Proposal Review Information

I. NSF Merit Review Criteria

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. Special care is taken to ensure that reviewers have no immediate and obvious conflicts with the proposer. Special efforts are made to recruit reviewers from non-academic institutions, minority serving institutions, adjacent disciplines to that principally addressed in the proposal, etc.

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 that are relevant to the proposal 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 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?

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 learner perspectives. PIs should address this issue in their proposal to provide reviewers with the information necessary to respond fully to both NSF merit review criteria. NSF staff will give it careful consideration in making funding decisions.

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

II. Review Considerations Specific to DUE Programs

The majority of proposals submitted to DUE are considered by panels of peer reviewers. Each panelist reads and writes an individual review for all proposals assigned to the panel. The panel then convenes as a group to discuss the proposals. Following these discussions, panelists complete their individual reviews and one panel member writes a summary of the discussion for each proposal. Reviews are used by NSF Program Officers to inform funding decisions, and anonymous copies are sent to all proposers.

With regard to DUE's programs, NSF's two general merit review criteria lead to questions such as the following, which are often raised in the review process.

Intellectual merit:

• Does the proposed project address a major challenge facing undergraduate SMET education?
• Does the project have potential for improving student learning of important SMET principles?
• Are the goals and objectives, and the plans and procedures for achieving them, worthwhile, well-developed, and realistic?
• Is the rationale for selecting particular activities or components for development or adaptation clearly articulated?
• Does the project design consider the background, preparation, and experience of the target audience?
• Is the project informed by research in teaching and learning, current pedagogical issues, the efforts of others, and relevant literature?
• Does the project provide for effective assessment of student learning, which reflects the proposed educational objectives and practices?
• Are plans for evaluation of the project appropriate and adequate for the project's size and scope and will the evaluation appropriately inform project development?
• Does the project have the potential to provide fundamental improvements in teaching and learning through effective uses of technology?
• Is the project led by and supported by the involvement of capable faculty (and where appropriate, practicing scientists, mathematicians, engineers, technicians, teachers, and student assistants), who have recent and relevant experience in education, in research, or in the workplace?
• Is the project supported by adequate facilities, resources, and departmental commitment?
• Is the evidence of institutional support clear and compelling?

Additional questions relevant to CETP proposals:

• Will the project prepare preK-12 teachers who are knowledgeable in science, mathematics, and technology; confident in their abilities in these disciplines; and able to effectively use a variety of pedagogical approaches and technology to improve student learning?
• Is there evidence of collaboration among faculty and departments in the sciences, mathematics, engineering, technology and education, with demonstrated leadership from the SMET faculty?
• For multi-institutional projects, is there significant evidence of collaboration with and commitment by the partner institutions including school personnel (teachers, supervisors, administrators) in proposal preparation and in the planning and implementation of the project?
• Does the project include the integration of mathematics and science, effective use of technologies, applications to engineering and technology, or new methods of student assessment appropriate to the educational methodologies?
• Does the proposal indicate how the project relates to an existing teacher preparation program? Is there significant redesign of activities, including disciplinary courses, which serve prospective teachers as part of the audience, and are these activities integrated into the curriculum and institutional requirements?
• Does the project contain exemplary mentoring and field experiences (e.g., student teaching, laboratory research opportunities, support for novice teachers)?
• Are there strategies for recruiting, supporting, and graduating high-quality prospective mathematics and science teachers, particularly from underrepresented groups including persons with disabilities?

Broader impacts:

• Are the proposed activities integrated into the institution's academic program?
• To what extent will the results of the project contribute to the knowledge base of activities that enhance student learning?
• Will the project evaluation inform others through the communication of results?
• Are the results of the project likely to be useful at similar institutions?
• What is the potential for the project to produce widely used products which can be disseminated through commercial or other channels?
• Are plans for producing, marketing and distributing these products appropriate and adequate?
• For ATE projects, does the project address the current and future needs of industry for technicians? Does the project enhance the status of technician education?
• Will the project result in significantly improved content and pedagogical preparation of faculty and teachers of science, mathematics, engineering, and technology?
• Does the project effectively address one or more of the following objectives:
• ensure the highest quality education for those students planning to pursue SMET careers?
• increase the participation of women, underrepresented minorities, and persons with disabilities?
• provide a foundation for scientific, technological, and workplace literacy?
• develop multi- and interdisciplinary courses and curricula?
• develop courses and curricula that are aligned with national standards, as appropriate?

Additional questions relevant to CETP proposals:

• Is there evidence that programs initiated by the Collaborative will become established within the participating departments and sponsoring institution(s)?
• Will the project result in increased involvement of mathematics, science and, as appropriate, engineering and technology departments and their faculty in the preparation of prospective teachers?
• Are adequate systems provided to collect baseline and subsequent data to measure program impact?
• Is there cooperation with other programs in the region designed to improve the teaching of mathematics and science (e.g., LSC, SSI, USI, RSI, AMP, large systemic efforts in preK-12 curriculum reform)?
• Are there effective mechanisms included to promote the incorporation of successful models or results into statewide practice and policy?
• Are there creative plans to maintain continuing relationships with graduates of the proposed program to encourage their retention in science and mathematics teaching?

Announcement and Administration of Awards

ANNOUNCEMENT

The review and processing of proposals will require approximately six months. Decisions will be announced individually through written notices to the institution and to the Principal Investigator (PI). Proposers are strongly encouraged to consult the FastLane system for the most up-to-date information about their proposals. Decisions on awards will be announced as soon as they are made, not simultaneously. Thus, it is normal for some proposers to receive a decision earlier than others. The number of awards will depend on the quality of the proposals received and the availability of funds.

ADMINISTRATION OF AWARDS

Awards will be administered in accordance with the terms and conditions of the latest editions of NSF GC-1, "Grant General Conditions," or FDP-III (Federal Demonstration Project). Additional information can be found in the Grant Proposal Guide (GPG, NSF 99-2). More comprehensive information is contained in the NSF Grant Policy Manual (GPM, NSF 95-26). Answers to Frequently Asked Questions regarding grant administration activities, and the publications mentioned above, are available at the Division of Grants and Agreements Web site <https://www.nsf.gov/bfa/dga>.

Responsibility for Results and Their Dissemination

NSF does not assume responsibility for project results or their interpretation. The grantee institution is wholly responsible for the conduct of the project and for preparation of the results for publication. However, NSF strongly encourages dissemination of the results of the projects it funds, as discussed on page 5.

If it is anticipated that a project will result in commercial publication or distribution of materials developed under a resulting NSF supported award, grantees are responsible for developing publication plans and approving publication and distribution contracts and other agreements. The grantee must maintain written justification and documentation to support such plans and arrangements.

At a minimum, the grantee's publication/distribution plan should address the following:

a) identification and brief description of materials, proposed media and format, objectives of the materials, intended educational levels and expected market, expected market life, expected need for revisions, existing or proposed materials with which they might compete;

b) expected interest by commercial publisher(s)/distributor(s) and explanation;

c) alternative publication/distribution arrangements being considered and advantages/disadvantages of each;

d) procedures to be followed for the competitive selection of publisher(s)/distributor(s), or justification for non-competitive selection; including a description of the means for publicizing the opportunity for publisher(s)/distributor(s) to submit proposals, and for disseminating the solicitations and a list of publisher(s)/distributor(s) to be solicited directly.

The grantee shall maintain standards of conduct comparable to those described in OMB Circular A-110.42 that shall govern the performance of its officers, employees or agents engaged in the awarding and administration of contracts or licenses for the publication and distribution of materials developed under an NSF award.

All publication/distribution agreements should include provisions 1) providing the Government with a royalty-free license to use the materials for Government purposes; 2) granting the Government the right to examine, audit and copy publisher's/distributor's records relative to NSF support.

Income generated as a result of commercial publication or distribution of NSF-supported materials shall be used in accordance with guidance provided in Section 750 of the Grant Policy Manual unless stated otherwise in the award letter. The grantee is required to retain appropriate financial and other records relating to project income earned during the grant period and for three years beyond the end of the grant period.

Except for articles or papers published in scientific, technical, or professional journals, the following disclaimer should be included:

Annual Progress and Final Project Reports

For all multi-year grants an Annual Progress Report is due at least 90 days before the end of the current budget period. For details, refer to GPG, Chapter VII-Section G.

Within 90 days after the expiration of a grant (including any automatic or other extensions), the PI is required to submit a Final Project Report. Applicants should review the requested information prior to proposal submission so that appropriate tracking mechanisms are included in the proposal plan to ensure that complete information will be available at the conclusion of the project. Failure to provide Final Project Reports will delay NSF review and processing of pending proposals for the project PI and Co-PIs.

A new format for the annual and final report is now required (effective October 1, 1998). While PIs are strongly encouraged to submit the reports via the FastLane system, NSF will not require electronic submission before October 1999. Paper copies of the report formats may be obtained from: NSF Clearinghouse, PO Box 218, Jessup, MD 20794-0218.

Quarterly and final expenditure information is provided by most grantee institutions through the Federal Cash Transactions Report (SF 272), normally submitted by the grantee's financial officer.

DUE Project Information Resource System

Awardees are asked to update information regarding their project through DUE's Project Information Resource System (PIRS), located at the Web site <http://www.ehr.nsf.gov/PIRstart/>. A primary purpose of PIRS is to provide information to the community. Project information can be provided by PIs at any time to reflect ongoing developments. The NSF Final Project Report is a separate reporting requirement that must be completed as indicated above; however, PIRS and NSF's FastLane Final Project Report process will be linked to reduce redundancy in reporting.

Change in Principal Investigator (PI)

If a PI or Co-PI leaves a project before its completion, the grantee institution must explain the circumstances and nominate a suitable replacement in a letter to the NSF Program Officer named in the grant letter. This letter should include the nominee's qualifications, biographical sketch including the nominee's Social Security number, and statement of the nominee's current and pending support (NSF Form 1239), and must be signed both by the nominee and by an Authorized Organizational Representative. The appointment of a new PI or Co-PI is not effective until approved by the NSF via an amendment to the grant.

No-Cost Extension

a. Notifications of Grantee-Authorized Extensions
Grantees may authorize a one-time extension of the expiration date of the grant of up to 12 months if additional time beyond the established expiration date is required to assure adequate completion of the original scope of work within the funds already made available. This one-time extension may not be exercised merely for the purpose of using unspent balances. The grantee shall notify NSF, providing reasons for the extension and the revised extension date, at least ten days prior to the expiration date specified in the grant to ensure accuracy of NSF's grant data. For grantee-authorized extensions, no amendment will be issued by NSF. DUE requires that grantee-authorized no-cost extension notifications be submitted via the FastLane system.

b. Requests for NSF-Approved Extensions
If additional time beyond the extension provided by the grantee is required and exceptional circumstances warrant, a formal request must be submitted to NSF for approval at least 45 days before the expiration date of the grant. DUE requires that requests for NSF-approved no-cost extensions be submitted via the FastLane system. The request must explain the need for the extension and include an estimate of the unobligated funds remaining and a plan for their use. As indicated above, that unobligated funds may remain at the expiration of the grant is not in itself sufficient justification for an extension. The plan must adhere to the previously approved objectives of the project.

Any NSF-approved no-cost extension will be issued by an NSF Grants Officer in the form of an amendment to the grant specifying a new expiration date. Grantees are cautioned not to make new commitments to incur new expenditures after the expiration date in anticipation of a no-cost extension.