Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics, including Computing, Partnerships (STEM-C Partnerships)

A Research and Development Effort

Computer Science Education Expansion track

NSF 14-522 & NSF 14-523Partnerships Advancing

K-12 STEM Education

PERMISSION TO RECORD

This webinar is being recorded.

By participating in this webinar, you are giving permission that your comments may be

recorded and shared.

Webinar Goal

To examine the details of the STEM-C Partnerships: MSP Solicitation 14-522 in order to assist you in writing a competitive proposal for submission on or before March 18, 2014 in the track for

Computer Science Education ExpansionOpen only to current or past NSF funded MSP Partnerships

STEM-C Partnerships ProgramCE21 + Math Science Partnerships (MSP) = Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics, and Computing Partnerships (STEM-CP)• Supports innovative partnerships, to improve teaching and

learning in STEM disciplines, between K-12 school districts and an institution that brings disciplinary expertise in the natural sciences, mathematics, engineering and/or computer science and is actively engaged in the production of STEM teachers

• Is a research and development effort• Seeks innovations in policies, pedagogies, programs and/or in

STEM disciplinary courses that support pre-service STEM teachers, as well as in-service teachers

• Elevates the inclusion of computer science in K-12 education

STEM-C PartnershipsDeadlines and Brief Info

• 2 solicitations, NSF 14-522 and NSF 14-523: – STEM-CP: MSP & STEM-CP: CE21

• Full proposals due: March 18, 2014

STEM-C Partnerships: MSP (NSF 14-522)A. Targeted Partnerships (Implementation: $7.5m over 5 years; Prototype: $1.5m over 3 years)Focal Areas

1) Community Enterprise for STEM Teaching & Learning 2) Current Issues Related to STEM Content3) Teaching & Learning In Computer Science 4) Identifying and Cultivating Exceptional Talent 5) K-12 STEM Teacher Preparation

B. Computer Science Education Expansion ** ($500K supplements)

Important Factors to Keep in Mind• Improving K-12 STEM Education

– Teaching and Learning– Student Outcomes

• Institutional Partnership• Substantive Engagement of

– Mathematicians - Scientists

– Engineers, and/or - Computer Scientists• Implementing + Knowledge Building (research)• Resulting in

– Improved Student Outcomes– Evidence-based Outcomes– Identifiable Institutional Change for Each Core Partner

Computer Science Education ExpansionOpen only to NSF MSP Partnerships that have been previously funded at the high school level—submit • supplemental request for current MSP awardees• new proposal from past MSP awardees

Intent to Advance the CS 10K Project:• Increase the number of qualified computer science teachers and• Increase the number of high schools with rigorous computer science courses

Potential Activities:• May address pedagogical practices, teacher methods courses, or teacher

professional development• May address promising practices for increasing the participation of students

from underrepresented groups• Must include Computer Science disciplinary experts• Must implement the Exploring Computer Science and/or AP CS Principles

courses (or similar courses with compelling justification)• Must include a research question and research design

Project Attributes• Centers on improving STEM learning by K-12 students• Contributes to the literature on STEM teaching and learning, with

an explicit research agenda• Involves at least one K-12 school district and at least one

institution/organization that is actively engaged in teacher education (pre-service and/or in-service) and which brings STEM disciplinary expertise

• Utilizes expertise of STEM disciplinary experts, educational researchers, and K-12 teachers and administrators, with individuals from the learning sciences

• Partnership Driven—mutually beneficial• National Priorities—the project should address both identified

local needs and issues of national import

Proposal Requirements speak to• Innovative Strategies—beyond the commonplace• Partnership Driven—leadership involvement of K-12 Core Partners,

substantive engagement of disciplinary experts, with clearly defined roles• Teacher Quality, Quantity and Diversity—Designed to increase the

capacity of pre-service and/or in-service teachers to enhance student learning in STEM, attending to the diversity of the teacher workforce

• Challenging Courses and Curriculum—A description of what the K-12 students will be learning and/or the content and skills the pre-service or in-service teachers will learn

• Evidence-based Design and Outcomes—Links to current research and studies including theoretical foundations to inform the project design and the research agenda (See Common Guidelines for Education Research and Development)

• Institutional Change—Identifies institutional change that will result from the work for each Core Partner which will contribute to sustainability of project goals (policies, practices, programs)

Eligibility InformationThe Partnership Leadership Team:• Cross-disciplinary teams including learning scientists, social

scientists and education researchers, as well as STEM discipline-specific teachers, faculty, researchers and scientists

• The team of PI and co-PIs must include individuals who represent the various fields that are the focus of the study (for CSE-Expansion, there MUST be a Computer Scientist)– K-12 Core Partner organizational representative– Individual with an advanced STEM degree who represents a Core

Partner– The PI must be an individual who can represent the Lead

Institution

Eligibility Information cont.

Limit on Number of Proposals per PI or Co-PI:

An individual may serve as Principal Investigator or co-Principal Investigator on only one STEM-C Partnerships Computer Science Education Expansion proposal

Current MSP Awardee—Supplement Submit via FastLane and must include a brief description of the request, a budget and a budget justificationItems to pay attention to in the brief description:• Briefly describe the Partnership that exists, its successes and how

the Partnership will expand to focus on Computer Science at the high school level

• Describe the Partnership’s intentions relative to the implementation of the Exploring Computer Science and/or CS Principles courses (or similar courses with strong justification)

• Provide CV for the computer scientist(s) and how they will be involved.

• State research question(s) and describe the research methodology• Identify Intellectual Merit and Broader Impact of supplemental work

Past MSP Awardee—Full Proposal for New Grant

• Cover Sheet• Project Summary• Project Description• References Cited• Biographical Sketch(es)• Budget• Budget Justification• Current and Pending Support• Facilities/Equipment & Other Resources• Special Information and Supplementary Documentation

– Appendices (as described later)– Data Management Plan– Postdoctoral Mentoring Plan (if applicable)

• Must be in accordance with the Grant Proposal Guidelines NSF 14-1

Cover Sheet

• Select the NSF Unit Consideration– Phase II (for Computer Science Education

Expansion)• Check off Human Subjects box

– pending or – indicate IRB approval date

STEM-C: CE21 and STEM-C: MSP

STEM-CP: MSP solicitation adds emphasis on computer science education but

persists in prior MSP efforts to improve K-12 education in any of the natural sciences, engineering, mathematics, or computer science, as well as interdisciplinary approaches.

New track: Computer Science Education Expansion – open to previously funded MSP Partnerships (at HS level).

Targeted Partnerships: focal areas– Community Enterprise for STEM Teaching and Learning – Current Issues Related to STEM Content– Teaching and Learning in Computer Science– Identifying and Cultivating Exceptional Talent– K-12 STEM Teacher Preparation

Questions?

Proposal Development and Review Criteria

The remainder of the slides focus on:

• Parts of the Proposal• Review Criteria• Tips for Success

Project Summary (1 page)• Overview

– Title of proposed project– Name of the Lead Partner– Name(s) of additional Core Partner(s)– Name(s) of any supporting partner(s)– Brief description of project vision, goals, and work– Numbers of teachers to be directly engaged in the project– Number of new teachers that will be prepared– Number of students (including grade ranges) who will benefit

• Intellectual Merit—potential to advance knowledge• Broader Impacts—potential to benefit society

Project Description (15 pages)—Vision, Goals and Outcomes

• Project’s vision, goals and anticipated outcomes, linked to the stated theory of action

• Project is informed by relevant baseline K-12 student and teacher data (include the data, along with quantitative outcome goals and annual benchmarks in the Supplementary Documentation section)

• For K-12 partner(s), include a description of the context, policy endeavors, benefits, and contributions to the work of this Partner

• For other Core Partner(s), include a description of context, prior involvement of the STEM experts with K-12 education, relevant institutional policies that reward that involvement, how this work will benefit the Partner, and contributions of the work of this Partner

• Include evidence of – An effective partnership– Participation of all key stakeholders in planning, design, and management– Sufficient capacity to support the scale and scope of the project

Project Description (15 pages)—Implementation Framework

Describe the activities and strategies that will occur to obtain the Partnership’s intended outcomes• Clear rationale for strategic actions (beyond

common approaches), tied to literature in STEM education

• What the Partnership intends to do• How the Partnership will do it

Project Description (15 pages)—Research Framework

• Research Questions, including how the project design will allow warranted claims about the contribution of partnership activities to the measured outcomes

• Methodology should be determined by the research questions• Individual(s) who will conduct the research should be identified• Must be beyond evaluation to evidence-producing (See

Common Guidelines for Education Research and Development)• Include research or evidence base• Identify instruments used to measure outcomes• Explain the logic from design to outcomes• Describe how each partner contributes, especially STEM

discipline experts

Project Description (15 pages)—Evaluation Plan

• All STEM-C Partnerships projects must be subject to a series of external, critical reviews– This may include third-party evaluators, an external review panel, or advisory

board• Should be sufficiently independent and rigorous to influence the project’s

activities and improve the quality of its findings• Should include formative and summative components• Summative evaluation should generate evidence of project impact vs.

intended outcomes• Successful proposals:

– Describe the expertise of the external reviewer(s)– Explain how that expertise relates to the goals and objectives of the proposal– Specify how the PI will report and use results of the project’s external, critical

review process

Project Description (15 pages)—Management Plan

• Demonstrate that all partners are fully engaged• Describe in detail the specific roles, responsibilities and time

commitments of the members of the Partnership Leadership Team

• Provide the number of STEM experts who will be engaged in the work and describe their contributions (listed in a Disciplinary Partner table in the Supplementary Documentation)

• Project Timeline correlated with proposed action plan, quantitative outcome goals and annual benchmarks (which are described in the Supplementary Documentation section)

Project Description (15 pages)—Institutional Change and Sustainability

• Describe how the proposed action plan will result in institutional change within each Core Partner organization

• Include plans to redirect resources• Include plans to develop/revise and

implement policies and practices critical for the work of the Partnership

Project Description (15 pages)—Results from Prior NSF Support

• Limited to 5/15 pages• Must include information on NSF awards received by a PI or co-PI within the last 5

years• If a PI or co-PI has received more than one award, s/he must report on the one

award most closely related to the proposal• Describe lessons learned including successes and failures• Indicate how the proposed work differs from, builds on, or is otherwise informed by

prior efforts, especially those supported by NSF• Must include 6 items (see GPG NSF 14-1)

– NSF award number, amount and period of support– Title of project– Summary of the results of the completed work, including accomplishments, described in

two separate sections related to the Intellectual Merit and Broader Impacts– Publications resulting from the NSF award– Evidence of research products and their availability– If the proposal is for renewed support, description of the relation of the completed work to

the proposed work

Biographical Sketches

• Provide a Biographical Sketch for the– PI– Co-PI(s)– External Project Evaluator

• Must not exceed 2 pages per individual• May include a list of up to 5 publications most

closely related to the proposed endeavor

Budget and Budget Justification

• Must be consistent with the GPG NSF 14-1 and with the scope and complexity of the proposed activities

• Senior personnel salary compensation is limited to no more than two months of their regular salary in any one year, including compensation from all NSF-funded grants – However, if any compensation for such personnel in excess

of two months is anticipated, it must be disclosed in the proposal budget, justified in the budget justification, and must be specifically approved by NSF in the award

Current and Pending Support

• Include Current and Pending Support information for the Principal Investigator and all co-Principal Investigators

Special Information and Supplementary Documentation

• Appendices uploaded as a separate PDF file not to exceed 25 pages• Baseline Data for Students and Teachers

– Relative to student achievement or teacher capacity– Disaggregated for students– Demographics of teachers

• Annual Benchmarks and Outcome Goals– Quantitative (and qualitative)– Linked to project strategies/activities

• Partnership Leadership Team – Describe roles and responsibilities and time committed

• Disciplinary Partners– Describe roles and responsibilities and time committed

• Commitment to Institutional Change – Letters from Senior Administrators in Core Partner institutions/organizations

• Other letters of Substantive Commitment

Special Information and Supplementary Documentation

• Data Management Plan– no more than 2 pages– See the EHR DMP guidelines for more information:

• Postdoctoral Researcher Mentoring Plan– Required if there is a funding request for one or

more postdoctoral scholars on line B1 of the budget

Note: these pages are not part of the 25 page supplementary documentation limit.

Review Criteria

• An outline of the review process is available in the GPG as Exhibit III-1.

• NSF Merit Review Criteria:– Intellectual Merit: the potential to advance

knowledge– Broader Impacts: the potential to benefit society

and contribute to the achievement of specific, desired societal outcomes

Merit Review Criteria: Intellectual Merit and Broader Impacts

The following elements are considered in the review of both criteria1. What is the potential for the proposed activity to

a. Advance knowledge and understanding within its own field or across different fields (Intellectual Merit); and

b. Benefit society or advance desired societal outcomes (Broader Impacts)?2. To what extent do the proposed activities suggest and explore creative,

original, or potentially transformative concepts?3. Is the plan for carrying out the proposed activities well-reasoned, well-

organized, and based on a sound rationale? Does the plan incorporate a mechanism to assess success?

4. How well qualified is the individual, team, or organization to conduct the proposed activities?

5. Are there adequate resources available to the PI (either at the home organization or through collaborations) to carry out the proposed activities?

Merit Review Criteria cont.Broader impacts may be accomplished through the research itself, through the activities that are directly related to specific research projects, or through activities that are supported by, but are complementary to, the project.

NSF values the advancement of scientific knowledge and activities that contribute to achievement of societally relevant outcomes. Such outcomes include, but are not limited to:• full participation of women, persons with disabilities, and underrepresented minorities

in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM); • improved STEM education and educator development at any level; • increased public scientific literacy and public engagement with science and technology; • improved well-being of individuals in society; • development of a diverse, globally competitive STEM workforce; • increased partnerships between academia, industry, and others; • improved national security; • Increased economic competitiveness of the United States; and enhanced infrastructure

for research and education.

STEM-C Partnerships: MSP Specific Review Criteria

• Is science, mathematics, computer science, and/or engineering expertise from Core Partners deeply and broadly involved in the proposed work?

• Is the potential high for strategic impact on teaching and learning and is the research likely to be of high importance to STEM education?

What Makes a Proposal Competitive?

• Strong Partnership team• Innovative/original ideas• Succinct, focused project plan• Sufficient detail provided• Solid evaluation plan• Rationale and evidence of potential effectiveness• Potential contribution to knowledge• Likelihood of sustainability• Appropriate budget consistent with the scope and

complexity of the proposed work

Tips for Success• Read the program solicitation and GPG• Test drive FastLane

• Alert the Sponsored Research Office• Follow page and font size limits• Discuss other projects, advances in the field and related

literature• Provide detail, detail, detail!• Discuss RESULTS from relevant prior work funded by NSF• Have a strong evaluation plan with timelines and

benchmarks

Tips for Success• Have an important research question or questions and a

strong research design• Put yourself in the reviewers’ place• Have someone else read the proposal• Spell check; grammar check• Meet deadlines• Follow NSF requirements for proposals involving Human

Subjects• Call or email NSF Program Officers (when clarification

will assist you)

Return Without Review

• Submitted after deadline• Fail to separately and explicitly address both

intellectual merit and broader impacts in the project summary

• Fail to follow formatting requirements such as page limitation, font size and margin limits

• Fail to meet eligibility requirements of the solicitation

Additional Resources

• STEM-C Partnerships: MSP Program Page and Solicitation NSF 14-522

• Grant Proposal Guide NSF 14-1• Common Guidelines for Education Research

and Evaluation NSF 13-126• Education and Human Resources

Data Management Plan Guidelines• www.MSPnet.org

STEM-C Partnerships: MSP & CE21Program Officers

• Kathleen B. Bergin, telephone: (703) 292-5171, email: kbergin@nsf.gov

• Janice Cuny, telephone: (703) 292-8900, email: jcuny@nsf.gov• Jeff Forbes, Program Director, CISE Directorate, 1175, telephone:

(703) 292-4291, email: jforbes@nsf.gov• Arlene M. de Strulle, telephone: (703) 292-8620, email:

adestrul@nsf.gov• Valerie Barr, telephone: (703) 292-7855, email: vbarr@nsf.gov• John Haddock, telephone: (703) 292-4643, email:

jhaddock@nsf.gov• Christopher Hoadley, telephone: (703) 292-7906, email:

choadley@nsf.gov• Michael Jacobson, telephone: (703) 292-4641, email:

mjacobso@nsf.gov

Questions?

Thank you for your

participation