The Course, Curriculum, and Laboratory
Improvement Program: Opportunities
for Transforming Undergraduate
Education in STEM
(and Some Proposal Writing Tips)
Jill Singer
Division of Undergraduate Education
Directorate for Education & Human Resources
National Science Foundation
Email: jksinger@nsf.gov
Sustainability Grant Writing Workshop
CSU Chancellor’s Office
January 29, 2009
1
Directorate for Education and
Human Resources (EHR)
2
Course, Curriculum, and Laboratory
Improvement (CCLI)
Vision of the CCLI Program: Excellent STEM
education for all undergraduate students
 Supports projects at all levels of undergraduate
education
 Supports activities in the classroom, laboratory, and
field settings
NEW SOLICITATION: NSF09-529 (replaces
NSF08-546)
Full proposal deadline: May 21, 2009 – For Type 1
proposals from submitting organizations located in
states or territories beginning with A through M (May
22, 2009 – N through W)
3
Important CCLI 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
4
Important CCLI Project Features
 Quality, Relevance, and Impact
 Student Focus
 Use of and Contribution to Knowledge about




STEM Education
STEM Education Community-Building
Sustainability
Expected Measurable Outcomes
Project Evaluation
5
Project Types: Scale, Scope, Stage, &
 Three levels of support
– Type 1, 2, and 3
Sustainability
 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 STEM6
education
Program Director’s Notes (1)
 Read the program solicitation
 Determine how your ideas match 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
7
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)
8
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?
9
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.
10
Writing the Proposal: Steps to Success
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
11
NSF Awards Search:
http://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/
12
Writing the Proposal: Steps to Success
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.
13
One of the ways to confuse the reviewers…
14
Fatal Flaws
Fatal Flaw #1
“My ideas are so great I’m certain NSF won’t care whether they fit the
program guideline.”



Read the solicitation completely and carefully
Write proposal and address each area outlined in the solicitation
Check each program solicitation carefully for: Additional Criteria (for example)
Fatal Flaw #2
“Trust us, we know what we’re doing.”





Formulate your idea(s); clearly state what you want to do
Identify the audience(s) you want to work with
Identify specific tasks and a timeline for completing activities
Give background information; cite literature-demonstrate that you are aware of similar
efforts/prior work
Address broader impacts; if diversity is one of your goals, how will you recruit and support
students?
Fatal Flaw #3
“I’m sure they don’t actually count the pages. No one will notice I’m
over the page limit. Maybe I should just use a smaller font.”


Follow page and font-size limits
Consult the program solicitation and the GPG (Grant Proposal Guide)
15
Fatal Flaws
Fatal Flaw #4
“NSF should know what I’ve done in the past without my having to
tell them. After all, they paid for it.”
 Provide results from prior funding
 Include a dissemination plan in your current proposal
Fatal Flaw #5
“Evaluation will be ongoing and consist of a variety of methods.”
 Plan for formative and summative evaluation
 Include evaluation plan with timelines and benchmarks
Fatal Flaw #6
“I’ll inflate my budget because NSF always ends up cutting it
anyways”
 Budget should directly reflect workplan
 Provide biographical sketches for all key personnel.
16
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
17
What Happens to your Proposal?
 Submission of proposal via FastLane
 Proposals are reviewed by mail and/or panels of faculty
within the discipline(s)
 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
18
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.
19
Information and Inquiries
 Email
 Phone
 Fax
undergrad@nsf.gov
703-292-8670
703-292-9015
 DUE Web Site
http://www.nsf.gov/div/index.jsp?div=DUE
 Jill Singer – office: 703-292-5323
 jksinger@nsf.gov
20