NSF 21-588: EDU Core Research (ECR:Core)

Program Solicitation NSF 21-588

U.S. National Science Foundation Directorate for STEM Education

Full Proposal Deadline(s) (due by 5 p.m. submitting organization's local time):

     October 12, 2021

     October 06, 2022

     First Thursday in October, Annually Thereafter

Important Information and Revision Notes

Revision Notes

The solicitation clarifies the types of fundamental research (curiosity-driven basic and use-inspired basic research) funded by the program.

New descriptions of the three research areas (STEM Learning and Learning Environments, Broadening Participation in STEM, and STEM Workforce Development) are detailed.

A list of Research Topic Clusters is added.

Pilot studies are added as a new proposal type at Level I.

The Project Summary should specify the Level, Research Area, Research Topic Cluster(s) and include a list of five key words that best describe the theory, research methodology, the population to be studied (e.g., age, grade level, gender), any specific STEM disciplinary content that is to be studied (e.g., algebra), or potential stakeholder communities, as appropriate.

The Project Description should include a justification for project level and duration. Proposals that request the highest level of funding are particularly expected to discuss the need for resources.

Proposals must be prepared in accordance with the NSF Proposal & Award Policies & Procedures Guide (PAPPG). Use the version of the guide that is in effect on the proposal's due date.

Summary of Program Requirements

General Information

Program Title:

EDU Core Research (ECR:Core)

Synopsis of Program:

The EDU Core Research (ECR) program offers this ECR:Core solicitation and invites proposals for fundamental research (curiosity-driven basic research and use-inspired basic research) that contributes to the general, explanatory knowledge that underlies STEM education in one or more of the three broadly conceived Research Areas: Research on STEM Learning and Learning Environments, Research on Broadening Participation in STEM fields, and Research on STEM Workforce Development. Within this framework, the ECR program supports a wide range of fundamental STEM education research activities, aimed at learners of all groups and ages in formal and informal settings.

Fundamental research generates knowledge and understanding with the potential for broad relevance. The potential implications of ECR fundamental research for improving STEM education practice may be indirect and long-term rather than direct and immediate. Moreover, whether they include basic or use-inspired basic research, all successful ECR:Core proposals focus on the advancement or refinement of foundational knowledge for STEM education.

The amount of funding and duration requested in proposals submitted to the ECR:Core solicitation should align with the maturity of the proposed work and the size and scope of the empirical effort. The solicitation has three levels of funding with a range of budget sizes, and proposals may request a duration of 3 to 5 years for any level: (1) Level I proposals may request up to $500,000; (2) Level II proposals may request up to $1,500,000; (3) Level III proposals may request up to $2,500,000. All proposals should justify the level of funding and duration in the project description.

NSF Priorities

NSF welcomes submissions from all researchers, particularly those earlier in their careers and those working in research areas aligned with agency and administration priorities. NSF also expects the highest standards of scientific rigor, integrity, and adherence to tenets of Gold Standard Science in proposals, as appropriate for the field of science and research modality.

Cognizant Program Officer(s):

Please note that the following information is current at the time of publishing. See program website for any updates to the points of contact.

• Address questions to the program, telephone: (703) 292-2333, email: ECR@nsf.gov

Applicable Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number(s):

• 47.076 - STEM Education

Award Information

Anticipated Type of Award: Standard Grant or Continuing Grant

Estimated Number of Awards: 40

approximately 15 awards at level I; 12 awards at level II; 5 awards at level III, and 9 other awards.

Estimated program budget, number of awards and average award size/duration are subject to the availability of funds.

Anticipated Funding Amount: $35,000,000

Proposal Preparation and Submission Instructions

A. Proposal Preparation Instructions

• Letters of Intent: Not required

• Preliminary Proposal Submission: Not required

• Full Proposals:

  • For proposals submitted via Research.gov, PAPPG guidelines apply.
  • For proposals submitted via Grants.gov, NSF Grants.gov Application Guide guidelines apply.

B. Budgetary Information

• Cost Sharing Requirements:

  Inclusion of voluntary committed cost sharing is prohibited.

• Indirect Cost (F&A) Limitations:

  Not Applicable

• Other Budgetary Limitations:

  Not Applicable

C. Due Dates

• Full Proposal Deadline(s) (due by 5 p.m. submitting organization's local time):

       October 12, 2021

       October 06, 2022

       First Thursday in October, Annually Thereafter

Proposal Review Information Criteria

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.

I. Introduction

The nation faces extraordinary opportunities and challenges in aspiring to lead the world in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). Rapid and exciting scientific advances leading to new approaches to solving critical societal problems, and a national emphasis on the importance of innovation point to unparalleled opportunities for the future. At the same time, these rapid technological advancements and societal changes are challenges requiring the U.S. to continue to inspire the next generation of STEM workers, including the skilled technical workforce, for the nation to remain competitive, spur innovation, and grow the economy¹.

The mission of the Directorate for STEM Education (EDU) is to achieve excellence in U.S. STEM education at all levels and in all settings (both formal and informal) to support the development of a diverse and well-prepared workforce of scientists, technicians, engineers, mathematicians and educators and a well-informed citizenry who have access to the ideas and tools of science and engineering. In fulfilling this mission, EDU seeks to support NSF's mission to enhance the quality of life of all citizens and the health, prosperity, welfare, and security of the nation.

The EDU Core research (ECR) program supports multiple solicitations under the ECR umbrella, including this ECR:Core solicitation. This EDU Core research (ECR:Core) solicitation accepts fundamental research proposals in any one or more of the STEM disciplines that address Research Areas and Topic Clusters described in this solicitation.

There is a critical need to develop and accumulate knowledge based on fundamental research (whether curiosity-driven basic or use-inspired basic research²) on STEM learning and learning environments, broadening participation in STEM, and STEM workforce development. Such foundational knowledge³ in STEM education is essential to strategically guide the broader set of STEM education investments by the Federal government and other funding agencies and foundations, and to inform the activities of policymakers, researchers, and practitioners. This ECR:Core solicitation invites proposals to conduct fundamental research that advances knowledge across three Research Areas and several research Topic Clusters outlined below.

---

¹ Subcommittee of the Advisory Committee of the Education and Human Resources Directorate (2020). STEM Education for the Future: A Visioning Report.

² Stokes, Donald (1997). Pasteur's quadrant – Basic Science and Technological Innovation. Washington D.C.: Brookings Institution Press.

³ Common Guidelines for Education Research and Development (2013). A Report from the Institute of Education Sciences US Department of Education, and the National Science Foundation, (https://www.nsf.gov/policies/document/common-guidelines-education-research-development).

II. Program Description

ECR investments in fundamental research are designed to advance the discovery and testing of general, explanatory knowledge that supports STEM education.

ECR is a fundamental research program that supports both curiosity-driven basic and use-inspired basic research. As such, proposals submitted to this ECR:Core solicitation must have strong potential to make important contributions to general, explanatory knowledge (e.g., theories) pertaining to STEM learning and learning environments, broadening participation in STEM, or STEM workforce development. Fundamental research generates knowledge and understanding with the potential for broad relevance. By contrast, applied research, which ECR does not fund, aims to generate knowledge primarily or solely with specific relevance (e.g., to a particular curriculum or technology) with direct and immediate implications for practice. The potential implications of ECR fundamental research for improving STEM education practice may be indirect and long-term rather than direct and immediate. Indeed, the impact on practice might only be realized long after the end of a given project's funding period. ECR:Core projects may also influence other intermediate research domains and communities, both basic and applied, before affecting practice. Whether they include curiosity-driven basic or use-inspired basic research, all successful ECR:Core proposals will focus on the advancement or refinement of foundational knowledge for STEM education.

ECR supports and encourages multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary approaches to developing foundational knowledge for STEM education. The ECR program seeks to create a multidisciplinary portfolio and to fund projects from investigators representing a broad range of disciplinary backgrounds and approaches, including those from fields more typically associated with other NSF directorates and offices. The program encourages investigators to draw on all relevant disciplinary literatures, and to create teams that reach across disciplinary bounds when appropriate. This emphasis on multi- and inter-disciplinarity is consistent with the NSF Big Idea on Convergence: https://www.nsf.gov/news/special_reports/big_ideas/convergent.jsp. However, this ECR:Core solicitation does not require that individual proposals be multi- or interdisciplinary.

ECR supports theoretically, methodologically, and analytically thorough research. The research questions or issues to be addressed in ECR:Core proposals should drive the choice of research design. Research designs may be qualitative, quantitative, or mixed methods. The research design must be described in sufficient detail to allow evaluation of its appropriateness to address the research questions or hypotheses proposed. The research could involve the collection of new data, secondary analyses using extant datasets, or meta-analyses/meta-syntheses. In addition, this ECR:Core solicitation supports research to develop innovative research methods, measurement approaches, and conceptual models to assess existing and emerging phenomena, and to test theories that inform core scientific questions about STEM learning and learning environments, broadening participation in STEM, and STEM workforce development. The Institute of Education Sciences (IES)-NSF Common Guidelines for research may serve as a guide in this regard: https://www.nsf.gov/policies/document/common-guidelines-education-research-development.

ECR embraces fundamental research involving all people in all STEM learning environments, including STEM workplaces. Proposals to ECR:Core could study people of any age (from infancy through the lifespan), or grade level (pre-K to graduate), in the context of any virtual, formal, or informal learning environment.

ECR:Core Research Areas

The ECR:Core portfolio spans three broad and overlapping Research Areas that map to the organizational structure of EDU investments: (1) Research on STEM Learning and Learning Environments, (2) Research on Broadening Participation in STEM fields, and (3) Research on STEM Workforce Development.

Research Area I – Research on STEM Learning and Learning Environments

This ECR:Core solicitation supports fundamental research projects that advance general, explanatory knowledge and understanding about STEM teaching and learning in the many environments and contexts in which such teaching and learning take place. Studies may inform or draw upon research from multiple disciplines that study learning at the level of the learner, the teacher, the learning environment, or the broader institutional or systemic context, as well as other organizations or individuals that may influence STEM learning.

Research Area II – Research on Broadening Participation in STEM

This ECR:Core solicitation supports fundamental research projects that advance general, explanatory knowledge and understanding related to broadening participation in STEM education and the STEM workforce as defined by NSF's statutory mission. Broadening participation research may focus on the individual and/or the organizational factors that positively or negatively impact all individuals in STEM.

Research Area III – Research on STEM Workforce Development

This ECR:Core solicitation supports fundamental research on STEM workforce development and invites proposals that strengthen general, explanatory knowledge, and understanding about STEM workforce participation, skill-building approaches, workplace knowledge and competencies, learning in workplace contexts, and critical shifts in STEM workforce trends. ECR investments address basic questions concerning how best to prepare a STEM workforce that is ready to capitalize on the latest advances in technology and science, as well as to tackle current and future social and economic challenges. Of particular interest in this research area are frontier topics in the education and training of a workforce for the industries of tomorrow, pushing the boundaries of technology use in STEM workplace learning, and examining how learning will change for STEM workers because of advances in technology or changes in the working environment.

ECR:Core Research Topic Clusters

The ECR:Core solicitation invites proposals with a wide range of disciplinary perspectives and welcomes fundamental research proposals across the three research areas. Proposals submitted to ECR:Core often fall into one or more of the following research topic clusters. This list of research topic clusters is neither exhaustive nor mutually exclusive, and the program is open to other topic clusters that advance fundamental knowledge across the three research areas.

• Broadening participation in STEM education and the STEM workforce as defined by NSF's statutory mission.
• Cognitive and neural underpinnings of STEM learning.
• Discipline-based education research in STEM fields.
• Factors at the institutional, structural, organizational, societal, and systemic levels that affect STEM teaching, learning, and participation in STEM education and the workforce.
• Factors at the cultural, affective, psychological, and demographic levels that affect STEM teaching, learning, and participation in STEM education and the workforce.
• Research on technology-enabled learning.
• Studies of the diffusion of knowledge and research on the translation and implementation of advances in STEM education and workforce development.
• Advances in methodology, measurement, and assessment in STEM education and workforce development research.
• Policy research and research that builds on and expands the theoretical foundations for evaluating STEM education and workforce development initiatives.
• Other topics that involve fundamental research in STEM learning and learning environments, broadening participation in STEM, and STEM workforce development.

ECR:Core Proposal Types

The amount of funding and duration requested in proposals submitted to this ECR:Core solicitation should align with the maturity of the proposed work and the size and scope of the empirical effort. The program has three levels of funding with a range of budget sizes, and proposals may request a duration of 3 to 5 years for any level: (1) Level I proposals may request up to $500,000; (2) Level II proposals may request up to $1,500,000; (3) Level III proposals may request up to $2,500,000. All proposals should justify the level of funding and duration in the project description.

ECR:Core also welcomes and supports pilot studies, synthesis projects, and conferences related to advancing fundamental knowledge in one or more of the three Research Areas.

Pilot Studies are small-scale, preliminary studies that investigate one or two components of a larger fundamental STEM education study that may be underdeveloped. Pilot studies should produce evidence or findings that help the research team make critical decisions about future work. Pilot study proposals may include high risk strategies or methods that need exploration (piloting) before further research is justified. Pilot studies are considered Level I proposals and should request less than $500,000 and up to a three-year grant period.

Synthesis Proposals combine fundamental knowledge and findings on a topic of critical importance to STEM learning, education, broadening participation, or workforce development. They should strive both to present the state of the knowledge on an area, across disciplines where appropriate, as well as highlight issues for future research. Synthesis proposals should explain and justify the methodological approach (e.g., meta-analysis or meta-synthesis) to be adopted, and should outline the steps for literature identification, decision points (e.g., identifying inclusion and exclusion criteria and outcome measures of interest), and systematic techniques to ensure all relevant research is included and that information is gathered accurately across studies. Proposals should place particular emphasis on the goals and outcomes of the synthesis and the dissemination plan. Synthesis proposals may be budgeted at Level I or Level II.

Conference Proposals plan for well-focused meetings related to the ECR goals to advance fundamental research in STEM learning, education, broadening participation, or workforce development. Budgets should be commensurate with the duration of the event and the number of participants. Proposals should include a conceptual framework for the conference, draft agenda, categories of possible participants, the outcomes or products that will result, and how these products serve the fundamental research goals of the ECR program. Investigators are encouraged to contact a cognizant ECR Program Officer prior to submission. Typical costs are $25,000 to $99,000. Further information about what to include in conference proposals may be found in the NSF Proposal and Award Policy and Procedures Guide.

III. Award Information

Anticipated Type of Award: Continuing Grant or Standard Grant

Estimated Number of Awards: 40

approximately 15 awards at level I; 12 awards at level II; 5 awards at level III; and 9 other awards.

Estimated program budget, number of awards and average award size/duration are subject to the availability of funds.

Anticipated Funding Amount: $35,000,000

IV. Eligibility Information

Who May Submit Proposals:

The categories of proposers eligible to submit proposals to the National Science Foundation are identified in the NSF Proposal & Award Policies & Procedures Guide (PAPPG), Chapter I.E. Unaffiliated individuals are not eligible to submit proposals in response to this solicitation.

Who May Serve as PI:

There are no restrictions or limits.

Limit on Number of Proposals per Organization:

There are no restrictions or limits.

Limit on Number of Proposals Per PI or Co-PI:

There are no restrictions or limits.

V. Proposal Preparation and Submission Instructions

A. Proposal Preparation Instructions

Full Proposal Preparation Instructions: Proposers may opt to submit proposals in response to this Program Solicitation via Research.gov or Grants.gov.

• Full Proposals submitted via Research.gov: Proposals submitted in response to this program solicitation should be prepared and submitted in accordance with the general guidelines contained in the NSF Proposal and Award Policies and Procedures Guide (PAPPG). The complete text of the PAPPG is available electronically on the NSF website at: https://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=pappg. Paper copies of the PAPPG may be obtained from the NSF Publications Clearinghouse, telephone (703) 292-8134 or by e-mail from nsfpubs@nsf.gov. The Prepare New Proposal setup will prompt you for the program solicitation number.
• Full proposals submitted via Grants.gov: Proposals submitted in response to this program solicitation via Grants.gov should be prepared and submitted in accordance with the NSF Grants.gov Application Guide: A Guide for the Preparation and Submission of NSF Applications via Grants.gov. The complete text of the NSF Grants.gov Application Guide is available on the Grants.gov website and on the NSF website at: (https://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=grantsgovguide). To obtain copies of the Application Guide and Application Forms Package, click on the Apply tab on the Grants.gov site, then click on the Apply Step 1: Download a Grant Application Package and Application Instructions link and enter the funding opportunity number, (the program solicitation number without the NSF prefix) and press the Download Package button. Paper copies of the Grants.gov Application Guide also may be obtained from the NSF Publications Clearinghouse, telephone (703) 292-8134 or by e-mail from nsfpubs@nsf.gov.

In determining which method to utilize in the electronic preparation and submission of the proposal, please note the following:

Collaborative Proposals. All collaborative proposals submitted as separate submissions from multiple organizations must be submitted via Research.gov. PAPPG Chapter II.D.3 provides additional information on collaborative proposals.

See PAPPG Chapter II.C.2 for guidance on the required sections of a full research proposal submitted to NSF. Please note that the proposal preparation instructions provided in this program solicitation may deviate from the PAPPG instructions.

The following instructions supplement guidelines in the PAPPG and NSF Grants.gov Application Guide:

Cover Sheet.

• Select the ECR:Core solicitation number.
• The box for Human Subjects must be checked; this box should not be left blank. The Human Subjects box should be marked as pending if an Institutional Review Board (IRB) is either (1) reviewing the project plan and has not yet determined a ruling of "approved" or "exempt", or (2) the project plan has not yet been submitted to an IRB for review. If human subjects activities are exempt from IRB review, enter appropriate exemption number in the space provided.
• To avoid delays in processing award recommendations, it is strongly recommended that PIs begin the process of obtaining appropriate IRB approvals or exemptions as needed for projects involving human subjects. No awards will be made without such approvals or exemptions.

Project Summary. The Project Summary should specify the proposal level (I, II, or III), Research Area of interest (i.e., STEM Learning and Learning Environments, Broadening Participation in STEM, or STEM Workforce Development), and Research Topic Cluster if appropriate. More than one Area and Cluster may be specified. If the proposal is a pilot, conference, or synthesis, that also should be noted in the Project Summary. In addition, the Project Summary should indicate five key words that best describe the theory, research methodology, the population to be studied (e.g., age, grade level, gender), any specific STEM disciplinary content that is to be studied (e.g., algebra), or potential stakeholder communities, as appropriate.

Project Description. The Project Description is limited to 15 pages and must comply with all formatting requirements of the PAPPG in effect at the time of submission. Proposals funded under this solicitation must focus on fundamental research questions or hypotheses related to one or more of the three Research Areas described above.

Elements of ECR:Core Proposals: Proposals are strongly encouraged to address the following elements in the 15-page Project Description:

• Logical connections to an established research base: All fundamental research proposals should be grounded in and build upon relevant disciplinary literatures. The proposal should make the case for how the established research base and its theoretical underpinnings justify new investment in the proposed line of inquiry, and how the project and its findings are likely to build upon and refine relevant theory.
• A comprehensive research plan: Successful ECR:Core proposals include well-focused research questions or testable hypotheses that reflect the current state of knowledge in the area and the theory or conceptual framework being used. The proposal should discuss in detail the methods used to answer the research questions or test the hypotheses posed, along with the types of data to be collected. Proposals should clearly describe the measures, instruments, and procedures to be used in the data collection process and the technical adequacy of the measures, if available. The research plan should also include specific plans for how the collected data will be analyzed to answer the research questions. Studies should be described in sufficient detail so that other researchers can replicate the research as discussed in the Companion Guidelines on Replication and Reproducibility in Education Research. Methods should directly link to the theory or theories being used. The proposal should describe the participant sample, along with the rationale for sample selection, and the investigator's access to the sample. Proposers should clearly define the study participants, and address whether the design is premised on the needs and interests of participants. Such needs may be premised on individual and group characteristics, such as educational level, economic status, or disability. When theoretically and methodologically appropriate, proposals would discuss how data might be disaggregated for multiple characteristics.
• A plan to assess success of the project: Plans for carrying out proposed activities should be well-reasoned, well-organized, based on a sound rationale, and incorporate a mechanism to assess success. Projects are expected to document, and report progress toward the accomplishment or trustworthiness of intellectual merit and broader impact goals, objectives, and outcomes defined in the proposal, including any anticipated impacts on potential stakeholder communities. Proposals should include plans for soliciting and addressing external feedback (e.g., through an advisory board, evaluation plan, or other evaluative mechanisms).
• A plan for sharing the research and results: Proposals should include a strategy for dissemination and transparency of the research, and for reaching a broad audience with the findings of the project. Transparency and dissemination activities may include preregistration, providing data or code, and increasing the availability of published research. Reaching a broader audience may include, where appropriate, using various media to communicate findings to practitioners, policy makers, and public audiences and stakeholder communities. The potential results of the proposed research are expected to be of sufficient significance to merit peer-review and broader publication. (For additional information on communicating research results see the resources available from the American Association for the Advancement of Science's Center for Public Engagement with Science & Technology.)
• A justification for project level and duration: ECR:Core expects all proposals to provide a strong rationale for the duration and level of funding requested, with more detailed elaboration in the budget justification. Proposals that request the highest level of funding are particularly expected to discuss the need for resources.

Other Required Sections: Per guidance in the PAPPG, the Project Description must contain, as a separate section within the narrative, a section labeled Broader Impacts that includes a discussion of specific broader impacts goals and outcomes and a plan and resources allocated to achieve them (more information about Broader Impacts may be found in the NSF PAPPG and on the NSF website). Proposers may decide where to include this section within the Project Description. The proposal must also describe Results of Prior NSF Support for related projects in which the PI or Co-PI have been involved, as outlined in the NSF PAPPG.

Budget and Budget Justification. Budgets may include up to five pages of budget justification. The budget justification should be in narrative form and include detailed explanations for each line item with budget resources listed in the budget. Information about what may or may not be included in the budget or budget justification is outlined in the NSF PAPPG or NSF Grants.gov Application Guide. For proposals with subawards, each subaward must include a separate budget and budget justification of no more than five pages.

Funds should be budgeted for the principal investigator or a project member to attend a two-day grantees' meeting in the Washington, D.C. area every other award year.

Supplementary Documentation.

Supplementary documents should include Letters of Collaboration from project partners, the Mentoring Plan (if applicable), the Data Management and Sharing Plan as described in the NSF PAPPG, and a List of Project Personnel described below. Letters of support from persons endorsing the project but not making a substantial commitment to the project are not allowed. Inclusion of any other information in the supplementary documents or as an appendix will result in the proposal being returned without review.

Data Management and Sharing Plans: All data collected for ECR:Core projects must accord with the revised EDU Data Management Guidance, which may be found here: https://www.nsf.gov/edu/data-management-plans. DMPs will be reviewed by panelists and program directors and should be written with sufficient clarity and detail to support proposal processing and the merit review process. Generic DMPs should be avoided. Each DMP should describe the data, metadata, samples, software, curricula, documentation, publications, and other materials to be generated during the proposed research. DMPs should reflect the best practices and standards for the proposed research and types of data being generated, whether experimental, computational, text-based, media or physical materials. ECR expects its awardees to describe how data and related materials are generated to allow others to reproduce the research study. Further the DMP should support the sharing of data, products, and methods in such a way that others can understand, validate, replicate, and build upon the research findings. For more information, please consult the Companion Guidelines on Replication and Reproducibility in Education Research.

List of All Project Personnel: In addition to guidance provided in the PAPPG on required Special Information and Supplementary Documents, provide a list of all project personnel in the Supplementary Document section. Include current, accurate information for all personnel and institutions involved in the project. NSF staff will use this information in the merit review process to manage reviewer selection. The list should include all PIs, co-PIs, senior personnel, paid/unpaid consultants, or collaborators, subawardees, postdoctoral researchers (if known), and project-level advisory committee members. This list should be numbered and include (in this order) Full name, Organization(s), and Role in the project, with each item separated by a semi-colon. Each person listed should start a new numbered line. For example:

1. Ebony Johnson-Smith; XYZ University; PI
2. John Garcia; University of PQR; Senior Personnel

Appendix: Not permitted. The 15 pages of the Project Description should contain all the information needed to describe the project. Proposals submitted with an Appendix will be returned without review.

B. Budgetary Information

Cost Sharing:

Inclusion of voluntary committed cost sharing is prohibited.

C. Research.gov/Grants.gov Requirements

You can submit proposals in response to this solicitation through Research.gov or Grants.gov, unless otherwise noted.

Information on how to prepare and submit proposals is available on the Submitting Your Proposal page on NSF.gov.

VI. NSF Proposal Processing and Review Procedures

Proposals received by NSF are assigned to the appropriate NSF program for acknowledgement and, if they meet NSF requirements, for review. All proposals are carefully reviewed by a scientist, engineer, or educator serving as an NSF Program Officer, and usually by three to ten other persons outside NSF either as ad hoc reviewers, panelists, or both, who are experts in the particular fields represented by the proposal. These reviewers are selected by Program Officers charged with oversight of the review process. Proposers are invited to suggest names of persons they believe are especially well qualified to review the proposal and/or persons they would prefer not review the proposal. These suggestions may serve as one source in the reviewer selection process at the Program Officer's discretion. Submission of such names, however, is optional. Care is taken to ensure that reviewers have no conflicts of interest with the proposal. In addition, Program Officers may obtain comments from site visits before recommending final action on proposals. Senior NSF staff further review recommendations for awards. A flowchart that depicts the entire NSF proposal and award process (and associated timeline) is included in PAPPG Exhibit III-1.

A comprehensive description of the Foundation's merit review process is available on the NSF website at: https://www.nsf.gov/funding/overview.

A. Merit Review Principles and Criteria

The National Science Foundation strives to invest in a robust and diverse portfolio of projects that creates new knowledge and enables breakthroughs in understanding across all areas of science and engineering research and education. To identify which projects to support, NSF relies on a merit review process that incorporates consideration of both the technical aspects of a proposed project and its potential to contribute more broadly to advancing NSF's mission "to promote the progress of science; to advance the national health, prosperity, and welfare; to secure the national defense; and for other purposes." NSF makes every effort to conduct a fair, competitive, transparent merit review process for the selection of projects.

1. Merit Review Principles

These principles are to be given due diligence by PIs and organizations when preparing proposals and managing projects, by reviewers when reading and evaluating proposals, and by NSF program staff when determining whether or not to recommend proposals for funding and while overseeing awards. Given that NSF is the primary federal agency charged with nurturing and supporting excellence in basic research and education, the following three principles apply:

• All NSF projects should be of the highest quality and have the potential to advance, if not transform, the frontiers of knowledge.
• NSF projects, in the aggregate, should contribute more broadly to achieving societal goals. These "Broader Impacts" may be accomplished through the research itself, through activities that are directly related to specific research projects, or through activities that are supported by, but are complementary to, the project. The project activities may be based on previously established and/or innovative methods and approaches, but in either case must be well justified.
• Meaningful assessment and evaluation of NSF funded projects should be based on appropriate metrics, keeping in mind the likely correlation between the effect of broader impacts and the resources provided to implement projects. If the size of the activity is limited, evaluation of that activity in isolation is not likely to be meaningful. Thus, assessing the effectiveness of these activities may best be done at a higher, more aggregated, level than the individual project.

With respect to the third principle, even if assessment of Broader Impacts outcomes for particular projects is done at an aggregated level, PIs are expected to be accountable for carrying out the activities described in the funded project. Thus, individual projects should include clearly stated goals, specific descriptions of the activities that the PI intends to do, and a plan in place to document the outputs of those activities.

These three merit review principles provide the basis for the merit review criteria, as well as a context within which the users of the criteria can better understand their intent.

2. Merit Review Criteria

All NSF proposals are evaluated through use of the two National Science Board approved merit review criteria. In some instances, however, NSF will employ additional criteria as required to highlight the specific objectives of certain programs and activities.

The two merit review criteria are listed below. Both criteria are to be given full consideration during the review and decision-making processes; each criterion is necessary but neither, by itself, is sufficient. Therefore, proposers must fully address both criteria. (PAPPG Chapter II.D.2.d(i). contains additional information for use by proposers in development of the Project Description section of the proposal). Reviewers are strongly encouraged to review the criteria, including PAPPG Chapter II.D.2.d(i), prior to the review of a proposal.

When evaluating NSF proposals, reviewers will be asked to consider what the proposers want to do, why they want to do it, how they plan to do it, how they will know if they succeed, and what benefits could accrue if the project is successful. These issues apply both to the technical aspects of the proposal and the way in which the project may make broader contributions. To that end, reviewers will be asked to evaluate all proposals against two criteria:

• Intellectual Merit: The Intellectual Merit criterion encompasses the potential to advance knowledge; and
• Broader Impacts: The Broader Impacts criterion encompasses the potential to benefit society and contribute to the achievement of specific, desired societal outcomes.

The following elements should be considered in the review for both criteria:

1. What is the potential for the proposed activity to
   1. Advance knowledge and understanding within its own field or across different fields (Intellectual Merit); and
   2. Benefit society or advance desired societal outcomes (Broader Impacts)?
2. To what extent do the proposed activities suggest and explore creative, original, or potentially transformative concepts?
3. Is the plan for carrying out the proposed activities well-reasoned, well-organized, and based on a sound rationale? Does the plan incorporate a mechanism to assess success?
4. How well qualified is the individual, team, or organization to conduct the proposed activities?
5. Are there adequate resources available to the PI (either at the home organization or through collaborations) to carry out the proposed activities?

Broader impacts may be accomplished through the research itself, through the activities that are directly related to specific research projects, or through activities that are supported by, but are complementary to, the project. NSF values the advancement of scientific knowledge and activities that contribute to achievement of societally relevant outcomes. Such outcomes include, but are not limited to: improved STEM education and educator development at any level; increased public scientific literacy and public engagement with science and technology; improved well-being of individuals in society; development of a globally competitive STEM workforce; increased partnerships between academia, industry, and others; improved national security; increased economic competitiveness of the United States; and enhanced infrastructure for research and education.

Proposers are reminded that reviewers will also be asked to review the Data Management and Sharing Plan and the Mentoring Plan, as appropriate.

B. Review and Selection Process

Proposals submitted in response to this program solicitation will be reviewed by Ad hoc Review and/or Panel Review.

After a proposal passes an initial compliance check, it will be reviewed by an NSF Program Officer. In most cases, two or more experts will also review it (either as ad hoc reviewers, panelists or both).

Visit the Overview of the NSF Proposal and Award Process page for more information on the proposal review and selection process.

In alignment with Executive Order 14332 (Improving Oversight of Federal Grantmaking), all else being equal after merit review, NSF may give preference to institutions with lower indirect cost rates.

VII. Award Administration Information

A. Notification of the Award

Notification of an award is made to the submitting organization by an NSF Grants and Agreements Officer.

B. Award Conditions

Information on NSF award conditions can be found on the Award Terms and Conditions page on NSF.gov and Chapter VII of the PAPPG.

Administrative and National Policy Requirements:

Information on administrative and national policy requirements can be found on the National Policy Requirements for Recipients of NSF Awards page on NSF.gov.

Consistent with the requirements specified in 2 CFR § 200.332, recipients of NSF awards must adhere to the requirements for pass-through entities in establishing and managing subawards issued ensuring alignment with Administration and NSF policies and priorities.

In alignment with Executive Order 14332 (Improving Oversight of Federal Grantmaking), proposers should be aware that NSF awards offered under this funding opportunity may include termination for convenience provisions.

C. Reporting Requirements

Unless your award notice says otherwise, NSF requires the principal investigator of every grant to submit annual project reports and a project outcomes report for the general public. For complete reporting requirements, see Chapter VII of the PAPPG.

VIII. Agency Contacts

For questions related to the use of NSF systems contact:

• Research.gov: NSF IT Service Desk at rgov@nsf.gov or 1-800-381-1532. The Service Desk is open from 7 a.m. to 9 p.m. Eastern time, Monday through Friday (except for federal holidays).

For questions relating to Grants.gov contact:

• Grants.gov: The Grants.gov Contact Center at support@grants.gov or 1-800-518-4726. (Contact if the Authorized Organizational Representative (AOR) has not received a confirmation message from Grants.gov within 48 hours of submitting an application.)

IX. Other Information

For information on NSF directorates, programs and funding opportunities, go to NSF.gov.

About the National Science Foundation

The U.S. National Science Foundation is an independent federal agency created by the "National Science Foundation Act of 1950." More information about NSF can be found on NSF.gov.

Location:
Randolph Building
401 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA 22314

General information:
703) 292-5111

Tyy/tdd (for the Hearing Impaired):

• Domestic callers: Dial 711 to connect to NSF.
• International callers: Dial 1-800-548-2546 or 1-605-224-1837 preceded by your country code to reach a U.S. relay service provider and ask to be connected to NSF.

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. More information can be found on the Privacy Act and Public Burden Statements page on NSF.gov.