Title: Course, Curriculum, and Laboratory Improvement   (CCLI)
Date: 01/15/09
Replaced: NSF 08-546




Course, Curriculum, and Laboratory Improvement   (CCLI) -- Transforming
Undergraduate Education in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics

Program Solicitation
NSF 09-529

Replaces Document(s):
NSF 08-546



[NSF Logo]  National Science Foundation

            Directorate for Education & Human Resources
                 Division of Undergraduate Education



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

     May 21, 2009

          For Type 1 proposals from submitting organizations located
          in states or territories beginning with A through M.

     May 22, 2009

          For Type 1 proposals from submitting organizations located
          in states or territories beginning with N through W.

     January 13, 2010

          For Type 2 and 3 proposals and for CCLI Central Resource
          Project proposals. However, CCLI Central Resource Project
          proposals for small focused workshops may be submitted at
          any time after consulting with a program officer.

REVISION NOTES

A revised version of the NSF Proposal & Award Policies & Procedures Guide
(PAPPG), NSF 09-1, was issued on October 1, 2008 and is effective for
proposals submitted on or after January 5, 2009.  Please be advised that the
guidelines contained in NSF 09-1 apply to proposals submitted in response to
this funding opportunity.

One of the most significant changes to the PAPPG is implementation of the
mentoring provisions of the America COMPETES Act.  Each proposal that requests
funding to support postdoctoral researchers must include, as a separate
section within the 15-page project description, a description of the mentoring
activities that will be provided for such individuals.  Proposals that do not
include a separate section on mentoring activities within the Project
Description will be returned without review (see the PAPP Guide Part I: Grant
Proposal Guide Chapter II.C.2.d for further information).

The following items are major revisions to the previous program solicitation:

The Introduction and the Description of Project Components have been revised
to reflect the Program's increased emphasis on projects that build on
the current understanding of how people learn and to encourage submission of
proposals that have the potential to transform undergraduate STEM education.

The description of the project types has been revised.  Phase 1, 2, and 3
projects are now designated as Type 1, 2, and 3 and the budget limits and
project durations have been changed.  A fourth project type, the CCLI Central
Resource Project, has been added.

SUMMARY OF PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS

General Information

Program Title:

     Course, Curriculum, and Laboratory Improvement  (CCLI)
     Transforming the Undergraduate Experience of Science, Technology,
     Engineering and Mathematics

Synopsis of Program:

     The Course, Curriculum, and Laboratory Improvement (CCLI) program
     seeks to improve the quality of science, technology, engineering,
     and mathematics (STEM) education for all undergraduate students. It
     especially welcomes proposals that have the potential to transform
     undergraduate education in science, technology, engineering, and
     mathematics (STEM) for all students. The program supports efforts to
     create, adapt, and disseminate new learning materials and teaching
     strategies to reflect advances both in STEM disciplines and in what
     is known about teaching and learning.  It funds projects that
     develop faculty expertise, implement educational innovations, assess
     learning and evaluate innovations, prepare K-12 teachers, or conduct
     research on STEM teaching and learning. It also supports projects
     that further the work of the program itself, for example, synthesis
     and dissemination of findings across the program. The program
     supports projects representing different stages of development,
     ranging from small, exploratory investigations to large,
     comprehensive projects.

Cognizant Program Officer(s):

   * Russell Pimmel, Lead Program Director, telephone: (703) 292-4618, email:
     rpimmel@nsf.gov

   * Myles Boylan, Lead Program Director, telephone: (703) 292-4617, email:
     mboylan@nsf.gov

   * Terry Woodin, Lead Program Director, telephone: (703) 292-4657, email:
     twoodin@nsf.gov

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

   * 47.076 --- Education and Human Resources

Award Information

Anticipated Type of Award:  Standard Grant or Continuing Grant or Cooperative
Agreement

Estimated Number of Awards:    94 to  108   including 70 to 75 Type 1 awards,
20 to 25 Type 2 awards, 3 to 5 Type 3 awards and 1 to 3 CCLI Central Resource
Project awards

Anticipated Funding Amount:   $35,800,000  in FY 2010 for new and ongoing
awards, pending availability of funding.

Eligibility Information

Organization Limit:

     None Specified

PI Limit:

     None Specified

Limit on Number of Proposals per Organization:

     None Specified

Limit on Number of Proposals per PI:

     None Specified

Proposal Preparation and Submission Instructions

A. Proposal Preparation Instructions

   * Letters of Intent: Not Applicable

   * Preliminary Proposal Submission: Not Applicable

   * Full Proposals:

        * Full Proposals submitted via FastLane: NSF Proposal and Award
          Policies and Procedures Guide, Part I: Grant Proposal Guide (GPG)
          Guidelines apply. The complete text of the GPG is available
          electronically on the NSF website at:
          http://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=gpg.

        * Full Proposals submitted via Grants.gov: NSF Grants.gov Application
          Guide: A Guide for the Preparation and Submission of NSF
          Applications via Grants.gov Guidelines apply (Note: The NSF
          Grants.gov Application Guide is available on the Grants.gov website
          and on the NSF website at:
          http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/policydocs/grantsgovguide607.pdf)

B. Budgetary Information

   * Cost Sharing Requirements: Cost Sharing is not required under this
     solicitation.

   * 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(s) (due by 5 p.m. proposer's local time):

          May 21, 2009

               For Type 1 proposals from submitting organizations located in
               states or territories beginning with A through M.

          May 22, 2009

               For Type 1 proposals from submitting organizations located in
               states or territories beginning with N through W.

          January 13, 2010

               For Type 2 and 3 proposals and for CCLI Central Resource
               Project proposals. However, CCLI Central Resource Project
               proposals for small focused workshops may be submitted at any
               time after consulting with a program officer.

Proposal Review Information Criteria

Merit Review Criteria:   National Science Board approved criteria. Additional
merit review considerations apply. Please see the full text of this
solicitation for further information.

Award Administration Information

Award Conditions:   Standard NSF award conditions apply.

Reporting Requirements:   Additional reporting requirements apply. Please see
the full text of this solicitation for further information.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

     Summary of Program Requirements

  I. Introduction

 II. Program Description

III. Award Information

 IV. Eligibility Information

  V. Proposal Preparation and Submission Instructions
       A. Proposal Preparation Instructions
       B. Budgetary Information
       C. Due Dates
       D. FastLane/Grants.gov Requirements

 VI. NSF Proposal Processing and Review Procedures
       A. NSF Merit Review Criteria
       B. Review and Selection Process

VII. Award Administration Information
       A. Notification of the Award
       B. Award Conditions
       C. Reporting Requirements

VIII.Agency Contacts

 IX. Other Information

I. INTRODUCTION

The vision of the CCLI program is excellent STEM education for all
undergraduate students. To achieve this vision, the program supports efforts
that bring advances in STEM disciplinary knowledge into the undergraduate
experience. It also supports the creation and adaptation of learning materials
and teaching strategies that embody what we know about how students learn. It
encourages projects that develop faculty expertise, promote widespread
implementation of educational innovations, and prepare future K-12 teachers.
The program supports projects that enhance our understanding of how students
learn STEM topics and how faculty adopt instructional approaches. It invites
projects that build capacity to assess learning and evaluate educational
innovations. It also supports projects that further the work of the program
itself, for example, synthesis and dissemination of findings across the
program. This solicitation especially encourages projects that have the
potential to transform the conduct of undergraduate STEM education, for
example, by bringing about widespread adoption of classroom practices that
embody understanding of how students learn most effectively. Projects that
explore cyberlearning, specifically learning with cyberinfrastructure tools
such as networked computing and communications technologies, are of special
interest. The program supports projects at all scales and stages of
development, ranging from small, exploratory investigations to large,
comprehensive projects as described in Section II-C.

The goals of this program reflect national concerns about producing skilled
STEM professionals (including K-12 teachers) and citizens knowledgeable about
STEM and how it relates to their lives. The program seeks to build on the
community of faculty committed to improving undergraduate STEM education. A
representative list of resources that describe effective teaching practices,
literature about learning, and information about ongoing projects are listed
in Section II-D.

II. PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

  A. PROJECT COMPONENTS

     All proposals must contribute to the development of exemplary
     undergraduate STEM education. Typically projects include one or more
     of the components described below and they build on prior knowledge,
     both in the STEM fields and in undergraduate education. In addition,
     CCLI welcomes proposals describing untested, forward-looking, and
     unconventional activities that could have a high impact and
     contribute to transforming undergraduate STEM education. Prospective
     principal investigators for this kind of project should discuss
     their ideas with a CCLI Program Officer in advance of proposal
     submission to help gauge the appropriate scope and scale of the
     proposal.

     Creating Learning Materials and Strategies: Projects developing new
     learning materials and strategies for improving courses, curriculum,
     and laboratories should be guided by research on teaching and
     learning and should incorporate and be inspired by advances within
     the disciplines. Instrumentation and equipment requests are
     appropriate but must be based on their impact on student learning.
     Early stage projects typically carry the development of materials,
     and assessment of learning, to the stage where judgments can be made
     about whether further investment in the new materials or approaches
     is justified. Later stage projects should yield evaluation results
     sufficiently conclusive and descriptive so that successful products
     and processes can be adopted, distributed widely or, when
     appropriate, commercialized.

     Implementing New Instructional Strategies: To ensure their broad
     based adoption, successful instructional strategies should be widely
     practiced. Therefore, CCLI welcomes proposals to change
     undergraduate STEM courses, curricula and laboratories by
     implementing strategies to reflect proven or promising pedagogical
     techniques in ways that encourage widespread adoption. These
     strategies may come from previous CCLI projects or from other
     sources in the STEM community. Instrumentation and equipment
     requests are appropriate in implementation projects, based on their
     impact on student learning, and provided a convincing case is made
     that the planned acquisition contributes to understanding how to
     achieve widespread adoption of the approach they support.
     Implementation projects should contribute to the communitys
     understanding about how new strategies are transferred to diverse
     settings and about how they impact student learning. Evaluation
     plans for implementation projects should explore the challenges and
     opportunities for adapting new strategies in diverse educational
     settings. Projects that specifically address the challenges to
     achieving widespread adoption of proven practice are especially
     welcome.

     Developing Faculty Expertise: Using new learning materials and
     teaching strategies often requires faculty to acquire new knowledge
     and skills in order to revise their curricula and teaching
     practices. Projects focused on developing faculty expertise can
     range from short-term workshops to sustained activities. They should
     include evaluation efforts to describe the impact on the faculty
     participants, and in large, later stage projects, on student
     learning in classes taught by these faculty. Projects should provide
     professional development for a diverse group of faculty so that new
     materials and teaching strategies can be widely implemented.

     Assessing and Evaluating Student Achievement: Proposals for
     designing processes and instruments to measure the effectiveness of
     new materials and instructional methods are responsive to this
     solicitation. Some projects may develop and disseminate valid and
     reliable tests of STEM knowledge; other projects may collect,
     synthesize, and interpret information about student understanding,
     reasoning, practical skills, interests, attitudes or other valued
     outcomes. Projects that apply new and existing processes and
     instruments to conduct broad-based evaluations of educational
     programs or practices are appropriate if they span multiple
     institutions and are of general interest. In discussing these
     aspects of curricular change, projects should carefully document
     institutional demographics and characteristics. Projects using
     established instruments and strategies and likely to have only a
     local impact are discouraged.

     Conducting Research on Undergraduate STEM Education: Results from
     assessments of learning and teaching as well as from projects
     emphasizing other programmatic components provide a foundation for
     developing new and revised models of how undergraduate STEM students
     learn. Research to explore how effective teaching strategies and
     curricula enhance learning and attitudes, how widespread practices
     have diffused through the community, and how faculty and programs
     implement changes in their curriculum are appropriate. Research
     results should provide a foundation for creating learning materials,
     teaching strategies, faculty development approaches, and evaluation
     methodologies that have the potential for a direct impact on STEM
     educational practices.

  B. IMPORTANT PROJECT FEATURES

     Although projects may vary considerably in the approaches they take,
     the number of academic institutions involved, the number of faculty
     and students that participate, and in their stage of development,
     all promising projects share certain characteristics.

     Quality, Relevance, and Impact: Projects should address a recognized
     need or opportunity, clearly indicate how they will meet this need,
     and be innovative in their production and use of new materials,
     processes, and ideas, or in their implementation of tested ones.

     Student Focus: Projects should have a clear relation to student
     learning, with definite links between project activities and
     improvements in STEM learning. Moreover, they should involve
     approaches that are consistent with the nature of todays students,
     reflect the students perspective and, when appropriate, solicit
     student input in the design of the project.

     Use of and Contribution to Knowledge about STEM Education: Projects
     should reflect high quality science, technology, engineering, and
     mathematics. They should have a clear and compelling rationale, use
     methods derived from existing knowledge concerning undergraduate
     STEM education, and build on existing projects of a similar nature.
     They also should have an effective approach for adding to this
     knowledge by disseminating their results.

     STEM Education Community-Building: Investigators should expect to
     interact with others in the STEM education community, to enable
     sharing of knowledge and experience in developing and evaluating
     STEM educational innovation. These interactions may range from
     informal contacts with a few colleagues to the establishment of a
     formal body of scholars. Collaborating networks may involve
     investigators working on similar or related approaches in the
     proposer's discipline or in other STEM disciplines and may also
     include experts in evaluation, educational psychology or other
     related fields. Central Resource Projects will have significant
     responsibility for facilitating the development of this community.

     Sustainability: The purpose of the CCLI program is to bring about
     lasting improvement in undergraduate STEM education. Proposals
     should address sustainability and should demonstrate that there is a
     reasonable expectation of persistent effects of the grant funded
     work consistent with the aims of the project.

     Expected Measurable Outcomes: Projects should have goals that have
     been translated into a set of expected measurable outcomes that can
     be monitored using quantitative or qualitative approaches or both.
     These outcomes should be used to track progress, guide the project,
     and evaluate its impact. Expected measurable outcomes should pay
     particular attention to student learning, contributions to our
     understanding of STEM learning, and community building.

     Project Evaluation: All projects, regardless of the scope or main
     program component they address, should have an evaluation plan that
     includes both a strategy for monitoring the project as it evolves to
     provide feedback to guide these efforts (formative evaluation) and a
     strategy for evaluating the effectiveness of the project in
     achieving its goals and for identifying positive and negative
     findings when the project is completed (summative evaluation). The
     complexity of the evaluation will depend on the project, and these
     efforts should be led by knowledgeable individuals who look
     objectively at the project's progress and outcomes.

  C. PROJECT TYPES: SCALE, SCOPE, STAGE, AND SUSTAINABILITY

     The program is accepting proposals under this solicitation for
     awards at three levels of support, designated Type 1, Type 2, and
     Type 3, as well as for awards for projects that support the work of
     the program itself. The types reflect a combination of the scale,
     scope, and stage of the proposed work. The scale of the work refers
     to the number of institutions, faculty, and students with whom the
     work engages. Scope refers to the range of project components
     involved. Stage refers to the place of the work along a continuum
     from early conceptual development through deployment of mature,
     well-tested approaches. Type 2 and 3 projects will typically reflect
     greater dependence on previous work, supported by the CCLI program
     or by other sources, and may be at a more mature stage of
     development than Type 1 projects. However, the Types are
     independent, and the choice should be made based on the resources
     required to achieve the desired outcomes. In every case there should
     be the potential for lasting improvement in the quality of
     instruction.

     The descriptions of the types below, and the examples that follow,
     are intended as guidelines, not prescriptions. Projects that seek to
     operate at the higher budgetary scales will be held to a high
     standard of potential for having an impact at large scale.
     Similarly, projects at any scale that are based on already
     demonstrated approaches will be held to a high standard with respect
     to sustainability, that is, their potential to bring about lasting
     change.

     Type 1 Projects: Total budget up to $200,000 ($250,000 when
     four-year colleges and universities collaborate with two-year
     colleges) for 2 to 3 years.

     Results from Type 1 projects are expected to be significant enough
     to contribute to understanding undergraduate STEM education.
     Proposed evaluation efforts should be informative with respect to
     student learning or engagement, based on the project's specific
     expected outcomes, and consistent with budget limitations and the
     scope of a Type 1 project. In order to encourage collaboration
     between four-year colleges and universities and two-year colleges,
     projects involving such collaboration may request a total of
     $250,000. In such partnerships, the distribution of effort and funds
     between the four-year institution and the community college should
     reflect a genuine collaboration.

     Examples of Type 1 Projects (suggest the scope of a Type 1 project
     as well as possible topics)

        * A project that develops materials that use a new instructional
          approach based on the current understanding of how students
          learn, or introduces content from current research into an
          existing course.
        * A project that integrates new instrumentation or equipment into
          undergraduate laboratories or field work in a way that
          demonstrably improves student learning.
        * A collaborative project between faculty from two-year and
          four-year schools that develops a model to provide the needed
          courses for a seamless transfer in an efficient way.
        * A pilot project that explores the practical aspects of using
          remote laboratories or instruction among several institutions.
        * A pilot project that integrates current science and pedagogy
          into the teacher preparation curriculum.
        * A pilot study to explore Internet-based approaches for faculty
          professional development.
        * A project that develops an instrument to assess students
          knowledge in a particular area, their abilities with certain
          processes, or their attitude about some aspect of STEM.
        * A pilot study to begin understanding how various factors affect
          how students learn particular content or skills.

     Type 2 Projects: Total budget up to $600,000 for 2 to 4 years.

     Type 2 projects will typically address more than one program
     component, or, if they focus on a single component, will address it
     at a scale that goes well beyond a single institution. Projects that
     involve a single institution need to be working toward systemic
     change across the STEM disciplines. Projects that continue from
     previous work should include an explicit discussion of the results
     and impact produced by that work. Type 2 projects should carry the
     development to a state in which the evaluations of the projects have
     evidence to support the claim that the projects efforts are
     effective. In turn the evaluation results can inform further use,
     such as in distributing the project widely or seeking
     commercialization. At a minimum, the implementation, if successful,
     should be institutionalized at the participating colleges and
     universities.

     Examples of Type 2 Projects

        * A project that develops material for a sequence of courses that
          vertically integrates a conceptual or pedagogical approach at
          several institutions.
        * A project involving several diverse partnerships between
          community colleges and four-year schools to develop robust
          models for providing community college courses needed for a
          true two-plus-two transfer program.
        * A project that uses faculty professional development as a part
          of a widespread betatesting effort with faculty in several
          diverse institutions in order to disseminate proven, innovative
          instructional material or approaches.
        * A project that converts an effective, in-person faculty
          professional development approach to an Internet-based or
          blended approach in order to improve accessibility and
          sustainability.
        * A project involving several diverse institutions that uses an
          existing instrument to assess students knowledge in a
          particular area or their abilities with certain processes.
        * A study involving several diverse institutions to identify what
          factors and characteristics effect how faculty members and
          departments adopt innovative approaches.

     Type 3 Projects: Budget negotiable, but not to exceed $5,000,000
     over 5 years.

     Type 3 projects are intended to support large scale efforts.
     Projects that continue from previous work should include an explicit
     discussion of the results and impact produced by that work.
     Proposals for projects that are designed to break new ground at a
     large scale should discuss evidence that supports the validity of
     the approach, and must reflect current understanding of how students
     learn. Type 3 proposals should include a description of evaluation
     activities that are focused on impact on student learning in a broad
     spectrum of the population served by the project. Evaluation plans
     for Type 3 projects should include efforts to describe the impact of
     the work on the prevailing models of undergraduate STEM education
     and to include strategies that assist in the implementation of the
     project's activities in new contexts.

     Examples of Type 3 Projects

        * A project that involves a regional or national effort to
          disseminate proven materials or pedagogies.
        * A project that develops a self-sustaining model for faculty
          professional development that introduces new faculty to a field
          or provides retraining for experienced faculty.
        * A national or regional level project involving a wide range of
          diverse institutions that uses an existing assessment
          instrument to develop a database on students knowledge in a
          particular area or their abilities with certain processes.
        * A study involving a broad range of diverse institutions that
          explores how various factors affect how students learn
          particular content or skills.
        * A study involving a broad range of diverse institutions that
          systematically compares the efficacy and efficiency of several
          instructional methodologies such as hands-on, remote, and
          virtual laboratories.

     CCLI Central Resource Projects: Budget negotiable, depending on the
     scope and scale of the activity.

     CCLI Central Resource projects assume responsibility for leadership
     and implementation of activities that sustain a community of
     practice engaged in transforming undergraduate STEM education. CCLI
     Central Resource projects will work to increase the capabilities of
     and communications among the STEM education community and to
     increase and document the impact of CCLI projects. Since CCLI
     Central Resource projects will work with the CCLI program in order
     to accomplish these goals, they may be supported either as
     cooperative agreements or as grant awards. The duration of awards
     will be up to five years. Annual budgets will depend on the scope
     and scale of the work proposed. CCLI Central Resource projects that
     work across the disciplines, and at a national scale, are
     encouraged. Activities will typically be focused particularly on
     CCLI grantees, but possibly more broadly as well, especially in
     efforts to include other broad communities of NSF grantees.

     Examples of Central Resource Projects

        * Projects that organize and implement meetings of the Principal
          Investigators, including large scale meetings of all grantees
          or smaller meetings of interest groups within the program. This
          activity should include publication of findings from meetings.
        * Projects that conduct targeted research or evaluation studies
          in undergraduate STEM education addressed by CCLI projects, the
          impact of CCLI supported activities or a subset of awards, or
          its predecessor programs. Proposals should state questions to
          be addressed, describe study design and methodology, and draw
          on relevant literature.
        * Projects that develop an approach for describing or
          characterizing the portfolio of CCLI and its predecessor
          programs. Proposals should describe strategies for organizing
          the characterization, for collecting the information, and for
          reporting and presenting the results. Proposals applying new
          techniques for presenting large data sets (quantitative and
          qualitative) are encouraged.
        * Projects that provide leadership and implementation in seeing
          to it that development of the CCLI community of practice is
          supported by current cyber tools for communication and
          collection of resources. Systems should integrate with the
          National STEM Distributed Learning (NSDL) resources as
          described in section V-A. A project devoted to this goal may
          utilize NSDL resources by establishing effective interchanges
          between CCLI awardees and the existing NSDL pathways projects,
          or it may establish a separate entity with connection to the
          NSDL resources.
        * Projects that provide workshops that increase potential and
          current PIs understanding of various topics such as conducting
          project evaluations, broadening participation, utilizing
          cyberinfrastructure, and incorporating engaging pedagogies.

  D. SOME RESOURCES FOR PROPOSAL PREPARATION AND PROJECT DESIGN

     NSF Resources

        * NSF's Quick Search tool allows you to perform full-text
          searches on the award records, including abstracts, in NSF's
          database.
          http://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/index.jsp
        * NSF's Fielded Search tool allows you to restrict your search
          criteria to specific fields in the database, and to use date
          and numeric ranges. To restrict your search to programs in a
          specific division: In the "NSF Organization" field, select that
          division. To restrict your search to a particular program: In
          the "NSF Program" fields, select Contains from the drop-down
          list and enter the appropriate four-digit code for the program.
          http://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/tab.do?dispatch=4
        * NSF 98-91: A Guide for Proposal Writing, a booklet prepared by
          staff in DUE http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/1998/nsf9891/nsf9891.pdf
        * NSF Grant Proposal Guide, detailed guidance for preparing and
          submitting a proposal to NSF
          http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/policydocs/pappguide/nsf08_1/gpg081print.pdf
        * Human Subjects: http://www.nsf.gov/bfa/dias/policy/hsfaqs.jsp

     Resources for Project Evaluation

        * NSF 02-057: The 2002 User-Friendly Handbook for Project
          Evaluation, a basic guide to quantitative and qualitative
          evaluation methods for educational projects
          http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2002/nsf02057/start.htm
        * NSF 97-153: User-Friendly Handbook for Mixed Method
          Evaluations, a monograph initiated to provide more information
          on qualitative [evaluation] techniques and  how they can be
          combined effectively with quantitative measures
          http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/1997/nsf97153/start.htm
        * Online Evaluation Resource Library (OERL) for NSFs Directorate
          for Education and Human Resources, a collection of evaluation
          plans, instruments, reports, glossaries of evaluation
          terminology, and best practices, with guidance for adapting and
          implementing evaluation resources
          http://oerl.sri.com/home.html
        * Field-Tested Learning Assessment Guide (FLAG): This website is
          designed for Science, Math, Engineering, and Technology
          Instructors who are interested in new approaches to evaluating
          student learning, attitudes, and performance. It has a primer
          on assessment and evaluation, classroom assessment techniques,
          discipline-specific tools, and resources - all in a searchable,
          downloadable data base, http://www.flaguide.org/
        * Student Assessment of Learning Gains (SALG): An on-line survey
          that measures student perceptions of their learning gains due
          to any components within a course. Faculty can modify a
          template to match any and all features of their courses, have
          their students take the survey on-line, and have the data
          returned to them as either raw data or with simple statistical
          analysis, http://www.salgsite.org/

     Pertinent Workshops, Studies and Reports on Undergraduate Education

        * Recommendations for Action in Support of Undergraduate Science,
          Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics and Recommendations
          for Urgent Action Project Kaleidoscope 2002, 2006 reports
          calling for collective action to share ideas and materials so
          that projects build on, connect to, and enhance the work of
          others.
          http://www.pkal.org/documents/ ReportonReports.pdf and
          http://www.pkal.org/documents/ReportOnReportsII.cfm.
        * How Students Learn, a 2005 NRC report on effective teaching
          mechanisms (emphasizes the importance of teaching subject
          matter in depth, eliciting and working with students'
          preexisting knowledge, and helping students develop the skills
          of self-monitoring and reflection).
          http://www.nap.edu/books/0309074339/html/
        * Invention and Impact: Building Excellence in Undergraduate
          Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics Education, a
          2004 report from an AAAS organized meeting of CCLI active
          faculty describing some of the successful efforts supported by
          the CCLI program and its predecessors (the Course and
          Curriculum Development (CCD), Instruction and Laboratory
          Improvement (ILI), and Undergraduate Faculty Enhancement (UFE)
          programs).
          http://www.aaas.org/publications/books_reports/CCLI
        * Rising Above the Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employing
          America for a Brighter Economic Future Committee on Prospering
          in the Global Economy of the 21st Century: An Agenda for
          American Science and Technology, Committee on Science,
          Engineering, and Public Policy, a 2007 National Academies Press
          publication. http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11463

  E. PROGRAM EVALUATION

     The Division of Undergraduate Education (DUE) conducts an on-going
     program evaluation to determine how effectively the CCLI program is
     achieving its goal to stimulate, disseminate, and institutionalize
     innovative developments in STEM education through the production of
     knowledge and the improvement of practice. In particular, the
     program seeks to understand how effectively its projects are using
     current learning models in developing their innovations,
     contributing to knowledge on STEM education, and building a
     community of scholars in undergraduate STEM education. In addition
     to project-specific evaluations, all funded projects will be
     expected to cooperate with this third party program evaluation and
     respond to all inquiries, including requests to participate in
     surveys, interviews and other approaches for collecting data needed
     to evaluate the CCLI Program.

III. AWARD INFORMATION

NSF anticipates having $35.8 million in FY 2010 for new CCLI awards and
ongoing CCLI awards, pending the availability of funds. The awards will be
made as standard or continuing grants for Type 1-3 projects and as grants or
cooperative agreements for CCLI Central Resource projects. The number and size
of awards will depend on the quality of the proposals received and the
availability of funds. Total project budgets encompass all project years. The
proposal budget must be commensurate with the project and thoroughly justified
in the proposal. The expected number of awards, and duration and range of
total NSF/DUE support over the lifetime of a CCLI project, including indirect
costs, are as follows:

   * Type 1 Projects  70 to 75 awards expected, each with a duration of 2 to
     3 years and a total budget up to $200,000 ($250,000 when four-year
     colleges and universities collaborate with two-year colleges).

   * Type 2 Projects  20 to 25 awards expected, each with a duration of 2 to
     4 years and budget that fits the scope of the project. It is expected
     that the total budget for the majority of awards will be $300,000 to
     $600,000.

   * Type 3 Projects  3 to 5 awards expected, each with duration of 3 to 5
     years and a budget that fits the scope of the project. It is expected
     that the total budget for the majority of these awards will be $1,000,000
     to $5,000,000.

   * CCLI Central Resource Projects  1 to 3 awards expected, each with a
     budget and duration that fits the scope of the project. For example,
     small focused workshop projects will have a duration of 1 to 2 years with
     a total budget up to $100,000; large scale projects will have a duration
     of 3 to 5 years with a total budget of $300,000 to $3,000,000.

For collaborative projects, these limits apply to the total project budget.

IV. ELIGIBILITY INFORMATION

The categories of proposers eligible to submit proposals to the National
Science Foundation are identified in the Grant Proposal Guide, Chapter I,
Section E.

Organization Limit:

     None Specified

PI Limit:

     None Specified

Limit on Number of Proposals per Organization:

     None Specified

Limit on Number of Proposals per PI:

     None Specified

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 Grants.gov or via the NSF
FastLane system.

   * Full proposals submitted via FastLane: Proposals submitted in response to
     this program 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/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=gpg. Paper copies of
     the GPG may be obtained from the NSF Publications Clearinghouse,
     telephone (703) 292-7827 or by e-mail from pubs@nsf.gov. Proposers are
     reminded to identify this program solicitation number in the program
     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.

   * 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:
     (http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/policydocs/grantsgovguide607.pdf). 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) 292-7827 or by
     e-mail from pubs@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 the NSF FastLane
system. Chapter II, Section D.3 of the Grant Proposal Guide provides
additional information on collaborative proposals.

Additional Full Proposal Instructions:

The following information supplements the GPG and the NSF Grants.gov
Application Guide:

   * Proposers should make sure that their proposals respond to the list of
     questions provided both in the general review criteria and in the
     additional program-specific review criteria in Section VI.A below. They
     should review the discussion of the components, types, and important
     features in Section II above. Additional information on writing proposals
     can be found in "A Guide for Proposal Writing"
     (http://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=nsf04016).
   * Principal Investigators are strongly encouraged to match their proposed
     budgets carefully to the scope and scale of a project. Excessive or
     poorly justified budgets indicate that the project is not well designed.
   * Principal Investigators are strongly encouraged to take advantage of the
     National STEM Distributed Learning (NSDL) resources for project
     dissemination. This involves contributing metadata about project sites
     and individual resources. Guidelines for contribution may be found at
     http://nsdl.org/contribute. NSDL resources also offer an array of
     technology tools and community support services that may be of utility to
     CCLI projects, including resource cataloging and collection management
     tools, as well as group workspaces and collaboration, outreach, and
     professional development opportunities. Inquiries may be submitted via
     http://nsdl.org/about/contactus.  PIs may want to include funds in their
     budgets to cover required cataloging/metadata and/or software engineering
     expertise.  They should contact the NSDL portal directly
     (http://nsdl.org/about/contactus/) to obtain more specific guidance on
     cost estimates for collection building and contribution to NSDL
     resources.
   * All proposals must comply with the section of the GPG on Proposals
     Involving Human Subjects
     (http://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=gpg). The proposer
     should mark the Human Subjects box on the cover sheet and then indicate
     whether the proposed project is exempt, approved, or pending. THE PROCESS
     IS PENDING IF THE IRB HAS NOT YET APPROVED A SUBMITTED APPLICATION OR IF
     THE PROPOSER HAS NOT YET SUBMITTED AN APPLICATION. THIS SECTION SHOULD
     NOT BE LEFT BLANK.
   * While all material relevant to determining the quality of the proposed
     work must be included within the 15-page Project Description or as part
     of the budget justification, proposers may, as a part of the
     Supplementary Documentation, include letters showing collaborator
     commitments and organizational endorsement. In addition, for those
     projects whose deliverables include a final product, samples of these
     products (such as excerpts from book chapters, assessment tools, screen
     shots of software, sample teaching modules and other project
     deliverables) may be placed within the Supplementary Documentation
     section. These sample materials should be concise and relevant.

B. Budgetary Information

Cost Sharing:   Cost sharing is not required under this solicitation.

Other Budgetary Limitations:

   * NSF funds may not be used to support expenditures that would normally be
     made in the absence of an award, such as costs for routine teaching
     activities.

NSF project funds may not be used for:

   * equipment or instrumentation that is not mainly for use in the project;
   * replacement equipment or instrumentation that does not significantly
     improve instructional capability;
   * vehicles, laboratory furnishings, or general utility items such as office
     equipment (including word-processing equipment), benches, tables, desks,
     chairs, storage cases, and routine supplies;
   * maintenance equipment and maintenance or service contracts;
   * the modification, construction, or furnishing of laboratories or other
     buildings;
   * the installation of equipment or instrumentation (as distinct from the
     on-site assembly of multicomponent instruments--which is an allowable
     charge).

C. Due Dates

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

          May 21, 2009

               For Type 1 proposals from submitting organizations located in
               states or territories beginning with A through M.

          May 22, 2009

               For Type 1 proposals from submitting organizations located in
               states or territories beginning with N through W.

          January 13, 2010

               For Type 2 and 3 proposals and for CCLI Central Resource
               Project proposals. However, CCLI Central Resource Project
               proposals for small focused workshops may be submitted at any
               time after consulting with a program officer.

D. FastLane/Grants.gov Requirements

   * For Proposals Submitted Via FastLane:

     Detailed technical instructions regarding the technical aspects of
     preparation and submission via FastLane are available at:
     https://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
     solicitation should be referred to the NSF program staff contact(s)
     listed in Section VIII of this funding opportunity.

     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. Further instructions regarding this process
     are available on the FastLane Website at:
     https://www.fastlane.nsf.gov/fastlane.jsp.

   * For Proposals Submitted Via Grants.gov:

     Before using Grants.gov for the first time, each organization must
     register to create an institutional profile. Once registered, the
     applicant's organization can then apply for any federal grant on the
     Grants.gov website. The Grants.gov's Grant Community User Guide is a
     comprehensive reference document that provides technical information
     about Grants.gov. Proposers can download the User Guide as a Microsoft
     Word document or as a PDF document. The Grants.gov User Guide is
     available at: http://www.grants.gov/CustomerSupport. In addition, the NSF
     Grants.gov Application Guide provides additional technical guidance
     regarding preparation of proposals via Grants.gov. For Grants.gov user
     support, contact the Grants.gov Contact Center at 1-800-518-4726 or by
     email: support@grants.gov. The Grants.gov Contact Center answers general
     technical questions related to the use of Grants.gov. Specific questions
     related to this program solicitation should be referred to the NSF
     program staff contact(s) listed in Section VIII of this solicitation.

     Submitting the Proposal: Once all documents have been completed, the
     Authorized Organizational Representative (AOR) must submit the
     application to Grants.gov and verify the desired funding opportunity and
     agency to which the application is submitted. The AOR must then sign and
     submit the application to Grants.gov. The completed application will be
     transferred to the NSF FastLane system for further processing.

VI. NSF PROPOSAL PROCESSING AND REVIEW PROCEDURES

Proposals received by NSF are assigned to the appropriate NSF program where
they will be reviewed if they meet NSF proposal preparation requirements. 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 who are experts in the particular fields represented by the proposal.
These reviewers are selected by Program Officers charged with the 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.

A. NSF Merit Review Criteria

All NSF proposals are evaluated through use of the two National Science Board
(NSB)-approved merit review criteria: intellectual merit and the broader
impacts of the proposed effort. In some instances, however, NSF will employ
additional criteria as required to highlight the specific objectives of
certain programs and activities.

The two NSB-approved merit review criteria are listed below. 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 the reviewer is qualified to make judgements.

     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, original, or potentially
     transformative 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?

Examples illustrating activities likely to demonstrate broader impacts are
available electronically on the NSF website at:
http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/gpg/broaderimpacts.pdf.

NSF staff also 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.

     Additional Review Criteria:

     In reviewing CCLI proposals, the standard criteria will be expanded to
     include the following additional review criteria as appropriate to the
     type and main component of the proposed work:

     Intellectual Merit: Will the project produce exemplary material,
     processes, or models that enhance student learning? Will evaluation and
     research projects yield important findings related to student learning?
     Does the project build on existing knowledge about STEM education? Are
     appropriate expected measurable outcomes explicitly stated and are they
     integrated into an evaluation plan? Is the evaluation effort likely to
     produce useful information?

     Broader Impacts: Will the project contribute to the understanding of STEM
     education? Will the project help build the STEM education community? Will
     the project have a broad impact on STEM education in an area of
     recognized need or opportunity? Does the project have the potential to
     contribute to transformative change in undergraduate STEM education?

B. Review and Selection Process

Proposals submitted in response to this program 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.

After scientific, technical and programmatic review and consideration of
appropriate factors, the NSF Program Officer recommends to the cognizant
Division Director whether the proposal should be declined or recommended for
award. 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 deadline or target date, or receipt date, whichever is
later.  The interval ends when the Division Director accepts the Program
Officer's 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 Officer.  In
addition, the proposer will receive an explanation of the decision to award or
decline funding.

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 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.B. 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 (GC-1); * or Research Terms and Conditions * and (5) any
announcement or other NSF issuance that may be incorporated by reference in
the award letter. Cooperative agreements also are administered in accordance
with NSF Cooperative Agreement Financial and Administrative Terms and
Conditions (CA-FATC) and the applicable Programmatic Terms and Conditions. NSF
awards are electronically signed by an NSF Grants and Agreements Officer and
transmitted electronically to the organization via e-mail.

*These documents may be accessed electronically on NSF's Website at
http://www.nsf.gov/awards/managing/award_conditions.jsp?org=NSF. Paper copies
may be obtained from the NSF Publications Clearinghouse, telephone (703)
292-7827 or by e-mail from pubs@nsf.gov.

More comprehensive information on NSF Award Conditions and other important
information on the administration of NSF awards is contained in the NSF Award
& Administration Guide (AAG) Chapter II, available electronically on the NSF
Website at
http://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=aag.

C. Reporting Requirements

For all multi-year grants (including both standard and continuing grants), the
Principal Investigator must submit an annual project report to the cognizant
Program Officer at least 90 days before the end of the current budget period.
(Some programs or awards require more frequent project reports). Within 90
days after expiration of a grant, the PI also is required to submit a final
project report.

Failure to provide the required annual or final project reports will delay NSF
review and processing of any future funding increments as well as any pending
proposals for that PI. 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.  Such reports provide information on activities and findings, project
participants (individual and organizational) 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.  Submission of the report via FastLane constitutes
certification by the PI that the contents of the report are accurate and
complete.

In addition, PIs of CCLI grants will also be expected to cooperate with data
collection associated with the CCLI program evaluation conducted by a third
party organization supported by NSF.

VIII. AGENCY CONTACTS

General inquiries regarding this program should be made to:

   * Russell Pimmel, Lead Program Director, telephone: (703) 292-4618, email:
     rpimmel@nsf.gov

   * Myles Boylan, Lead Program Director, telephone: (703) 292-4617, email:
     mboylan@nsf.gov

   * Terry Woodin, Lead Program Director, telephone: (703) 292-4657, email:
     twoodin@nsf.gov

For questions related to the use of FastLane, contact:

   * FastLane Help Desk, telephone: 1-800-673-6188; e-mail: fastlane@nsf.gov.

   * Antionette T. Allen, telephone: (703) 292-4646, email: duefl@nsf.gov

For questions relating to Grants.gov contact:

   * Grants.gov Contact Center: If the Authorized Organizational
     Representatives (AOR) has not received a confirmation message from
     Grants.gov within 48 hours of submission of application, please contact
     via telephone: 1-800-518-4726; e-mail: support@grants.gov.

Proposers are encouraged to contact a DUE Program Director in their
discipline:

Biological Sciences

   * Deborah Allen, Program Director, telephone: (703) 292-4653, email:
     deallen@nsf.gov
   * Linnea Fletcher, Program Director, telephone: (703) 292-4634, email:
     lafletch@nsf.gov
   * Joan T. Prival, Program Director, telephone: (703) 292-4635, email:
     jprival@nsf.gov
   * Terry S. Woodin, Program Director, telephone: (703) 292-4657, email:
     twoodin@nsf.gov

Chemistry

   * Eun-Woo Chang, Program Director, telephone: (703) 292-4674, email:
     ewchang@nsf.gov
   * Susan H. Hixson, Program Director, telephone: (703) 292-4623, email:
     shixson@nsf.gov
   * Bert Holmes, Program Director, telephone: (703) 292-5128, email:
     bholmes@nsf.gov
   * Eileen L. Lewis, Program Director, telephone: (703) 292-4627, email:
     ellewis@nsf.gov

Computer Science

   * Stephen C. Cooper, Program Director, telephone: (703) 292-4645, email:
     sccooper@nsf.gov
   * Victor Piotrowski, Program Director, telephone: (703) 292-5141, email:
     vpiotrow@nsf.gov

Engineering

   * Lesia L. Crumpton-Young, Program Director, telephone: (703) 292-4629,
     email: lcrumpto@nsf.gov
   * Lance Perez, Program Director, telephone: (703) 292-4640, email:
     lperez@nsf.gov
   * Russell L. Pimmel, Program Director, telephone: (703) 292-4618, email:
     rpimmel@nsf.gov
   * Sheryl A. Sorby, Program Director, telephone: (703) 292-4647, email:
     ssorby@nsf.gov

Geological Sciences

   * Jill K. Singer, Program Director, telephone: (703) 292-5323, email:
     jksinger@nsf.gov

Interdisciplinary

   * Daphne Rainey, Program Director, telephone (703) 292-4671:
     drainey@nsf.gov
   * Herbert H. Richtol, Program Director, telephone: (703) 292-4648, email:
     hrichtol@nsf.gov
   * Curtis T. Sears, Program Director, telephone: (703) 292-4639, email:
     csears@nsf.gov

Mathematics

   * Daniel P. Maki, Program Director, telephone: (703) 292-4620, email:
     dmaki@nsf.gov
   * Ginger H. Rowell, Program Director, telephone: (703) 292-5108, email:
     growell@nsf.gov
   * Lee L. Zia, Program Director, telephone: (703) 292-5140, email:
     lzia@nsf.gov

Physics/Astronomy

   * R. Corby Hovis, Program Director, telephone: (703) 292-4625, email:
     chovis@nsf.gov
   * John Mateja, Program Director, telephone: (703) 292-4641, email:
     jmateja@nsf.gov
   * Duncan E. McBride, Program Director, telephone: (703) 292-4630, email:
     dmcbride@nsf.gov

Research/Assessment

   * Myles G. Boylan, Program Director, telephone: (703) 292-4617, email:
     mboylan@nsf.gov
   * Connie Della-Piana, Program Director, telephone; (703) 292-5309, email:
     cdellapi@nsf.gov
   * Russell L. Pimmel, Program Director, telephone: (703) 292-4618, email:
     rpimmel@nsf.gov

Social Sciences

   * Myles G. Boylan, Program Director, telephone: (703) 292-4617, email:
     mboylan@nsf.gov
   * Connie Della-Piana, Program Director, telephone; (703) 292-5309, email:
     cdellapi@nsf.gov

IX. OTHER INFORMATION

The NSF Website provides the most comprehensive source of information on NSF
Directorates (including contact information), programs and funding
opportunities. Use of this Website by potential proposers is strongly
encouraged. In addition, MyNSF (formerly the Custom News Service) is an
information-delivery system designed to keep potential proposers and other
interested parties apprised of new NSF funding opportunities and publications,
important changes in proposal and award policies and procedures, and upcoming
NSF Regional Grants Conferences. Subscribers are informed through e-mail or
the user's Web browser each time new publications are issued that match their
identified interests. MyNSF also is available on NSF's Website at
http://www.nsf.gov/mynsf/.

Grants.gov provides an additional electronic capability to search for Federal
government-wide grant opportunities. NSF funding opportunities may be accessed
via this new mechanism. Further information on Grants.gov may be obtained at
http://www.grants.gov.

ABOUT THE NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

The National Science Foundation (NSF) is an independent Federal agency created
by the National Science Foundation Act of 1950, as amended (42 USC 1861-75).
The Act states the purpose of the NSF is "to promote the progress of science;
[and] to advance the national health, prosperity, and welfare by supporting
research and education in all fields of science and engineering."

NSF funds research and education in most fields of science and engineering. It
does this through grants and cooperative agreements to more than 2,000
colleges, universities, K-12 school systems, businesses, informal science
organizations and other research organizations throughout the US. The
Foundation accounts for about one-fourth of Federal support to academic
institutions for basic research.

NSF receives approximately 40,000 proposals each year for research, education
and training projects, of which approximately 11,000 are funded. In addition,
the Foundation receives several thousand applications for graduate and
postdoctoral fellowships. The agency operates no laboratories itself but does
support National Research Centers, user facilities, certain oceanographic
vessels and Antarctic research stations. The Foundation also supports
cooperative research between universities and industry, US participation in
international scientific and engineering efforts, and educational activities
at every academic level.

Facilitation Awards for Scientists and Engineers with Disabilities provide
funding for special assistance or equipment to enable persons with
disabilities to work on NSF-supported projects. See Grant Proposal Guide
Chapter II, Section D.2 for instructions regarding preparation of these types
of proposals.

The National Science Foundation has Telephonic Device for the Deaf (TDD) and
Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) capabilities that enable individuals
with hearing impairments to communicate with the Foundation about NSF
programs, employment or general information. TDD may be accessed at (703)
292-5090 and (800) 281-8749, FIRS at (800) 877-8339.

The National Science Foundation Information Center may be reached at (703)
292-5111.

   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

          * Location:                      4201 Wilson Blvd. Arlington,
                                           VA 22230
          * For General Information        (703) 292-5111
            (NSF Information Center):
          * TDD (for the hearing-impaired):(703) 292-5090

          * To Order Publications or Forms:

                Send an e-mail to:         pubs@nsf.gov

                  or telephone:            (703) 292-7827

          * To Locate NSF Employees:       (703) 292-5111

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; and 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
proposer 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 or other
entities needing information regarding applicants or nominees as part of a
joint application review process, or in order to coordinate programs or
policy; 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," 69 Federal Register 26410 (May 12, 2004), and NSF-51,
"Reviewer/Proposal File and Associated Records, " 69 Federal Register 26410
(May 12, 2004). 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 Office of Management
and Budget (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 the burden estimate and any other aspect
of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this
burden, to:

Suzanne H. Plimpton
Reports Clearance Officer
Division of Administrative Services
National Science Foundation
Arlington, VA 22230


 Policies and Important Links|Privacy|FOIA|Help|Contact NSF|Contact Web Master|SiteMap

[National Science Foundation]The National Science Foundation, 4201         Last Updated:
                             Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Virginia         11/07/06
                             22230, USA                                    Text Only
                             Tel: (703) 292-5111, FIRS: (800) 877-8339 |
                             TDD: (800) 281-8749
                                        [Image]