The NSF Course, Curriculum, and Laboratory Improvement (CCLI) Program

1. The NSF Course, Curriculum, and Laboratory Improvement (CCLI) Program Jill Singer Program Director, Division of Undergraduate Education Directorate for Education & Human ResourcesNational Science Foundation Email: jksinger@nsf.gov UNCG Research Expo April 22, 2009 Elliott University Center

2. Applying what you learn during this workshop can make preparing your CCLI proposal easier

3. Outline of Topics • The CCLI Program • What’s new in 2009/2010 solicitation • Advice and Resources • What Happens to Your Proposal? • Questions

4. NSF web site (www.nsf.gov)

5. Division of Undergraduate Education

6. Course, Curriculum, and Laboratory Improvement (CCLI): Vision and Scope (1) Vision: Excellent STEM education for all undergraduate students Supports efforts that: Bring advances in STEM disciplinary knowledge into the curriculum Create or adapt learning materials and teaching strategies Develop faculty expertise Promote widespread implementation of educational innovations Prepare future K-12 teachers Enhance our understanding of how students learn STEM topics Enhance our understanding how faculty adopt instructional approaches Build capacity for assessment and evaluation Further the work of the program itself Note: The CCLI solicitation has changed – read NSF-09-529 carefully

7. Course, Curriculum, and Laboratory Improvement (CCLI): Vision and Scope (2) Program especially encourages projects that: • Have the potential to transform undergraduate STEM education • Produce widespread adoption of classroom practices based on how students learn • Explore cyberlearning

8. What is New for 2009/2010 • TYPES have replaced PHASES • Raised limit on proposal size • Explicit encouragement of projects with the potential to be transformative • New Central Resource project opportunity • Increased emphasis on building on knowledge of how student learn, building on prior work, and encouraging widespread adoption of excellent teaching methods.

9. Project Types: Scale, Scope, Stage, & Sustainability • Three levels of support – Type 1, 2, and 3 • Types are independent • Type 2 and 3 projects reflect greater dependence on previous work • Type 1 Projects: total budget up to $200,000 ($250K when 4-year colleges and universities collaborate with 2-year colleges) for 2 to 3 years • Type 2 Projects: total budget up to $600,000 for 2 to 4 years • Type 3 Projects: Budget negotiable, but not to exceed $5 million over 5 years • NEW! CCLI Central Resource Projects – budget negotiable, depending on the scope and scale of the activity, duration up to 5 years • Projects provide leadership and implementation of activities that sustain a community of practice engaged in transforming undergraduate STEM education

10. Important Project Components • Creating Learning Materials and Strategies • Instrumentation and equipment requests are appropriate but must be based on their impact on student learning • Implementing New Instructional Strategies • Program encourages projects that lead to widespread adoption of promising pedagogical techniques • Developing Faculty Expertise • From short-term workshops to sustained activities • Assessing and Evaluating Student Achievement • Conducting Research on Undergraduate STEM Education

11. Creating New Learning Materials and Teaching Strategies • Type 1 projects can focus on piloting new educational materials and instructional methodologies; Type 2 projects on larger-scale development, broad testing, and assessment. • Type 1 projects can focus on outcomes at a single site, but must include assessment and community engagement. • Can be combined with other components, especially faculty development in Type 2.

12. Implementing Educational Innovations • Type 1 projects generally • Projects must result in improved STEM education at local institution via implementing exemplary materials, laboratory experiences, or educational practices developed and tested at other institutions. • CCLI-Implementation projects should stand as models for broader adaptation in the community. • Proposals may request funds in any budget category supported by NSF, including instrumentation

13. Instrumentation and CCLI • Acquisition of instrumentation fits best under first two program components • A focus can be the integration of data collection and analysis into classroom and research experiences • Tip: Proposal should center around the impact of the project activities on student learning and not focus on the instrument and its capabilities • Tip: Budget can include salary for faculty members and students involved in the development of the project

14. Developing Faculty Expertise • Methods that enable faculty to gain expertise • May range from short-term workshops to sustained activities • Foster new communities of scientists in undergraduate education • Cost-effective professional development • Diverse group of faculty • Leading to implementation • May be combined with other components, especially materials development and assessment • Excellent opportunities exist for you to participate in regional and national workshops

15. Assessing Learning and Evaluating Innovations • Design and test new assessment and evaluation tools and processes. • Apply new and existing tools to conduct broad-based assessments • Must span multiple projects and be of general interest

16. Conducting Research on STEM Teaching and Learning • Develop new research on teaching and learning • Synthesize previous results and theories • Practical focus • Testable new ideas • Impact on STEM educational practices. • May be combined with other components

17. Ways CCLI Can Support UGR Activities • Acquisition of research quality equipment and its integration into undergraduate courses. • Labs can be constructed that integrate advanced equipment, prepare students for research, and draw on faculty research expertise. • Incorporation of inquiry-based projects into laboratory courses. • Partnerships with local research and informal education institutions. • Service learning can provide relevant problems while addressing the needs of the local community.

18. Human Subjects and the IRB(Institutional Review Board) • Projects collecting data from or on students or faculty members are considered to involve human subjects and require IRB review • Proposal should indicate IRB status on cover • Exempt, Approved, Pending • Grants will require official statement from IRB declaring the research exempt or approved • Not the PI • See “Human Subjects” section in GPG • NOTE:For CCLI, IRB approval usually is obtained during award negotiations

19. Important Features of Successful CCLI Projects • Quality, Relevance, and Impact • Student Focus • Use of and Contribution to the STEM Education Knowledge Base • STEM Education Community-Building • Expected Measurable Outcomes • Project Evaluation

20. Quality, Relevance and Impact • Innovative • State-of-the-art products, processes, and ideas • Latest technology in laboratories and classrooms • Have broad implication for STEM education • Even projects that involve a local implementation • Advance knowledge and understanding • Within the discipline • Within STEM education in general

21. Student Focus • Focus on student learning • Project activities linked to STEM learning • Consistent with the nature of today’s students • Reflect the students’ perspective • Student input in design of the project

22. STEM Education Knowledge Base • Reflect high quality science, technology, engineering, and mathematics • Rationale and methods derived from the existing STEM education knowledge base • Effective approach for adding the results to knowledge base

23. Community-Building • Include interactions with • Investigators working on similar or related approaches in PI’s descipline and others • Experts in evaluation, educational psychology or other similar fields • Benefit from the knowledge and experience of others • Engage experts in the development and evaluation of the educational innovation

24. Expected Measurable Outcomes • Goals and objectives translated into expected measurable outcomes • Project specific • Some expected measurable outcomes on • Student learning • Contributions to the knowledge base • Community building • Used to monitor progress, guide the project, and evaluate its ultimate impact

25. Project Evaluation • Include strategies for • Monitoring the project as it evolves • Evaluating the project’s effectiveness when completed • Based on the project-specific expected measurable outcomes • Appropriate for scope of the project

26. Lessons From Prior Rounds of the Program • Type 1 is an open competition – many new players; • Type 2 requires substantial demonstrated preliminary work; • Type 3 is for projects from an experienced team with a national scale.

27. Write CCLI Proposal to Answer Reviewers’ Questions } Goals etc. }Rationale }Evaluation }Dissemination What are you trying to accomplish? What will be the outcomes? Why do you believe you have a good idea? Why is the problem important? Why is your approach promising? How will you manage the project to ensure success? How will you know if you succeed? How will others find out about your work? How will you interest them?

28. Program Director’s Notes (1) • Read the program solicitation • Determine how your ideasmatch the solicitation and how you can improve the match • Articulate goals, objectives, & outcomes • Outcomes should include improved student learning • Build on existing knowledge base • Review the literature • Present evidence that the proposed project is doable; will enhance learning; is the best approach • Explore potential collaborations (industry, business, academic) • Use data to document existing shortcomings in student learning

29. Program Director’s Notes (2) • Describe management plan • Provide tasks,team responsibilities, timeline • Provide clear examples of the approach • Integrate the evaluation effort early • Build assessment tools around defined objectives and expected outcomes • Connect with independent evaluation experts • Identify strategies for dissemination • Define a plan to contribute to knowledge base • Address broader impacts • Collaborate, form partnerships (build community)

30. Program Director’s Notes (3) • What does the knowledge base say about the approach? • What have others done that is related • What have been the problems/challenges • Why is this problem important? • Is it a global or local problem • What are potential broader impacts • How will it improve quality of learning • What is the evidence that the approach will solve the problem? • Address and achieve the defined outcomes and student learning • What are alternative approaches?

31. Funding and Deadlines • Expect to fund, all disciplines • 130 Type 1 projects • 45 Type 2 projects • 4-6 Type 3 projects • 1-3 Central Resource projects (CRP) • Proposal Deadlines • Type 1: May 21-22 2009 • Type 2 and 3, and CRP: January 13, 2010 • Focused CRP workshops by agreement

32. What’s ‘hot’ in the Geosciences? • Bringing new research findings into the classroom • Understanding how our students learn geoscience concepts • Visualization software and improving our students’ ability to visualize data in 3D • Research equipment for undergraduates (e.g., Lidar) • Topics of special interest: climate change, sustainability, energy • Interdisciplinary projects that combine geosciences with other STEM disciplines • To find out what is ‘hot’ in your particular STEM discipline, contact a program officer (solicitation provides names and emails for program officers working in the various STEM disciplines)

33. Resources for Models and Examples • Disciplinary Education Journals • Journal of Geoscience Education • SERC – the Science Education Resource Center a Carleton College (http://serc.carleton.edu) • CUR “Quarterly” • Faculty Development Workshops – “Cutting Edge” • NSF Award Search • http://nsf.gov/awardsearch/ • Search by program, key word(s) • Programs often includes link to recent awards (abstracts)

34. Merit Review Criteria • 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 to conduct the project? • How well conceived and organized is the proposed activity? • Is there sufficient access to resources?

35. Merit Review Criteria • Broader impacts of the proposed activity • How well does the proposed activity advance discovery and understanding while promoting teaching, training, and learning? • How well does the proposed activity broaden the participation of underrepresented groups? • To what extent will it enhance the infrastructure for research and education? • Will the results be disseminated broadly to enhance scientific and technological understanding • What may be the benefits of the proposed activity to society?

36. Writing a Proposal: Preparing to Write • Start EARLY • Outline what you want to do • Review the literature and descriptions of funded projects. Know what is being done in your field and how your project is similar/different • Use NSF Awards Search (http://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/) • Read program solicitations to find the program that best meets your needs • If you still need clarification, contact (e-mail is best) the appropriate program officer to discuss your idea. • This may cause you to refine your idea and may prevent you from applying to the wrong program • Give yourself and your grants’ office enough time to complete the process and submit the proposal

37. Writing a Proposal: Writing • Organize the proposal - use proposal guidelines • Make it easy for reviewers to find key items in your proposal by using such aids as bullets and an outline format • Be sure you clearly describe what you want to do and how you will do it as well as the problem you want to solve (goals and objectives) • For programs such as CCLI, describe how you will follow the progress of your project, determine whether it is successful and how you will disseminate the results • Consider the research potential of the project. Could the results add to the knowledge we have about what works and why in STEM education? If appropriate, relate your efforts to current research about what works and why. • Be sure the budget and budget explanation ‘match’ and that the budget reflects the size of the project team and the level of commitment for each member of the project team. Instrumentation, participant support, and/or travel requests should be clearly explained and justified.

38. Some Common Reasons for Proposal Decline • Lack of evidence the PI is aware of the relevant literature and is building upon it • Diffuse, superficial and unfocused plan • Lack of sufficient detail • Apparent lack of the requisite expertise or experience by the proposers • Lack of a clear plan to document and evaluate activities and outcomes and to disseminate the results • Evaluation plans that are mainly surveys to determine user satisfaction with no clear mechanism for documenting changes in student learning, faculty approaches to presenting material, and/or approach to education (at the disciplinary, department or institutional level) • Proposals that do not explicitly address both Intellectual Merit and Broader Impact and exceed the page limit are returned without review

39. Formatting, Fastlane, and Grants.gov • NSF proposal format requirements • 15 single-spaced pages • Check type fonts required • Intellectual Merit & Broader Impact explicit in Project Summary • Fastlane submission • Web-based software – access from any browser • Mature, well-supported system for NSF • Accepts many file types, converts to .pdf • Grants.gov • Stand-alone software downloaded to local computer • May eventually be used for any Federal agency • Still under development and does not support all NSF processes (for example, collaborative proposals) • Accepts only .pdf files • Delayed error messages

40. What Happens to your Proposal? • Submission of proposal via FastLane • Proposals are reviewed by mail and/or panels of faculty within the discipline(s) [Note: DUE primarily uses panels] • A minimum of three persons outside NSF review each proposal • For proposals reviewed by a panel, individual reviews and a panel summary are prepared for each proposal • NSF program staff member attends the panel discussion • The Program Officer assigned to manage the proposal’s review considers the advice of reviewers and formulates a recommendation • Negotiations may be necessary to address reviewers’ comments, budget issues, and other concerns

41. What Happens to Your Proposal(2) • NSF is striving to be able to tell applicants whether their proposals have been declined or recommended for funding within six months. • Verbatim copies of reviews, not including the identity of the reviewer, is provided to the PI. • Proposals recommended for funding are forwarded to the Division of Grants and Agreements for review. • Only Grants and Agreements Officers may make awards. • Notification of the award is made to the submitting organization by a DGA Officer.

42. How to Really Learn about Programs and Process • Become a reviewer for the proposals submitted to the program • Give us a business card • Send e-mail to the lead or disciplinary program officer • Your name will be added to the database of potential reviewers • We want to use many new reviewers each year, especially for Type 1