Grants for the Department-Level Reform of Undergraduate Engineering Education
Program Solicitation
NSF
03-562
Replaces Document
NSF 02-091
 |
 |
National Science Foundation |
| ||
|
Full Proposal Deadline(s) (due by 5 p.m. proposer's local time):
-
July 07,
2003
- March 1, in succeeding years.
REVISIONS AND UPDATES
(1) The deadline date has been extended from June 26, 2003 to July 7, 2003.
(2) In the SUMMARY OF PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS, the third bullet under "Eligibility Information" has been changed as follows. This is consistent with the information in the first FAQ in Section I. INTRODUCTION.
Limit on Number of Proposals: Proposers can submit a maximum of one planning grant proposal and one implementation grant proposal each year.
(3) In Section III. ELIGIBILITY INFORMATION, the previous text has been replaced in its entirety as follows. This is consistent with the first bullet under "Eligibility information" in the SUMMARY OF PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS, and with the change described in (2) above.
All US institutions that offer a baccalaureate or advanced degree in engineering are eligible to submit proposals under this program solicitation. Proposers can submit a maximum of one planning grant proposal and one implementation grant proposal each year.
SUMMARY OF PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS
General Information
Program Title:
Grants for the Department-Level Reform of Undergraduate Engineering Education
Synopsis of Program:
The Grants for the Department-Level Reform of Undergraduate Engineering Education solicitation provides an opportunity for institutions to compete for planning and implementation grants to assist departmental and larger units in:
- Developing comprehensive plans to reformulate, streamline and update engineering and engineering technology degree programs,
- Developing new curricula for emerging engineering disciplines, and
- Meeting the emerging workforce and educational needs of U.S. industry.
This solicitation is a collaborative effort between the Directorate for Engineering (ENG) and the Directorate for Education and Human Resources (EHR).
Cognizant Program Officer(s):
Bruce M. Kramer, Division Director, Directorate for Engineering, Division of Engineering Education & Centers, 585 N, telephone: (703) 292-8380, fax: (703) 292-9051, email: bkramer@nsf.gov
Susan C. Kemnitzer, Deputy Division Director (Education), Directorate for Engineering, Division of Engineering Education & Centers, 585 N, telephone: (703) 292-8383, fax: (703) 292-9051, email: skemnitz@nsf.gov
Vicki B. Booker, Program Director for Engineering Education and Human Resource Devlopment, Directorate for Engineering, Division of Engineering Education & Centers, 585 N, telephone: (703) 292-4961, fax: (703) 292-9051, email: vbooker@nsf.gov
Delcie R. Durham, Program Director, Directorate for Engineering, Division of Design, Manufacture, & Industrial Innovation, 550 S, telephone: (703) 292-7060, fax: (703) 292-9056, email: ddurham@nsf.gov
Cynthia J. Ekstein, Program Director, Directorate for Engineering, Division of Bioengineering & Environmental Systems, 565 S, telephone: (703) 292-7941, fax: (703) 292-9098, email: cekstein@nsf.gov
Richard J. Fragaszy, Program Director, Directorate for Engineering, Division of Civil & Mechanical Systems, 545 S, telephone: (703) 292-8360, email: rfragasz@nsf.gov
James Momoh, Program Director, Directorate for Engineering, Division of Electrical & Communications Systems, 675 S, telephone: (703) 292-8339, fax: (703) 292-9147, email: jmomoh@nsf.gov
Geoffrey A. Prentice, Program Director, Directorate for Engineering, Division of Chemical & Transport Systems, 525 N, telephone: (703) 292-8371, fax: (703) 292-9054, email: gprentic@nsf.gov
Roger Salters, Program Director (CCLI-EMD, ENG), Directorate for Education & Human Resources, Division of Undergraduate Education, 835 N, telephone: (703) 292-4652, fax: (703) 292-9015, email: rsalters@nsf.gov
Applicable Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number(s):
- 47.076 --- Education and Human Resources
- 47.041 --- Engineering
Eligibility Information
- Organization Limit: All U.S. institutions that offer a baccalaureate or advanced degree in engineering are eligible.
- PI Eligibility Limit: None Specified.
- Limit on Number of Proposals: Proposers can submit a maximum of one planning grant proposal and one implementation grant proposal each year.
Award Information
- Anticipated Type of Award: Standard or Continuing Grant
- Estimated Number of Awards: 24 to 38
- Anticipated Funding Amount: $8,000,000 per year for about 20 to 35 planning grants of up to $100,000 each, and about 3 to 4 implementation grants of up to $1,500,000 each, subject to the availability of funds and the quality of proposals received.
Proposal Preparation and Submission Instructions
A. Proposal Preparation Instructions
- Full Proposal Preparation Instructions: Standard GPG Guidelines apply.
B. Budgetary Information
- Cost Sharing Requirements: Cost Sharing is not required.
- Indirect Cost (F&A) Limitations: Not Applicable.
- Other Budgetary Limitations: Other budgetary limitations apply. Please see the full text of this solicitation for further information.
C. Due Dates
- Full Proposal Deadline Date(s) (due by 5 p.m. proposer's local time):
-
July 07,
2003
- March 1, in succeeding years.
Proposal Review Information
- Merit Review Criteria: National Science Board approved criteria apply.
Award Administration Information
- Award Conditions: Standard NSF award conditions apply.
- Reporting Requirements: Standard NSF reporting requirements apply.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
- Introduction
- Program Description
- Eligibility Information
- Award Information
- Proposal Preparation and Submission Instructions
- Proposal Review Information
- Award Administration Information
- Contacts for Additional Information
- Other Programs of Interest
I. INTRODUCTION
Letter from the Assistant Directors
OFFICE OF THE
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR
FOR ENGINEERING
OFFICE OF THE
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR
FOR EDUCATION AND HUMAN RESOURCES
SUBJECT: Grants for the Department-Level Reform of Undergraduate Engineering Education
Dear Colleague:
This letter is to call your attention to an opportunity to compete for grants to enable departmental and larger units to reformulate, streamline, and update engineering and engineering technology degree programs, develop new curricula for emerging engineering disciplines, and meet the emerging workforce and educational needs of U.S. industry. Grants will be available for both planning and implementation efforts.
These efforts should increase both the relevance of undergraduate engineering curricula to modern engineering practice and induce an increased proportion of students who enroll to complete engineering degree programs. This can be accomplished by introducing modern learning strategies, expanding both the disciplinary breadth and the range of problems and problem-solving techniques to which engineering students are exposed, incorporating new laboratories and research experiences, and effectively integrating the powerful software tools used in engineering practice.
We are pleased to bring you this opportunity and look forward to seeing your ideas for innovations in the teaching of engineering and the development of the U.S. science and engineering workforce.
Sincerely,
| Esin Gulari Acting Assistant Director for Engineering | Judith Ramaley Assistant Director for Education and Human Resources |
II. PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
Overview
The NSF Grants for the Department-Level Reform of Undergraduate Engineering Education solicitation encourages proposals that build on the pioneering efforts of the NSF Engineering Education Coalitions, support the goals of the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET) Criteria for Accrediting Engineering Programs, (http://www.abet.org) and reflect current advances in the science of learning.
Departments or multiple departments may update and reconstitute elements of the core curricula in existing engineering disciplines or invent elements of completely new curricula for emerging engineering disciplines or cross-disciplines. The proposed efforts should define the interfaces between the new elements and existing programs and streamline and update course offerings to make the curriculum both more attractive and effective by:
- Introducing emerging knowledge related to information technology, bioengineering, microelectronics, microelectromechanical systems (MEMS), nanotechnology, cognitive theory, etc.
- Eliminating legacy materials emphasizing the application of rote solution techniques and replacing them with content emphasizing the fundamental, underlying behavior of physical and biological systems and the social systems in which they are employed.
- Exposing students to the computational methods employed by practicing engineers to solve engineering problems, preferably in collaboration with industry leaders in developing tools implementing such methods.
- Making full use of modern teaching methods, including mentoring, team-based and experience-based learning, computer simulation, and distance learning.
Prior receipt of a Planning Grant for the Departmental-Level Reform of Undergraduate Engineering Education is not a requirement for participation in the implementation component of this solicitation.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
I understand that we only can submit a maximum of one planning grant proposal and one implementation grant proposal. If we don't submit an implementation grant proposal, can we submit 2 planning grant proposals instead? Or, if we don't submit a planning grant proposal, can we submit 2 implementation grant proposals instead?
No. A maximum of one proposal of each type can be submitted. No substitutions are allowed.
Why is a department-level involvement required?
In most universities, fundamental change occurs at the departmental level. We're looking for a few departments that have been asking themselves the question "starting from a clean page in 2003, what is the best possible curriculum we can define for our students?"
Can the target curriculum be a single degree program (as in a department) or does it have to include a group of programs (as in a college)?
Either approach is acceptable. We encourage interdisciplinary experiments, but want to be convinced that such efforts have strong potential to lead to the establishment of department-stature programs granting engineering degrees.
Will ABET let us do this?
EC 2000 encourages experimentation, as long as a clear rationale is presented for change and appropriate methods are instituted for evaluating outcomes. Since NSF requires similar characteristics in a successful proposal, we anticipate that the receipt of NSF funding will enhance the case for accreditation.
Rethinking an entire curriculum is a huge undertaking. If we receive a planning grant, what assurance do we have that future opportunities will provide the resources required to complete these efforts, assuming that our planning grant results in successful proposals to follow-on programs?
Any future program commitments depend on the availability of funds. However, we expect to fund further implementation efforts in the future.
If we are unsuccessful in obtaining a planning grant, will we still be eligible to participate in any future competitions?
Yes. We strongly urge that all applicants for planning grants continue to prepare for future opportunities. Prior receipt of a Planning Grant for the Department-Level Reform of Undergraduate Engineering Education is not a requirement for participation in the implementation component of this solicitation.
III. ELIGIBILITY INFORMATION
All US institutions that offer a baccalaureate or advanced degree in engineering are eligible to submit proposals under this program solicitation. Proposers can submit a maximum of one planning grant proposal and one implementation grant proposal each year.
IV. AWARD INFORMATION
Each year: About 20 to 35 planning grants, each in an amount up to $100,000 total with a duration of 12 months, and about 3 to 4 implementation grants, each in an amount up to $1,500,000 total with a duration of up to 36 months, will be awarded. Estimated program budget, number of awards, and average award size/duration are subject to the availability of funds.
V. PROPOSAL PREPARATION AND SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS
A. Proposal Preparation Instructions
Full Proposal Instructions:
Proposals submitted in response to this program announcement/solicitation should be prepared and submitted in accordance with the general guidelines contained in the NSF Grant Proposal Guide (GPG). The complete text of the GPG is available electronically on the NSF Website at: http://www.nsf.gov/cgi-bin/getpub?gpg. Paper copies of the GPG may be obtained from the NSF Publications Clearinghouse, telephone (301) 947-2722 or by e-mail from pubs@nsf.gov.
Proposers are reminded to identify the program announcement/solicitation number (03-562) in the program announcement/solicitation block on the NSF Cover Sheet For Proposal to the National Science Foundation. Compliance with this requirement is critical to determining the relevant proposal processing guidelines. Failure to submit this information may delay processing.
B. Budgetary Information
Cost Sharing:
Cost sharing is not required in proposals submitted under this Program Solicitation.
Other Budgetary Limitations:
C. Due Dates
Proposals must be submitted by the following date(s):
Full Proposal Deadline(s) (due by 5 p.m. proposer's local time):
-
July 07,
2003
- March 1, in succeeding years.
D. FastLane Requirements
Proposers are required to prepare and submit all proposals for this announcement/solicitation through the FastLane system. Detailed instructions for proposal preparation and submission via FastLane are available at: http://www.fastlane.nsf.gov/a1/newstan.htm. For FastLane user support, call the FastLane Help Desk at 1-800-673-6188 or e-mail fastlane@nsf.gov. The FastLane Help Desk answers general technical questions related to the use of the FastLane system. Specific questions related to this program announcement/solicitation should be referred to the NSF program staff contact(s) listed in Section VIII of this announcement/solicitation.
Submission of Electronically Signed Cover Sheets. The Authorized Organizational Representative (AOR) must electronically sign the proposal Cover Sheet to submit the required proposal certifications (see Chapter II, Section C of the Grant Proposal Guide for a listing of the certifications). The AOR must provide the required electronic certifications within five working days following the electronic submission of the proposal. Proposers are no longer required to provide a paper copy of the signed Proposal Cover Sheet to NSF. Further instructions regarding this process are available on the FastLane Website at: http://www.fastlane.nsf.gov
VI. PROPOSAL REVIEW INFORMATION
A. 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, or adjacent disciplines to that principally addressed in the proposal.
The National Science Board approved revised criteria for evaluating proposals at its meeting on March 28, 1997 (NSB 97-72). All NSF proposals are evaluated through use of the two merit review criteria. In some instances, however, NSF will employ additional criteria as required to highlight the specific objectives of certain programs and activities.
On July 8, 2002, the NSF Director issued Important Notice 127, Implementation of new Grant Proposal Guide Requirements Related to the Broader Impacts Criterion. This Important Notice reinforces the importance of addressing both criteria in the preparation and review of all proposals submitted to NSF. NSF continues to strengthen its internal processes to ensure that both of the merit review criteria are addressed when making funding decisions.
In an effort to increase compliance with these requirements, the January 2002 issuance of the GPG incorporated revised proposal preparation guidelines relating to the development of the Project Summary and Project Description. Chapter II of the GPG specifies that Principal Investigators (PIs) must address both merit review criteria in separate statements within the one-page Project Summary. This chapter also reiterates that broader impacts resulting from the proposed project must be addressed in the Project Description and described as an integral part of the narrative.
Effective October 1, 2002, NSF will return without review proposals that do not separately address both merit review criteria within the Project Summary. It is believed that these changes to NSF proposal preparation and processing guidelines will more clearly articulate the importance of broader impacts to NSF-funded projects.
The two National Science Board approved merit review criteria are listed below (see the Grant Proposal Guide Chapter III.A for further information). The criteria include considerations that help define them. These considerations are suggestions and not all will apply to any given proposal. While proposers must address both merit review criteria, reviewers will be asked to address only those considerations that are relevant to the proposal being considered and for which he/she 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 own 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 the prior work.) To what extent does the proposed activity suggest and explore creative and original concepts? How well conceived and organized is the proposed activity? Is there sufficient access to resources?
- What are the broader impacts of the proposed activity?
How well does the activity advance discovery and understanding while promoting teaching, training, and learning? How well does the proposed activity broaden the participation of underrepresented groups (e.g., gender, ethnicity, 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?
NSF staff will give careful consideration to the following in making funding decisions:
- Integration of Research and Education
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 learning 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.
B. Review Protocol and Associated Customer Service Standard
All proposals are carefully reviewed by at least three other persons outside NSF who are experts in the particular field represented by the proposal. Proposals submitted in response to this announcement/solicitation will be reviewed by Panel Review.
Reviewers will be asked to formulate a recommendation to either support or decline each proposal. The Program Officer assigned to manage the proposal's review will consider the advice of reviewers and will formulate a recommendation.
A summary rating and accompanying narrative will be completed and submitted by each reviewer. In all cases, reviews are treated as confidential documents. Verbatim copies of reviews, excluding the names of the reviewers, are sent 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.
NSF is striving to be able to tell applicants whether their proposals have been declined or recommended for funding within six months. The time interval begins on the date of receipt. The interval ends when the Division Director accepts the Program Officer's recommendation.
In all cases, after programmatic approval has been obtained, the proposals recommended for funding will be forwarded to the Division of Grants and Agreements 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 and Agreements 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 and Agreements Officer does so at their own risk.
VII. AWARD ADMINISTRATION INFORMATION
A. Notification of the Award
Notification of the award is made to the submitting organization by a Grants Officer in the Division of Grants and Agreements. Organizations whose proposals are declined will be advised as promptly as possible by the cognizant NSF Program Division administering the program. Verbatim copies of reviews, not including the identity of the reviewer, will be provided automatically to the Principal Investigator. (See section VI.A. for additional information on the review process.)
B. Award Conditions
An NSF award consists of: (1) the award letter, which includes any special provisions applicable to the award and any numbered amendments thereto; (2) the budget, which indicates the amounts, by categories of expense, on which NSF has based its support (or otherwise communicates any specific approvals or disapprovals of proposed expenditures); (3) the proposal referenced in the award letter; (4) the applicable award conditions, such as Grant General Conditions (NSF-GC-1); * or Federal Demonstration Partnership (FDP) Terms and Conditions * and (5) any announcement or other NSF issuance that may be incorporated by reference in the award letter. Cooperative agreement awards also are administered in accordance with NSF Cooperative Agreement Terms and Conditions (CA-1). Electronic mail notification is the preferred way to transmit NSF awards to organizations that have electronic mail capabilities and have requested such notification from the Division of Grants and Agreements.
*These documents may be accessed electronically on NSF's Website at http://www.nsf.gov/home/grants/grants_gac.htm. Paper copies may be obtained from the NSF Publications Clearinghouse, telephone (301) 947-2722 or by e-mail from pubs@nsf.gov.
More comprehensive information on NSF Award Conditions is contained in the NSF Grant Policy Manual (GPM) Chapter II, available electronically on the NSF Website at http://www.nsf.gov/cgi-bin/getpub?gpm. The GPM is also for sale through the Superintendent of Documents, Government Printing Office (GPO), Washington, DC 20402. The telephone number at GPO for subscription information is (202) 512-1800. The GPM may be ordered through the GPO Website at http://www.gpo.gov.
C. Reporting Requirements
For all multi-year grants (including both standard and continuing grants), the PI must submit an annual project report to the cognizant Program Officer at least 90 days before the end of the current budget period.
Within 90 days after the expiration of an award, the PI also is required to submit a final project report. Failure to provide final technical reports delays NSF review and processing of pending proposals for the PI and all Co-PIs. PIs should examine the formats of the required reports in advance to assure availability of required data.
PIs are required to use NSF's electronic project reporting system, available through FastLane, for preparation and submission of annual and final project reports. This system permits electronic submission and updating of project reports, including information on project participants (individual and organizational), activities and findings, publications, and other specific products and contributions. PIs will not be required to re-enter information previously provided, either with a proposal or in earlier updates using the electronic system.
VIII. CONTACTS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
General inquiries regarding this program should be made to:
Bruce M. Kramer, Division Director, Directorate for Engineering, Division of Engineering Education & Centers, 585 N, telephone: (703) 292-8380, fax: (703) 292-9051, email: bkramer@nsf.gov
Susan C. Kemnitzer, Deputy Division Director (Education), Directorate for Engineering, Division of Engineering Education & Centers, 585 N, telephone: (703) 292-8383, fax: (703) 292-9051, email: skemnitz@nsf.gov
Vicki B. Booker, Program Director for Engineering Education and Human Resource Devlopment, Directorate for Engineering, Division of Engineering Education & Centers, 585 N, telephone: (703) 292-4961, fax: (703) 292-9051, email: vbooker@nsf.gov
Delcie R. Durham, Program Director, Directorate for Engineering, Division of Design, Manufacture, & Industrial Innovation, 550 S, telephone: (703) 292-7060, fax: (703) 292-9056, email: ddurham@nsf.gov
Cynthia J. Ekstein, Program Director, Directorate for Engineering, Division of Bioengineering & Environmental Systems, 565 S, telephone: (703) 292-7941, fax: (703) 292-9098, email: cekstein@nsf.gov
Richard J. Fragaszy, Program Director, Directorate for Engineering, Division of Civil & Mechanical Systems, 545 S, telephone: (703) 292-8360, email: rfragasz@nsf.gov
James Momoh, Program Director, Directorate for Engineering, Division of Electrical & Communications Systems, 675 S, telephone: (703) 292-8339, fax: (703) 292-9147, email: jmomoh@nsf.gov
Geoffrey A. Prentice, Program Director, Directorate for Engineering, Division of Chemical & Transport Systems, 525 N, telephone: (703) 292-8371, fax: (703) 292-9054, email: gprentic@nsf.gov
Roger Salters, Program Director (CCLI-EMD, ENG), Directorate for Education & Human Resources, Division of Undergraduate Education, 835 N, telephone: (703) 292-4652, fax: (703) 292-9015, email: rsalters@nsf.gov
For questions related to the use of FastLane, contact:
Esther M. Bolding, Management Analyst, Directorate for Engineering, Division of Engineering Education & Centers, 585 N, telephone: (703) 292-8380, fax: (703) 292-9051, email: ebolding@nsf.gov
email: fastlane@nsf.gov
IX. OTHER PROGRAMS OF INTEREST
The NSF Guide to Programs is a compilation of funding for research and education in science, mathematics, and engineering. The NSF Guide to Programs is available electronically at http://www.nsf.gov/cgi-bin/getpub?gp. General descriptions of NSF programs, research areas, and eligibility information for proposal submission are provided in each chapter.
Many NSF programs offer announcements or solicitations concerning specific proposal requirements. To obtain additional information about these requirements, contact the appropriate NSF program offices. Any changes in NSF's fiscal year programs occurring after press time for the Guide to Programs will be announced in the NSF E-Bulletin, which is updated daily on the NSF Website at http://www.nsf.gov/home/ebulletin, and in individual program announcements/solicitations. Subscribers can also sign up for NSF's Custom News Service (http://www.nsf.gov/home/cns/start.htm) to be notified of new funding opportunities that become available.
The Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Talent Expansion (STEP) Program, NSF 03-548, seeks to increase the number of students (U.S. citizens or permanent residents) pursuing and receiving associates or baccalaureate degrees in established or emerging fields within science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). The goals of the STEP program are particularly relevant to the curriculum reform efforts encouraged by this solicitation. All proposers are encouraged to consider the submission of complementary proposals to STEP, which has a deadline of May 22, 2003.
NSF continues to make major investments in K-12 school systems and we encourage proposers to make contact to see if mutually beneficial relationships can be developed. General information about the Local Systemic Change program can be obtained at http://www.ehr.nsf.gov/esie/. General Information on the Urban Systemic, Rural Systemic, and Statewide Systemic Programs and NSF contacts can be obtained at http://www.ehr.nsf.gov/esr/. Please note that the Urban Systemic Program has added school systems in Boston, MA, Portland, OR, and San Diego, CA to those shown on the map on the website. To get contact information for a specific award; the NSF Proposal Abstract Database can be queried by NSF program at: http://www.fastlane.nsf.gov/servlet/A6QueryPgm. Queries under "Urban Systemic", "Rural Systemic", and "Statewide Systemic" (omit quotes) will yield lists of NSF awards. Clicking on the box to the left with the proposal number will yield a short abstract and contact information for the award. The Division of Elementary, Secondary and Informal Education has funded the development of instructional materials that engage students in engineering design.
We strongly urge that all applicants for planning grants continue to prepare for future opportunities during the evaluation process, and in the event of non-award.
Related Programs of Interest
- Advanced Technological Education
(http://www.nsf.gov/pubsys/ods/getpub.cfm?nsf03523) - Centers for Learning and Teaching
(http://www.nsf.gov/pubsys/ods/getpub.cfm?ods_key=nsf03522) - Course, Curriculum and Laboratory Improvement
(http://www.nsf.gov/cgi-bin/getpub?nsf02043) - Directorate for Education and Human Resources
(http://www.ehr.nsf.gov) - Engineering Education
( http://www.eng.nsf.gov/eec/Program_Areas/Education_Programs/education_programs.htm) - Evaluative Research and Evaluation Capacity Building
(http://www.nsf.gov/cgi-bin/getpub?nsf0234) - Faculty Early Career Development (CAREER) Program
(http://www.nsf.gov/pubsys/ods/getpub.cfm?nsf02111) - Integrative Graduate Education and Research Traineeship (IGERT) Program
(http://www.nsf.gov/pubsys/ods/getpub.cfm?ods_key=nsf02145) - Math and Science Partnership Program
(http://www.nsf.gov/pubsys/ods/getpub.cfm?ods_key=nsf02190) - NSF Graduate Teaching Fellows in K-12 Education
(http://www.nsf.gov/pubsys/ods/getpub.cfm?ods_key=nsf03532) - Research Experiences for Teachers
(http://www.nsf.gov/pubsys/ods/getpub.cfm?nsf03554) - Research Experiences for Undergraduates
(http://www.nsf.gov/pubsys/ods/getpub.cfm?nsf02136) - Research on Learning and Education
(http://www.nsf.gov/pubsys/ods/getpub.cfm?nsf03542) - Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Talent Expansion Program (STEP) (http://www.nsf.gov/pubsys/ods/getpub.cfm?ods_key=nsf03548)
Suggested References
- Advancing Excellence in Technological Literacy: Student Assessment, Professional Development, and Program Standards, International Technology Education Association, Reston, VA 2003.
- Before It's Too Late: A Report to the Nation from The National Commission on Mathematics and Science Teaching for the 21st Century: National Commission on Mathematics and Science Teaching for the 21st Century (Glenn Commission), 2000.
(http://www.ed.gov/americacounts/glenn/) - From Analysis to Action: Undergraduate Education in Science, Mathematics, Engineering and Technology, National Research Council, National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 1996.
(http://www.nap.edu/catalog/9128.html) - How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience and School, National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 2000.
(http://www.nap.edu/catalog/9853.html) - International Technology Education Association/Gallup Poll on the Public's Level of Literacy as it Relates to Technology, 2002.
(http://www.iteawww.org/TAA/ITEAGallup.htm) - Knowing What Students Know: The Science and Design of Educational Assessments, National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 2001.
(http://www.nap.edu/catalog/10019.html) - Massachusetts Curriculum Development Frameworks, Massachusetts Department of Education. Massachusetts is the first state to introduce a statewide curriculum framework that explicitly includes engineering. It is available at:
(http://www.doe.mass.edu/frameworks/current.html) - No Child Left Behind Act of 2001
(http://www.ed.gov/offices/OESE/esea/progsum/) - Recommendations for Action in Support of Undergraduate Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics, Project Kaleidoscope Report on Reports 2002.
(http://www.pkal.org/template2.cfm?c_id=387) - Taking the Lead: A Deans Summit on Education for a Technological World. This 2001 IEEE meeting brought together 36 pairs of Deans of Engineering and Deans of Education to discuss avenues for collaboration. Emerging themes of the meeting are summarized and proceedings will become available shortly at:
( http://www.ieee.org/organizations/eab/precollege/deansummit/index.htm) - Technology Literacy Counts, Proceedings of the 1998 Workshop of the IEEE
( http://www.ieee.org/organizations/eab/precollege/tlc/contents.htm) - Transforming Undergraduate Education in Science, Mathematics, Engineering and Technology, National Research Council, National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 1999
(http://www.pkal.org/template2.cfm?c_id=387) - Standards for Technological Literacy: Content for the Study of Technology, International Technology Education Association, Reston, VA, 2000
(http://www.iteawww.org/standardsad4web.pdf) - Technically Speaking: Why All Americans Need to Know More About Technology, National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 2002.
(http://www.nap.edu/catalog/10250.html) - Understanding by Design, Grant Wiggins and Jay McTighe, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 2001.
http://shop.ascd.org/ProductDisplay.cfm?ProductID=198199 - Women and Men of the Engineering Path: A Model for Analyses of Undergraduate Careers, Clifford Adelman, U.S. Department of Education (PLLI 98-8055), 1998. This excellent study of the progress, retention and satisfaction of students in undergraduate engineering programs is out of print. We are working to make it available on the website of the Division of Engineering Education and Centers. Please check for availability at:
(http://www.erc-assoc.org/nsf/engrg_paths/)
Related References of Interest
- Benchmarks for Science Literacy, Oxford University Press, New York, NY, 1993.
http://www.project2061.org - Every Child a Scientist: Achieving Scientific Literacy for All, National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 1997.
(http://www.nap.edu/catalog/6005.html) - Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards: A Guide for Teaching and Learning, National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 2000.
(http://www.nap.edu/catalog/9596.html) - National Science Education Standards, National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 1996.
(http://www.nap.edu/catalog/4962.html) - Science and Technology and the National Science Education Standards: A Guide for Teaching and Learning (in press), National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 2002.
(http://www.nap.edu/catalog/9833.html) - Science For All Americans, Oxford University Press, New York, NY, 1989. (http://www.project2061.org)
ABOUT THE NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
The National Science Foundation (NSF) funds research and education in most fields of science and engineering. Awardees are wholly responsible for conducting their project activities and preparing the results for publication. Thus, the Foundation does not assume responsibility for such findings or their interpretation.
NSF welcomes proposals from all qualified scientists, engineers and educators. The Foundation strongly encourages women, minorities and persons with disabilities to compete fully in its programs. In accordance with Federal statutes, regulations and NSF policies, no person on grounds of race, color, age, sex, national origin or disability shall be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving financial assistance from NSF, although some programs may have special requirements that limit eligibility.
Facilitation Awards for Scientists and Engineers with Disabilities (FASED) provide funding for special assistance or equipment to enable persons with disabilities (investigators and other staff, including student research assistants) to work on NSF-supported projects. See the GPG Chapter II, Section D.2 for instructions regarding preparation of these types of proposals.
|
The National Science Foundation promotes and advances scientific progress in the United States by competitively awarding grants and cooperative agreements for research and education in the sciences, mathematics, and engineering. To get the latest information about program deadlines, to download copies of NSF publications, and to access abstracts of awards, visit the NSF Website at http://www.nsf.gov
|
PRIVACY ACT AND PUBLIC BURDEN STATEMENTS
The information requested on proposal forms and project reports is solicited under the authority of the National Science Foundation Act of 1950, as amended. The information on proposal forms will be used in connection with the selection of qualified proposals; project reports submitted by awardees will be used for program evaluation and reporting within the Executive Branch and to Congress. The information requested may be disclosed to qualified reviewers and staff assistants as part of the proposal review process; to applicant institutions/grantees to provide or obtain data regarding the proposal review process, award decisions, or the administration of awards; to government contractors, experts, volunteers and researchers and educators as necessary to complete assigned work; to other government agencies needing information as part of the review process or in order to coordinate programs; and to another Federal agency, court or party in a court or Federal administrative proceeding if the government is a party. Information about Principal Investigators may be added to the Reviewer file and used to select potential candidates to serve as peer reviewers or advisory committee members. See Systems of Records, NSF-50, "Principal Investigator/Proposal File and Associated Records," 63 Federal Register 267 (January 5, 1998), and NSF-51, "Reviewer/Proposal File and Associated Records," 63 Federal Register 268 (January 5, 1998). Submission of the information is voluntary. Failure to provide full and complete information, however, may reduce the possibility of receiving an award.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to an information collection unless it displays a valid OMB control number. The OMB control number for this collection is 3145-0058. Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 120 hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions. Send comments regarding this burden estimate and any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to: Suzanne Plimpton, Reports Clearance Officer, Division of Administrative Services, National Science Foundation, Arlington, VA 22230.
OMB control number: 3145-0058.
