proposal must either be (1) based on a preliminary proposal and subsequent response letter from an NSF Program Officer or (2) a revision of a proposal declined during the year or past fiscal year. Any exception must get written prior approval from the relevant program. [Note for ALL programs: Preliminary proposals are not required for conference grants, most planning grants, and Small Grants for Exploratory Research (SGER). Planning Grants to the ISE program do require submission of a preliminary proposal.]

Preliminary proposals must be submitted via FastLane. Preliminary proposals must be submitted via FastLane no later than 5:00 PM local time on specified target dates. Staff reviews will be returned as expeditiously as possible, but no later than one month prior to the date for submission of a full proposal.

Submission of preliminary proposals via FastLane require completion of the following FastLane forms:

• Cover Sheet. Be sure to check the preliminary proposal box.
• Project Summary. The summary should be no longer than 100 words and describe the content and audience for the project.

• Project Description. The section is limited to six pages (or equivalent). The project narrative should address the following topics: (1) need for the project; (2) goals or objectives of the project; (3) essential features of project design and a workplan that describes how the project will be accomplished and the goals achieved; (4) evaluation plans (both formative to inform project development and summative to assess the impact of the project on the target audience); and (5) dissemination plans. Page formats should be single-spaced, with a clear and legible type size of no more than 12 characters per 2.5 cm, if using constant spacing, and no more than an average of 15 characters per 2.5 cm, if using proportional spacing.

• Budgets. Preliminary proposals should provide an estimated budget for total cost being requested from NSF with information on salaries, equipment (where allowable), participant costs, consultant costs, travel, indirect costs, and cost-share from other sources, including any partners and their contribution. The budget should be entered as the Year 1 budget in FastLane; FastLane automatically creates the cumulative budget.
• Biographical Sketches. Preliminary proposals should provide a brief narrative description of the expertise relevant to the proposed project of key personnel (e.g., educators, researchers, and evaluators) to be involved. Biographical sketches should be complete enough to show that the expertise necessary to conduct the project is available.

In addition to the above, some programs suggest that the following additional points be addressed in the six-page project description, by program:

• Informal Science Education. (1) identification of target audience(s), (2) ancillary material to be produced, (3) promotion plans, (4) plans for institutionalization of the project, (5) linkages with formal education, and (6) a list of advisors, their qualifications related to the project, and their contributions to the project;
• Instructional Materials Development. (1) a general description of the materials to be developed, including content and pedagogical characteristics, and (2) timeline for completion of deliverables; and
• Teacher Enhancement. (1) project strengths in terms of content, available resources and partnerships and (2) design of the professional development model.

• Supplementary Documents. Reviewers are often asked to read and assess a substantial number of competing proposals. For this reason, the proposal description alone should provide sufficient information so that a reviewer unfamiliar with the context of the project can make an informed judgment. In some cases, it may be critical to convey more detailed information to demonstrate levels of competence or expertise, to document commitment of personnel or other resources, to demonstrate the quality of instructional materials, or to provide other relevant information. Such material can be included in appendices that are clearly referenced in the proposal. Presentation of such materials should be thoughtful and concise. Reviewers are not required to read appendices. Proposals to the TE program are limited to 20 single-spaced pages of appendices in addition to letters of support; any exceptions must have prior written approval. (See the ISE section for further information about appendices.)

• Budgets. Proposals must contain a budget for each year of requested support. The proposal may request funds under any budget category so long as the item is considered necessary to perform the proposed work and is not precluded by program guidelines or applicable cost principles. All budget requests must be documented and justified in the Budget Justification section. Ordinarily, no funds are made available for equipment or facilities or for continued operational expenses. Estimates of calendar months of activity must be reported for categories of key personnel. Additional information on completing the budget can be found in the GPG (NSF 00-2).

• Letters of Support. Letters of support for proposed projects, if applicable, must be collected by the PI and mailed directly to the appropriate program attached to the signed cover sheet.

Conferences, Symposia, and Workshops. NSF supports conferences, symposia, and workshops to assemble experts for purposes of discussing recent research or education findings and issues, introducing others to new research and education techniques, and developing action plans. Proposals must describe: (1) the rationale for selecting participants and recruitment strategies; (2) the nature of participant involvement and relevance of the conference to their normal professional activities; and, (3) the "action plan" being developed for participants and its anticipated impact. Because conference proceedings are usually published in professional journals, requests may be made for publication costs. The level of funding generally is determined by the size and nature of the conference. Conference proposals should be made at least nine months in advance of the scheduled date; one-year in advance is preferable.

Proposals should include: (1) a summary (one page or less) indicating the objectives of the project and its potential for changing practice; (2) statement of need and a list of topics; (3) names and qualifications of key personnel organizing the activity; (4) a list of participants; (5) information on the location and probable date(s) of the meeting; (6) the method of announcement or invitation; and, (7) estimated total budget, detailing the requested NSF contribution and support requested or available from other sources. Note that no indirect costs may be applied to participant support costs. For further information, see GPG (NSF 00-2). These proposals may be submitted at any time and do not require prior submission of a preliminary proposal, though prior discussion with an ESIE Program Officer is encouraged. Proposals should be transmitted to NSF using the guidelines for full proposals described above.

Planning Grants. Planning grants are generally intended for groups that need additional resources to develop critical areas of a project. Such groups may include those who have been underrepresented in science or mathematics education activities (e.g., minorities, women, persons with disabilities), new performers, or applicants attempting to coordinate the activities of large and complicated systems and/or develop large-scale leadership activities.

The proposal should specify why planning support is needed and must present a clear description of the planning activities, goals, and methods. Where appropriate, organizations should develop a vision of goals of a larger project; form necessary partnerships with stakeholders; and develop strategies for bringing outside resources and expertise into the planning process. Planning grant proposals should describe: (1) names, roles, and relevant expertise of planning team members; (2) results of any self-study or identification of needs; (3) a list of names and roles of experts who may be involved; (4) a list of resources (e.g., other projects, sites, or instructional materials) that the planning team will draw upon. There also should be a discussion of what information or products will result from the planning process, and how these results will be used in follow-up activities.

Planning grant proposals may be submitted anytime during the year using the same format as a full proposal, although the project description may be less detailed. Proposals should be submitted via the FastLane system. Preliminary proposals for planning grants are required for submission to the ISE program, but not for other programs in ESIE.

ESIE will support planning grants under the following conditions: (1) they are small-scale or exploratory in nature; (2) the award typically does not exceed $50,000 with a maximum indirect cost rate of 10%; (3) the duration does not exceed two years; and (4) awards are non-renewable and continued support may be requested only through submission of a full proposal. A final project report is required. Full proposals that result from planning grants require prior submission of a preliminary proposal.

Small Grants for Exploratory Research (SGER). Proposals for small-scale, exploratory, high-risk research in the fields normally supported by NSF in both research and education may be submitted to appropriate individual programs. Eligible SGER activities include: (1) preliminary work on untested and novel ideas; (2) ventures into emerging research areas; (3) application of new expertise and new approaches to "established" research topics; (4) research having severe urgency with regard to availability of, or access to, data, facilities, or specialized equipment; or (5) efforts of similar character likely to catalyze rapid and innovative advances. It is highly recommended that a Program Officer be contacted before submission of a SGER proposal.

Project descriptions for SGER proposals should be two to five pages in length and include clear statements as to why the proposed research should be considered exploratory and high risk, the nature and significance of potential impact on the field, and why a SGER grant is suitable for supporting the work. SGER proposals are not subject to external peer review. The budget request is not to exceed $100,000. Project duration will normally be one year, but no more than two years. Renewed funding may only be requested through submission of a non-SGER proposal, which will be subject to full merit review. Additional information about this activity is included in GPG (NSF 00-2) or can be obtained from NSF Program Officers. The box, Small Grant for Exploratory Research, must be checked on the cover sheet form.

NSF PROPOSAL REVIEW PROCESS

Reviews of proposals submitted to NSF are solicited from peers with expertise in the substantive area of the proposed research or education project. These reviewers are selected by Program Officers charged with the oversight of the review process. NSF invites the proposer to suggest, at the time of submission, the names of appropriate or inappropriate reviewers. Care is taken to ensure that reviewers have no conflicts with the proposer. Special efforts are made to recruit reviewers from non-academic institutions, minority-serving institutions and from disciplines adjacent to that principally addressed in the proposal.

Proposals will be reviewed against the following general merit review criteria established by the National Science Board. Following each criterion are potential considerations that the reviewer may employ in the evaluation. These are suggestions and not all will apply to any given proposal. Each reviewer will be asked to address only those criteria that are relevant to the proposal and for which s/he is qualified to make judgments.

What is the intellectual merit of the proposed activity?

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

What are the broader impacts of the proposed activity?

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

PIs should address the following elements in their proposal to provide reviewers with the information necessary to respond fully to both NSF merit review criteria. NSF staff will give these factors careful consideration in making funding decisions.

One of the principal strategies in support of NSF’s goals is to foster integration of research and education through the programs, projects, and activities it supports at academic and research institutions. These institutions provide abundant opportunities where individuals may concurrently assume responsibilities as researchers, educators, and students and where all can engage in joint efforts that infuse education with the excitement of discovery and enrich research through the diversity of learner perspectives.

Integrating Diversity into NSF Programs, Projects, and Activities

Broadening opportunities and enabling the participation of all citizens -- women and men, underrepresented minorities, and persons with disabilities – is essential to the health and vitality of science and engineering. NSF is committed to this principle of diversity and deems it central to the programs, projects, and activities it considers and supports.

A summary rating and accompanying narrative will be completed and signed by each reviewer. In all cases, reviews are treated as confidential documents. Verbatim copies of reviews, excluding the names of the reviewers, are mailed to the Principal Investigator/Project Director by the Program Director. In addition, the proposer will receive an explanation of the decision to award or decline funding.

In addition to the above considerations, specific criteria used in evaluating ESIE proposals include.

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

All proposals are carefully reviewed by at least three persons outside NSF who are experts in the particular field represented by the proposal.

Reviewers are asked to formulate a recommendation to either support or decline each proposal. A Program Officer assigned to manage the proposal's review considers the advice of reviewers and formulates a recommendation. NSF will be able to tell applicants whether their proposals have been declined or recommended for funding within six months for 95 percent of proposals. The time interval begins on the proposal deadline or target date or from the date of receipt, if deadlines or target dates are not used by the program. The interval ends when the division director accepts the Program Officer's recommendation.

In all cases, after programmatic approval has been obtained, proposals recommended for funding are forwarded to the Division of Grants and Agreements (DGA) for review of business, financial, and policy implications and the processing and issuance of a grant or other agreement. Proposers are cautioned that only a Grants Officer may make commitments, obligations, or awards on behalf of NSF or authorize the expenditure of funds. No commitment on the part of NSF should be inferred from technical or budgetary discussions with a NSF Program Officer. A Principal Investigator or organization that makes financial or personnel commitments in the absence of a grant or cooperative agreement signed by the NSF Grants Officer does so at their own risk.

Combined Project Data Sheet

Division of Elementary, Secondary, and Informal Education

A completed project data sheet must accompany the proposal. All proposals to ESIE should include Section I. In addition, all proposals should include one of the following sections: II (ISE) or III (IMD) or IV (TE) depending on the section of the Guidelines to which the proposal responds. (If convenient, unneeded sections may be deleted from this form before submission.) This data sheet may be downloaded at: http://www.ehr.nsf.gov/ehr/esie/datasheet.doc.