Title: Course, Curriculum, and Laboratory Improvement (CCLI) 
Date: 02/15/05
Replaced: NSF 04-565



Course, Curriculum, and Laboratory Improvement (CCLI)

Program Solicitation
NSF 05-559
Replaces Document NSF 04-565

[NSF Logo]   National Science Foundation
             Directorate for Education and Human Resources
                   Division of Undergraduate Education



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

     May 17, 2005

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

     May 18, 2005

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

     May 19, 2005

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

     January 24, 2006

          For Phase 2 and 3 proposals

REVISIONS AND UPDATES

   * The CCLI program has changed substantially for FY 2006. The program has increased
     its emphasis on projects that build on prior work and contribute to the knowledge
     base of undergraduate STEM education research and practice. In addition, projects
     should contribute to building a community of scholars who work in related areas
     of undergraduate education. Finally, the revised program requires proposals to
     explicitly identify a set of measurable outcomes that will be used in the project
     management and evaluation.

   * To provide a framework for projects to maximize their effectiveness on improving
     undergraduate STEM education, the program identified five components of a cyclic
     model of knowledge production and the improvement of practice. The program will
     accept proposals that may combine one, several, or all of the following
     components:
        * Conducting research on undergraduate STEM teaching and learning;
        * Creating learning materials and teaching strategies;
        * Developing faculty expertise;
        * Implementing educational innovations;
        * Assessing learning and evaluating innovations.

   * The program will accept three types of proposals representing different phases of
     development:
        * Phase 1, Exploratory Projects with a total budget up to $150,000 ($200,000
          when four-year colleges and universities collaborate with two-year colleges)
          for 1 to 3 years;
        * Phase 2, Expansion Projects with a total budget up to $500,000 for 2 to 4
          years;
        * Phase 3, Comprehensive Projects with a total budget up to $2,000,000 for 3
          to 5 years.

   * In the previous solicitation, the CCLI program consisted of four tracks. All
     proposals that could have been submitted to the previous CCLI program are welcome
     in the current program, with certain modifications as explained above.
        * Adaptation and Implementation (A&I): A project under the former A&I track is
          likely to involve the new component, Implementing Educational Innovations,
          and will probably fall under Phase 1, Exploratory Projects. Such projects
          may include the purchase of instrumentation and equipment in order to
          achieve educational innovations.

        * Educational Materials Development (EMD): A project under the former EMD
          track is likely to involve the component, Creating Learning Materials and
          Teaching Strategies. A former EMD-Proof-of-Concept project would be
          submitted in the current program as a Phase 1, Exploratory Project, while a
          former EMD-Full Development project would include more components and would
          probably be a Phase 2, Expansion Project or, for national-scale projects, a
          Phase 3, Comprehensive Project.

        * Assessment of Student Achievement (ASA): A project under the former ASA
          track is likely to involve the component, Assessing Learning and Evaluating
          Innovations. A proposal may be submitted to any of the three phases,
          depending on its size.

        * National Dissemination (ND): A project under the former ND track is likely
          to involve the component, Developing Faculty Expertise, but now should
          involve other components as well. A proposal may be submitted to any of the
          three phases.

   * Proposal deadline dates have been revised. Phase 1 Projects have a different
     deadline date from Phase 2 and 3 Projects.

   * All proposals must conform to the Grant Proposal Guide formatting requirements;
     formerly A&I and EMD-Proof-of-Concept proposals had a shorter page limit.

SUMMARY OF PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS

General Information

Program Title:

     Course, Curriculum, and Laboratory Improvement (CCLI)

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. Based on a cyclic model of
     knowledge production and improvement of practice, CCLI supports efforts that
     conduct research on STEM teaching and learning, create new learning
     materials and teaching strategies, develop faculty expertise, implement
     educational innovations, assess learning, and evaluate innovations. The
     program supports three types of projects representing three different phases
     of development, ranging from small exploratory investigations to
     comprehensive projects.

Cognizant Program Officer(s):

   * Barbara N Anderegg, Program Director (ENG), Directorate for Education & Human
     Resources, Division of Undergraduate Education, 835 N, telephone: (703) 292-4634,
     fax: (703) 292-9015, email: bandereg@nsf.gov

   * Myles G. Boylan, Program Director (SOC), Directorate for Education & Human
     Resources, Division of Undergraduate Education, 835 N, telephone: (703) 292-4617,
     fax: (703) 292-9015, email: mboylan@nsf.gov

   * Mark Burge, Program Director (CS), Directorate for Education & Human Resources,
     Division of Undergraduate Education, 835 S, telephone: (703) 292-4645, fax: (703)
     292-9015, email: mburge@nsf.gov

   * Susan L. Burkett, Program Director (ENG), Directorate for Education & Human
     Resources, Division of Undergraduate Education, 835 N, telephone: (703) 292-4629,
     fax: (703) 292-9015, email: sburkett@nsf.gov

   * Diana Gant, Program Director (CS), Directorate for Education & Human Resources,
     Division of Undergraduate Education, 835 N, telephone: (703) 292-4642, fax: (703)
     292-9015, email: dgant@nsf.gov

   * John R. Haddock, Program Director (MATH), Directorate for Education & Human
     Resources, Division of Undergraduate Education, 835 N, telephone: (703) 292-8670,
     email: jhaddock@nsf.gov

   * Susan H. Hixson, Program Director (CHEM), Directorate for Education & Human
     Resources, Division of Undergraduate Education, 835 N, telephone: (703) 292-4623,
     fax: (703) 292-9015, email: shixson@nsf.gov

   * R. Corby Hovis, Program Director (PHY), Directorate for Education & Human
     Resources, Division of Undergraduate Education, 835 N, telephone: (703) 292-4625,
     fax: (703) 292-9015, email: chovis@nsf.gov

   * Daniel Litynski, Program Director (PHY), Directorate for Education & Human
     Resources, Division of Undergraduate Education, 835 N, telephone: (703) 292-4640,
     fax: (703) 292-9015, email: dlitynsk@nsf.gov

   * David McArthur, Program Director (SOC), Directorate for Education & Human
     Resources, Division of Undergraduate Education, 835 N, telephone: (703) 292-4622,
     fax: (703) 292-9015, email: dmcarthu@nsf.gov

   * Duncan E. McBride, Program Director (PHY), Directorate for Education & Human
     Resources, Division of Undergraduate Education, 835 N, telephone: (703) 292-4630,
     fax: (703) 292-9015, email: dmcbride@nsf.gov

   * Kathleen A. Parson, Program Director (CHEM), Directorate for Education & Human
     Resources, Division of Undergraduate Education, 835 N, telephone: (703) 292-4653,
     fax: (703) 292-9015, email: kparson@nsf.gov

   * Russell L. Pimmel, Program Director (ENG), Directorate for Education & Human
     Resources, Division of Undergraduate Education, 835 N, telephone: (703) 292-4618,
     fax: (703) 292-9015, email: rpimmel@nsf.gov

   * Nancy L. Pruitt, Program Director (BIO), Directorate for Education & Human
     Resources, Division of Undergraduate Education, 835 N, telephone: (703) 292-4627,
     fax: (703) 292-9015, email: npruitt@nsf.gov

   * Herbert H. Richtol, Program Director (INTERDIS), Directorate for Education &
     Human Resources, Division of Undergraduate Education, 835 N, telephone: (703)
     292-4648, fax: (703) 292-9015, email: hrichtol@nsf.gov

   * Jeanne Rudzki Small, Program Director (BIO), Directorate for Education & Human
     Resources, Division of Undergraduate Education, 835 N, telephone: (703) 292-4641,
     fax: (703) 292-9015, email: jsmall@nsf.gov

   * Keith A. Sverdrup, Program Director (GEO), Directorate for Education & Human
     Resources, Division of Undergraduate Education, 835 N, telephone: (703) 292-4644,
     fax: (703) 292-9015, email: ksverdru@nsf.gov

   * Elizabeth J. Teles, Program Director (MATH), Directorate for Education & Human
     Resources, Division of Undergraduate Education, 835 N, telephone: (703) 292-8670,
     fax: (703) 292-9015, email: ejteles@nsf.gov

   * Harry G. Ungar, Program Director (CHEM), Directorate for Education & Human
     Resources, Division of Undergraduate Education, 835 N, telephone: (703) 292-4647,
     fax: (703) 292-9015, email: hungar@nsf.gov

   * Bevlee A. Watford, Program Director (ENG), Directorate for Education & Human
     Resources, Division of Undergraduate Education, 835 N, telephone: (703) 292-5323,
     fax: (703) 292-9015, email: bwatford@nsf.gov

   * Terry S. Woodin, Program Director (BIO), Directorate for Education & Human
     Resources, Division of Undergraduate Education, 835 N, telephone: (703) 292-4657,
     fax: (703) 292-909015, email: twoodin@nsf.gov

   * Lee L. Zia, Program Director (MATH), Directorate for Education & Human Resources,
     Division of Undergraduate Education, 835 N, telephone: (703) 292-5140, fax: (703)
     292-9046, email: lzia@nsf.gov

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

   * 47.076 --- Education and Human Resources

Eligibility Information

   * Organization Limit: None Specified.
   * PI Eligibility Limit:

     An individual may be the lead PI on only one proposal submitted for any
     submission deadline. There is no restriction on the number of proposals for which
     a person may serve as a co-PI. Please see the full text of this solicitation for
     further information.

   * Limit on Number of Proposals: None Specified.

Award Information

   * Anticipated Type of Award: Standard or Continuing Grant
   * Estimated Number of Awards: 71 to 99 - including 55 to 70 Phase 1 awards, 15 to
     25 Phase 2 awards, and 1 to 4 Phase 3 awards
   * Anticipated Funding Amount: $31,000,000 pending availability of funding

Proposal Preparation and Submission Instructions

A. Proposal Preparation Instructions

   * Full Proposal Preparation Instructions: This solicitation contains information
     that supplements the standard Grant Proposal Guide (GPG) proposal preparation
     guidelines. Please see the full text of this solicitation for further
     information.

B. Budgetary Information

   * Cost Sharing Requirements: Cost Sharing is not required by NSF.
   * Indirect Cost (F&A) Limitations: Not Applicable.
   * Other Budgetary Limitations: Not Applicable.

C. Due Dates

   * Full Proposal Deadline Date(s) (due by 5 p.m. submitter's local time):
          May 17, 2005
               For Phase 1 proposals from submitting organizations located in states
               or territories beginning with A through L.
          May 18, 2005
               For Phase 1 proposals from submitting organizations located in states
               or territories beginning with M through N.
          May 19, 2005
               For Phase 1 proposals from submitting organizations located in states
               or territories beginning with O through W.
          January 24, 2006
               For Phase 2 and 3 proposals

Proposal Review Information

   * 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. Eligibility Information

 IV. Award Information

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

 VI. Proposal Review Information
       A. NSF Proposal Review Process
       B. Review Protocol and Associated Customer Service Standard

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

VIII.Contacts for Additional Information

 IX. Other Programs of Interest

I. INTRODUCTION

The vision of the Course, Curriculum, and Laboratory Improvement (CCLI) program is
excellent science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education for all
undergraduate students. The program's goal in pursuit of this vision is to stimulate,
disseminate, and institutionalize innovative developments in undergraduate STEM
education through the production of knowledge and the improvement of practice. To
achieve this goal, the CCLI program addresses challenges identified in several major
reports. For example the report, Greater Expectations: A New Vision for Learning as a
Nation Goes to College, (http://www.greaterexpectations.org/) recommends enabling
students to become empowered, informed, and responsible learners ready to assume
productive roles in society in both STEM and non-STEM related careers. Furthermore,
the National Research Councils (NRC report, Evaluating and Improving Undergraduate
Teaching in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics,
(http://www.nap.edu/books/0309072778/html/) raises challenges that include improving
the assessment of learning outcomes, teaching a broad range and large number of
students, providing engaging laboratory and field experiences, and enhancing the
facultys knowledge of research on effective teaching.

In meeting such challenges, the CCLI program builds on a number of recent publications
analyzing the current state and future needs in undergraduate STEM education. The NRC
volume, How People Learn, (http://books.nap.edu/html/howpeople1/) advocates that
teachers draw out and work with students' preexisting knowledge, teach subject matter
in depth and provide examples, help students develop self-monitoring and reflection
skills, and integrate these practices into the curriculum in a variety of subjects. In
addition, the National Research Council (NRC) report, Scientific Research in
Education, http://www.nap.edu/books/0309082919/html/ recommends that educational
research projects pose significant questions that can be investigated using direct
empirical techniques, allow replication and generalization across educational
settings, and present results to encourage professional critique.

The CCLI Program also acknowledges the need for undergraduate research and development
efforts in undergraduate STEM education to build on and contribute to the STEM
education knowledge base. The Project Kaleidoscope report, Recommendations for Action
in Support of Undergraduate Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics,
(http://www.pkal.org/documents/ReportonReports.pdf) calls for collective action to
share ideas and materials so that projects build on, connect to, and enhance the work
of others. It stresses that educational research and development efforts must move
away from the practice in which an individual owns a new approach from conception to
implementation. The CCLI program supports a collaborative model where investigators
learn about and adapt the work of others and disseminate the results so that others
can continue the investigation. The rationale and methods in CCLI projects will use
the STEM education knowledge base, as reflected in the education research literature,
the discipline-based education literature, or other appropriate sources that describe
previous work by others. Also, all projects will contribute actively to this knowledge
base and expand the experience base by sharing their findings.

In addition, the CCLI Program recognizes that sustained improvement in undergraduate
STEM education requires that all participants engage in building a community of
scholars. The National Academies Press report, "Improving Undergraduate Instruction in
Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics,"
(http://www.nap.edu/books/0309089298/html/) emphasizes the importance of expanding
faculty and scholarly networks to promote effective instruction and to support rapid
dissemination and adaptation of successful educational innovations. Furthermore,
Recommendations for Action in Support of Undergraduate Science, Technology,
Engineering, and Mathematics concludes that we must find new ways to identify and
bring new voices into the dialog. To help build this community of scholars, CCLI
projects will seek ways to increase the participation of STEM faculty in educational
reform and innovation, particularly through activities such as implementation,
assessment and dissemination.

II. PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The CCLI program is based on a cyclic model of the relationship between knowledge
production and improvement of practice in undergraduate STEM education, adapted from
the report, Mathematical Proficiency for All Students (see
http://www.rand.org/publications/MR/MR1643/). In this model, research findings about
learning and teaching challenge existing approaches, leading to new educational
materials and teaching strategies. New material and teaching strategies that show
promise lead to faculty development programs and methods that incorporate these
materials. The most promising of these developments are first tested in limited
environments and then implemented and adapted in diverse curricula and educational
practices. These innovations are carefully evaluated by assessing their impact on
teaching and learning. In turn, these implementations and assessments generate new
insights and research questions, initiating a new cycle of innovation.

 [Cyclic model of knowledge production and improvement of practice in STEM education]

A. Project Components

Proposals may focus on one or more of the following components of this cyclic model
for knowledge production and improvement of practice, as it is applied to stimulating
and sustaining innovative developments in undergraduate STEM education.

   * Conducting Research on undergraduate STEM Teaching and Learning. Results from
     assessments of learning and teaching and from projects emphasizing other
     components in the cyclic model provide a foundation for developing new and
     revised models of how undergraduate students learn STEM concepts and for
     exploring how effective teaching strategies and curricula enhance that learning.
     Projects may also contribute to educational research by synthesizing previous
     results and theories. These projects will have a practical focus, in that they
     will lead to testable new ideas for creating learning materials and teaching
     strategies that will have an impact on STEM educational practices.

   * Creating Learning Materials and Teaching Strategies. Guided by research on
     teaching and learning or by evaluations of previous efforts, projects will
     develop new learning materials and tools, or create new and innovative teaching
     methods and strategies. Projects may also revise or enhance existing educational
     materials and teaching strategies, based on prior results. Such projects may
     include activities that help faculty develop expertise in adapting these
     innovations and incorporating them effectively into their courses.

   * Developing Faculty Expertise. Using new learning materials and teaching
     strategies often requires faculty to acquire new knowledge and skills and to
     revise their curricula and teaching practices. Projects will design and put into
     practice methods that enable faculty to gain such expertise. These can range from
     short-term workshops to sustained activities that foster new communities or
     networks of practicing educators. Successful projects will provide cost-effective
     professional development for a diverse group of faculty so that new materials and
     teaching strategies can be widely implemented.

   * Implementing Educational Innovations. Learning materials, teaching strategies, or
     faculty-development methods that have demonstrated success in their original
     contexts will be disseminated to new educational settings, or adopted more
     widely, by projects that implement educational innovations. These materials,
     strategies and methods may come from CCLI projects or from other sources in the
     STEM community. Funds may be requested for local adaptation and implementation
     projects, including instrumentation to support such projects. Results from
     implementation projects will illuminate the challenges to and opportunities for
     adapting innovations in diverse educational settings, and may provide a
     foundation for the development of new tools and processes for assessments of
     learning and teaching.

   * Assessing Learning and Evaluating Innovations. Implementing educational
     innovations will create new needs to assess student learning and faculty
     development. Projects will design and test new assessment and evaluation tools
     and processes. Projects that apply new and existing tools to conduct broad-based
     assessments or evaluations may also be considered, provided they span multiple
     projects and are of general interest. Results obtained using these tools and
     processes will provide a foundation that leads to new questions for conducting
     research on teaching and learning.

Central to each project is an iterative design-implement-test process with results
from each step in the process informing successive iterations and leading to
increasingly effective implementations. In all projects, testing to determine the
effectiveness of the innovation should be appropriate to the stage of the development
and guide its further development and implementation. In addition to affecting the
subsequent development of an innovation within one component, evaluation and
assessment results from one component will influence the design of other components.
For example, results from faculty development efforts may lead to refinement of
learning materials and teaching strategies, and results from projects implementing
educational innovations may identify the need for new approaches for developing
faculty expertise.

B. Project Types

In FY 2006 the CCLI program accepts proposals for three types of projects representing
different phases of development. These phases reflect the number of components of the
cyclic model included in the project (scope); the number of academic institutions,
students and faculty members involved in the project (scale); and the maturity of the
proposed educational innovation (state).

Phase 1: Exploratory Projects  total budget up to $150,000 ($200,000 when four-year
colleges and universities collaborate with two-year colleges) for 1 to 3 years.

Phase 1 projects typically will address one program component and involve a limited
number of students and faculty members at one academic institution. Projects with a
broader scope or larger scale can be proposed provided they can be done within the
budget limitations. In order to encourage collaboration between four-year colleges and
universities and two-year colleges, projects involving such collaboration may request
an additional $50,000. The distribution of effort and funds should reflect a genuine
collaboration. Expected results from Phase 1 projects are significant enough to
contribute to the undergraduate STEM education knowledge base.

Phase 2: Expansion Projects  total budget up to $500,000 for 2 to 4 years.

Phase 2 projects build on smaller-scale successful innovations or implementations,
such as those produced by Phase 1 projects, and refine and test these on diverse users
in several settings. In terms of scope, their focus ordinarily includes two or more
components of the cyclic model with the connections between components explicitly
addressed. Phase 2 projects carry the development to a state where the results are
conclusive so that successful products and processes can be distributed widely or
commercialized when appropriate.

Phase 3: Comprehensive Projects  total budget up to $2,000,000 for 3 to 5 years.

Phase 3 projects combine established results and mature products from several
components of the cyclic model. Such projects involve several diverse academic
institutions, often bringing different kinds of expertise to the project. Evaluation
activities are deep and broad, demonstrating the impact of the projects innovations
on many students and faculty at a wide range of academic institutions. Dissemination
and outreach activities that have national impact are an especially important element
of Phase 3 projects, as are the opportunities for faculty to learn how to best adapt
project innovations to the needs of their students and academic institutions.

Although it is expected that some Phase 1 projects will lead to Phase 2 projects and
some Phase 2 projects to Phase 3 projects, there is no requirement that a proposal be
based on CCLI-funded work. While it is unlikely that the program would be able to
support a single multi-year project to address all components in depth at a large
scale, a succession of grants might support such an effort. In all cases the funds
requested should be consistent with the scope and scale of the project.

C. Important Features of Successful Projects

Although projects will vary considerably in the number of components they address, in
the number of academic institutions, faculty, and students involved, and in the
maturity of the products, approaches, and ideas being pursued, all successful projects
will share certain characteristics.

   * Quality, Relevance, and Impact: Successful projects are innovative and involve
     state-of-the-art products, processes, and ideas. When appropriate, they utilize
     the latest technology in student laboratories, classrooms and other learning
     environments. These projects, even those that involve a local implementation,
     address issues that have broad implication for undergraduate STEM education. The
     results of these projects advance the knowledge and understanding within the
     discipline and within STEM education in general.

   * Student Focus: Successful projects, regardless of the component(s) involved, have
     a focus on student learning with a clear link between project activities and an
     improvement in STEM learning. Moreover, they involve approaches that are
     consistent with the nature of todays students, reflect the students perspective
     and, when possible, solicit student input in the design of the project.

   * Use of and Contribution to the STEM Education Knowledge Base: Successful projects
     reflect high quality science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. They have
     a rationale and use methods derived from the existing undergraduate STEM
     education knowledge base. They also have an effective approach for adding the
     results of the project to this knowledge base.

   * STEM Education Community-Building: Successful projects include interactions
     between the investigators and others in the undergraduate STEM education
     community. These interactions enable the project to benefit from the knowledge
     and experience of others and to engage them in the development and evaluation of
     the educational innovation. This collaborating network involves investigators
     working on similar or related approaches in the proposer's discipline or in other
     STEM disciplines and it may also include experts in evaluation, educational
     psychology or other similar fields.

   * Expected Measurable Outcomes: Successful projects have goals and objectives that
     have been translated into a set of expected measurable outcomes. These are used
     to monitor progress, guide the project, and evaluate its ultimate success. Some
     of the expected measurable outcomes pay particular attention to student learning,
     contributions to the knowledge base, and community building.

   * Project Evaluation: Successful projects have an evaluation plan that includes
     both a strategy for monitoring the project as it evolves to provide feedback to
     guide these efforts and a strategy for evaluating the effectiveness of the
     project in achieving its goals when it is completed. These efforts are based on
     the projects specific expected measurable outcomes defined in the proposal.

D. 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 the knowledge base on STEM
education, and building a community of scholars in undergraduate STEM education. In
addition to project-specific evaluations, all projects are 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 evaluation
data.

III. ELIGIBILITY INFORMATION

Proposals are invited from all organizations and in any field eligible under the
standard GPG guidelines. Specifically excluded are projects that address solely
professional training in clinical fields such as medicine, nursing, and clinical
psychology. There is no limit on the number of proposals an organization may submit.
An individual may be the lead PI on only one proposal submitted for any deadline.
There is no restriction on the number of proposals for which a person may serve as a
co-PI.

IV. AWARD INFORMATION

NSF anticipates having $31 million for all CCLI awards, pending the availability of
funds. The awards will be made as standard or continuing grants. The number and size
of awards will depend on the quality of the proposals received and the availability of
funds. 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:

   * Phase 1: Exploratory Projects &ndash; 55 to 70 awards expected, each with a total
     budget up to $150,000 ($200,000 when four-year colleges and universities
     collaborate with two-year colleges) for 1 to 3 years.
   * Phase 2: Expansion Projects &ndash; 15 to 25 awards expected, each with a total
     budget up to $500,000 for 2 to 4 years.
   * Phase 3: Comprehensive Projects &ndash; 1 to 4 awards expected, each with a total
     budget up to $2,000,000 for 3 to 5 years.

V. PROPOSAL PREPARATION AND SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS

A. Proposal Preparation Instructions

Full Proposal Instructions:

Proposals submitted in response to this program announcement/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.

Applicants should make sure that their proposals respond to the list of questions
provided both in the NSB general review criteria and in the additional
program-specific review criteria in Section VI-A below. They should review the
discussion of the components, phases, 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/pubsys/ods/getpub.cfm?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 understood and thought out.

For projects that plan to post material on the web, the proposal should include a
sustainability plan for tagging these products with descriptive metadata
(http://dublincore.org/ and http://metamanagement.comm.nsdlib.org/outline.html) to
ensure they can be indexed and cataloged within the National Science Digital Library
(www.nsdl.org).

Proposers who intend to collect data from or about students, deans, professors,
faculty, or other human subjects should comply with the section of the GPG on
Proposals Involving Human and Animal Subjects (http://www.nsf.gov/cgi-bin/getpub?gpg)

Proposers are reminded to identify the program announcement/solicitation number
(05-559) in the program announcement/solicitation block on the proposal Cover Sheet.
Compliance with this requirement is critical to determining the relevant proposal
processing guidelines. Failure to submit this information may delay processing.

B. Budgetary Information

Cost Sharing:

Cost sharing is not required by NSF in proposals submitted under this Program
Solicitation.

C. Due Dates

Proposals must be submitted by the following date(s):

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

     May 17, 2005
          For Phase 1 proposals from submitting organizations located in states or
          territories beginning with A through L.

     May 18, 2005
          For Phase 1 proposals from submitting organizations located in states or
          territories beginning with M through N.

     May 19, 2005
          For Phase 1 proposals from submitting organizations located in states or
          territories beginning with O through W.

     January 24, 2006
          For Phase 2 and 3 proposals

Proposers should allow sufficient time for all organizational approvals and for
correction of errors in uploading the proposal in FastLane. No corrections to
submitted proposals will be accepted after the deadline. Proposals received after the
deadline will be returned without review. Proposals that do not meet the GPG
requirement for separately and explicitly addressing intellectual merit and broader
impacts in the Project Summary will be returned without review. Proposals that do not
comply with the formatting requirements (e. g. page limitation, font size, and margin
limits) specified in the GPG will be returned without review.

D. FastLane Requirements

Proposers are required to prepare and submit all proposals for this
announcement/solicitation through the FastLane system. Detailed instructions for
proposal 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 announcement/solicitation should be
referred to the NSF program staff contact(s) listed in Section VIII of this
announcement/solicitation.

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. Proposers are no longer required to provide a paper copy of the
signed Proposal Cover Sheet to NSF. Further instructions regarding this process are
available on the FastLane Website at: http://www.fastlane.nsf.gov

VI. PROPOSAL REVIEW INFORMATION

A. NSF Proposal Review Process

Reviews of proposals submitted to NSF are solicited from peers with expertise in the
substantive area of the proposed research or education project. These reviewers are
selected by Program Officers charged with the oversight of the review process. NSF
invites the proposer to suggest, at the time of submission, the names of appropriate
or inappropriate reviewers. Care is taken to ensure that reviewers have no conflicts
with the proposer. Special efforts are made to recruit reviewers from non-academic
institutions, minority-serving institutions, or adjacent disciplines to that
principally addressed in the proposal.

The National Science Board approved revised criteria for evaluating proposals at its
meeting on March 28, 1997 (NSB 97-72). All NSF proposals are evaluated through use of
the two merit review criteria. In some instances, however, NSF will employ additional
criteria as required to highlight the specific objectives of certain programs and
activities.

On July 8, 2002, the NSF Director issued Important Notice 127, Implementation of new
Grant Proposal Guide Requirements Related to the Broader Impacts Criterion. This
Important Notice reinforces the importance of addressing both criteria in the
preparation and review of all proposals submitted to NSF. NSF continues to strengthen
its internal processes to ensure that both of the merit review criteria are addressed
when making funding decisions.

In an effort to increase compliance with these requirements, the January 2002 issuance
of the GPG incorporated revised proposal preparation guidelines relating to the
development of the Project Summary and Project Description. Chapter II of the GPG
specifies that Principal Investigators (PIs) must address both merit review criteria
in separate statements within the one-page Project Summary. This chapter also
reiterates that broader impacts resulting from the proposed project must be addressed
in the Project Description and described as an integral part of the narrative.

Effective October 1, 2002, NSF will return without review proposals that do not
separately address both merit review criteria within the Project Summary. It is
believed that these changes to NSF proposal preparation and processing guidelines will
more clearly articulate the importance of broader impacts to NSF-funded projects.

The two National Science Board approved merit review criteria are listed below (see
the Grant Proposal Guide Chapter III.A for further information). 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 he/she is qualified to make
judgments.

     What is the intellectual merit of the proposed activity?
     How important is the proposed activity to advancing knowledge and understanding
     within its own field or across different fields? How well qualified is the
     proposer (individual or team) to conduct the project? (If appropriate, the
     reviewer will comment on the quality of the prior work.) To what extent does the
     proposed activity suggest and explore creative and original concepts? How well
     conceived and organized is the proposed activity? Is there sufficient access to
     resources?

     What are the broader impacts of the proposed activity?
     How well does the activity advance discovery and understanding while promoting
     teaching, training, and learning? How well does the proposed activity broaden the
     participation of underrepresented groups (e.g., gender, ethnicity, disability,
     geographic, etc.)? To what extent will it enhance the infrastructure for research
     and education, such as facilities, instrumentation, networks, and partnerships?
     Will the results be disseminated broadly to enhance scientific and technological
     understanding? What may be the benefits of the proposed activity to society?

NSF staff 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:
        * All projects: Are the goals and measurable expected outcomes defined and are
          they appropriate to the scope, scale, and state of the project? Does the
          proposal describe a convincing rationale and appropriate methods that are
          grounded in the STEM education knowledge base? Is there a clear work plan
          that is aligned with the expected outcomes? Is the project likely to produce
          high quality results that contribute to the undergraduate STEM education
          knowledge base? Is the project likely to have an impact on STEM education,
          student learning, and faculty practice? Are expected results (e.g., the
          research, products, tools, processes, implementations, or workshops
          developed) defined and appropriate? Is the evaluation plan likely to produce
          useful formative and summative information? Is the project likely to help
          build a community of STEM education scholars?
        * Phase 1 Projects: How likely is it that the project will result in a
          successful implementation, prototype, or pilot study?
        * Phase 2 Projects: Is the projects work based on previously developed and
          tested innovations and implementations? Does the proposed work involve more
          than one component and multiple academic institutions and is this level of
          involvement appropriate for the project? How likely is it that the project
          will successfully deliver a mature version of the work?
        * Phase 3 Projects: Is the project based on established results and mature
          products? Does the project include most of the program components defined in
          the cyclic model of STEM knowledge production and improvement of practice?
          Does the project involve a set of diverse academic institutions? Is it
          likely that the outcomes will have a national impact? Is there an
          appropriate plan for sustainability or commercialization?

B. Review Protocol and Associated Customer Service Standard

All proposals are carefully reviewed by at least three other persons outside NSF who
are experts in the particular field represented by the proposal. Proposals submitted
in response to this announcement/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.

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 Director. In addition, the proposer will
receive an explanation of the decision to award or decline funding.

NSF is striving to be able to tell proposers whether their proposals have been
declined or recommended for funding within six months. The time interval begins on the
closing date of an announcement/solicitation, or the date of proposal receipt,
whichever is later. The interval ends when the Division Director accepts the Program
Officer's recommendation.

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 Division
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.A. 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 (NSF-GC-1); * or Federal
Demonstration Partnership (FDP) Terms and Conditions * and (5) any announcement or
other NSF issuance that may be incorporated by reference in the award letter.
Cooperative agreement awards are administered in accordance with NSF Cooperative
Agreement Financial and Administrative Terms and Conditions (CA-FATC). Electronic mail
notification is the preferred way to transmit NSF awards to organizations that have
electronic mail capabilities and have requested such notification from the Division of
Grants and Agreements.

*These documents may be accessed electronically on NSF's Website at
http://www.nsf.gov/awards/managing/. Paper copies of these documents 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 is contained in the NSF Grant
Policy Manual (GPM) Chapter II, available electronically on the NSF Website at
http://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=gpm. The GPM is also for sale
through the Superintendent of Documents, Government Printing Office (GPO), Washington,
DC 20402. The telephone number at GPO for subscription information is (202) 512-1800.
The GPM may be ordered through the GPO Website at http://www.gpo.gov.

C. Reporting Requirements

For all multi-year grants (including both standard and continuing grants), the PI must
submit an annual project report to the cognizant Program Officer at least 90 days
before the end of the current budget period.

There are two special CCLI reporting requirements. When CCLI PIs submit interim and
final reports through FastLane, they will be asked to provide additional information
for the Project Information Resource System (PIRS). 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.

Within 90 days after the expiration of an award, the PI also is required to submit a
final project report. Failure to provide final technical reports delays NSF review and
processing of pending proposals for the PI and all Co-PIs. 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. This
system permits electronic submission and updating of project reports, including
information on project participants (individual and organizational), activities and
findings, 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.

VIII. CONTACTS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

General inquiries regarding this program should be made to:

   * Barbara N Anderegg, Program Director (ENG), Directorate for Education & Human
     Resources, Division of Undergraduate Education, 835 N, telephone: (703) 292-4634,
     fax: (703) 292-9015, email: bandereg@nsf.gov

   * Myles G. Boylan, Program Director (SOC), Directorate for Education & Human
     Resources, Division of Undergraduate Education, 835 N, telephone: (703) 292-4617,
     fax: (703) 292-9015, email: mboylan@nsf.gov

   * Mark Burge, Program Director (CS), Directorate for Education & Human Resources,
     Division of Undergraduate Education, 835 S, telephone: (703) 292-4645, fax: (703)
     292-9015, email: mburge@nsf.gov

   * Susan L. Burkett, Program Director (ENG), Directorate for Education & Human
     Resources, Division of Undergraduate Education, 835 N, telephone: (703) 292-4629,
     fax: (703) 292-9015, email: sburkett@nsf.gov

   * Diana Gant, Program Director (CS), Directorate for Education & Human Resources,
     Division of Undergraduate Education, 835 N, telephone: (703) 292-4642, fax: (703)
     292-9015, email: dgant@nsf.gov

   * John R. Haddock, Program Director (MATH), Directorate for Education & Human
     Resources, Division of Undergraduate Education, 835 N, telephone: (703) 292-8670,
     email: jhaddock@nsf.gov

   * Susan H. Hixson, Program Director (CHEM), Directorate for Education & Human
     Resources, Division of Undergraduate Education, 835 N, telephone: (703) 292-4623,
     fax: (703) 292-9015, email: shixson@nsf.gov

   * R. Corby Hovis, Program Director (PHY), Directorate for Education & Human
     Resources, Division of Undergraduate Education, 835 N, telephone: (703) 292-4625,
     fax: (703) 292-9015, email: chovis@nsf.gov

   * Daniel Litynski, Program Director (PHY), Directorate for Education & Human
     Resources, Division of Undergraduate Education, 835 N, telephone: (703) 292-4640,
     fax: (703) 292-9015, email: dlitynsk@nsf.gov

   * David McArthur, Program Director (SOC), Directorate for Education & Human
     Resources, Division of Undergraduate Education, 835 N, telephone: (703) 292-4622,
     fax: (703) 292-9015, email: dmcarthu@nsf.gov

   * Duncan E. McBride, Program Director (PHY), Directorate for Education & Human
     Resources, Division of Undergraduate Education, 835 N, telephone: (703) 292-4630,
     fax: (703) 292-9015, email: dmcbride@nsf.gov

   * Kathleen A. Parson, Program Director (CHEM), Directorate for Education & Human
     Resources, Division of Undergraduate Education, 835 N, telephone: (703) 292-4653,
     fax: (703) 292-9015, email: kparson@nsf.gov

   * Russell L. Pimmel, Program Director (ENG), Directorate for Education & Human
     Resources, Division of Undergraduate Education, 835 N, telephone: (703) 292-4618,
     fax: (703) 292-9015, email: rpimmel@nsf.gov

   * Nancy L. Pruitt, Program Director (BIO), Directorate for Education & Human
     Resources, Division of Undergraduate Education, 835 N, telephone: (703) 292-4627,
     fax: (703) 292-9015, email: npruitt@nsf.gov

   * Herbert H. Richtol, Program Director (INTERDIS), Directorate for Education &
     Human Resources, Division of Undergraduate Education, 835 N, telephone: (703)
     292-4648, fax: (703) 292-9015, email: hrichtol@nsf.gov

   * Jeanne Rudzki Small, Program Director (BIO), Directorate for Education & Human
     Resources, Division of Undergraduate Education, 835 N, telephone: (703) 292-4641,
     fax: (703) 292-9015, email: jsmall@nsf.gov

   * Keith A. Sverdrup, Program Director (GEO), Directorate for Education & Human
     Resources, Division of Undergraduate Education, 835 N, telephone: (703) 292-4644,
     fax: (703) 292-9015, email: ksverdru@nsf.gov

   * Elizabeth J. Teles, Program Director (MATH), Directorate for Education & Human
     Resources, Division of Undergraduate Education, 835 N, telephone: (703) 292-8670,
     fax: (703) 292-9015, email: ejteles@nsf.gov

   * Harry G. Ungar, Program Director (CHEM), Directorate for Education & Human
     Resources, Division of Undergraduate Education, 835 N, telephone: (703) 292-4647,
     fax: (703) 292-9015, email: hungar@nsf.gov

   * Bevlee A. Watford, Program Director (ENG), Directorate for Education & Human
     Resources, Division of Undergraduate Education, 835 N, telephone: (703) 292-5323,
     fax: (703) 292-9015, email: bwatford@nsf.gov

   * Terry S. Woodin, Program Director (BIO), Directorate for Education & Human
     Resources, Division of Undergraduate Education, 835 N, telephone: (703) 292-4657,
     fax: (703) 292-909015, email: twoodin@nsf.gov

   * Lee L. Zia, Program Director (MATH), Directorate for Education & Human Resources,
     Division of Undergraduate Education, 835 N, telephone: (703) 292-5140, fax: (703)
     292-9046, email: lzia@nsf.gov

For questions related to the use of FastLane, contact:

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

   * Ms. Antoinette Allen, Division of Undergraduate Education, telephone:
     703-292-4646, email: duefl@nsf.gov

IX. OTHER PROGRAMS OF INTEREST

The NSF Guide to Programs is a compilation of funding for research and education in
science, mathematics, and engineering. The NSF Guide to Programs is available
electronically at http://www.nsf.gov/cgi-bin/getpub?gp. General descriptions of NSF
programs, research areas, and eligibility information for proposal submission are
provided in each chapter.

Many NSF programs offer announcements or solicitations concerning specific proposal
requirements. To obtain additional information about these requirements, contact the
appropriate NSF program offices. Any changes in NSF's fiscal year programs occurring
after press time for the Guide to Programs will be announced in the NSF E-Bulletin,
which is updated daily on the NSF Website at http://www.nsf.gov/home/ebulletin, and in
individual program announcements/solicitations. Subscribers can also sign up for NSF's
MyNSF News Service (http://www.nsf.gov/mynsf/) to be notified of new funding
opportunities that become available.

ABOUT THE NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

The National Science Foundation (NSF) funds research and education in most fields of
science and engineering. Awardees are wholly responsible for conducting their project
activities and preparing the results for publication. Thus, the Foundation does not
assume responsibility for such findings or their interpretation.

NSF welcomes proposals from all qualified scientists, engineers and educators. The
Foundation strongly encourages women, minorities and persons with disabilities to
compete fully in its programs. In accordance with Federal statutes, regulations and
NSF policies, no person on grounds of race, color, age, sex, national origin or
disability shall be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be
subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving financial
assistance from NSF, although some programs may have special requirements that limit
eligibility.

Facilitation Awards for Scientists and Engineers with Disabilities (FASED) provide
funding for special assistance or equipment to enable persons with disabilities
(investigators and other staff, including student research assistants) to work on
NSF-supported projects. See the GPG Chapter II, Section D.2 for instructions regarding
preparation of these types of proposals.


       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; 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 applicant 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 needing information as part of
the review process or in order to coordinate programs; 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," 63 Federal Register 267 (January 5, 1998), and NSF-51,
"Reviewer/Proposal File and Associated Records," 63 Federal Register 268 (January 5,
1998). 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 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 this burden estimate and any other
aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this
burden, to: Suzanne Plimpton, Reports Clearance Officer, Division of Administrative
Services, National Science Foundation, Arlington, VA 22230.

OMB control number: 3145-0058.


 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         06/09/05
                             22230, USA                                    Text Only
                             Tel: (703) 292-5111, FIRS: (800) 877-8339 |
                             TDD: (800) 281-8749
                                        [Image]