Guide to Proposal Writing
Note: Below you will find a plain-text version of this guide. To
see the guide with its graphics etc. (to do this is
recommended), click here: http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/1998/nsf9891/nsf9891.htm.
NSF 98-91
A GUIDE FOR PROPOSAL WRITING
DIRECTORATE FOR EDUCATION
AND HUMAN RESOURCES
Division of Undergraduate Education
Notices from the National
Science Foundation
The Foundation provides awards for research and education in the
sciences and engineering. The awardee is wholly responsible for
the conduct of such research and preparation of the results for
publication. The Foundation, therefore, does not assume
responsibility for the research findings or their interpretation.
The Foundation welcomes proposals from all qualified scientists
and engineers and strongly encourages women, minorities, and
persons with disabilities to compete fully in any of the research
and education related programs described here. 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 subject to discrimination under any program or activity
receiving financial assistance from the National Science
Foundation.
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 projects. See the program announcement or contact the
program coordinator at (703) 306-1636.
The National Science Foundation has TDD (Telephonic Device for
the Deaf) capability, which enables individuals with hearing
impairment to communicate with the Foundation about NSF programs,
employment, or general information. To access NSF TDD dial (703)
306-0090; for FIRS, 1-800-877-8339.
CATALOG OF FEDERAL DOMESTIC ASSISTANCE:
CFDA 47.076
Table of Contents
Introduction
3
Program Information
4
Review Process
4
Criteria for Evaluation
5
Intellectual Merit
5
Broader Impacts
6
Additional Questions Relevant to Teacher Collaboratives
7
Advice To Proposal Writers
10
Step 1 - Before You Write
10
Getting Started
10
Gathering Background Information
11
Looking at the Program Announcement
11
Thinking About the Target Audience
12
Building Coalitions
12
Other Considerations
13
Step 2 - Writing the Proposal
15
Writing the Proposal Narrative
15
Including Budget Information
16
Writing the Credentials of the PI and Other Staff
17
Including Evaluation and Dissemination Information
17
Letters of Commitment
18
Project Summary and Project Data Form
18
Step 3 - Before Sending Your Proposal to NSF
19
Learning More About the Review Process
19
Getting Advice
19
Before Finishing the Proposal
19
Little Things That Can Make a Difference
20
Step 4 - Awards and Declinations
20
If The Grant is Awarded
20
If Your Proposal is Not Funded
21
A Final Note
21
Proposal Evaluation Form
22
A GUIDE FOR PROPOSAL WRITING
INTRODUCTION
The staff of the Division of Undergraduate Education (DUE) at the
National Science Foundation (NSF) often provide informal guidance
to proposers. Staff members give workshops on proposal writing,
answer questions by phone and e-mail, and talk to potential
awardees at professional meetings and at NSF. The following is
the essence of the advice often given to inquirers. These
suggestions for improving proposals were collected from a variety
of sources, including NSF Program Directors, panel reviewers, and
successful grantees. Ultimately, proposals are peer reviewed
in
panels consisting of colleagues in science, mathematics,
engineering, and technology disciplines or related fields, and
the success in obtaining funding depends in great measure on
reviewers' judgements and their written reviews.
"What makes a good proposal?" A good proposal stems from a good
concept. The best proposals are those to which the reviewers
respond, "Of course, I wish I had thought of that!"
The most important thing is a project that will benefit
undergraduate education and directly improve student
opportunities to learn. That said, however, the proposal must
be
written in sufficient detail to allow reviewers to understand:
- what the project hopes to accomplish;
- if the project personnel have the necessary expertise
to
accomplish the goals and objectives;
- the potential of the project to improve undergraduate
education;
- the national impact and cost effectiveness of the project;
and
- evaluation and dissemination plans.
Carefully read the Program Announcement. The Program
Announcement gives the most current information available. It
provides for all DUE programs: (a) a rationale, (b) an overview,
(c) detailed program information, (d) facts about preparation and
submission of both preliminary and formal proposals, (e) review
criteria, (f) special forms that should be submitted with
proposals, and (g) advice to proposal writers. This is the best
possible guide for preparing proposals to DUE programs and should
be read carefully and followed precisely. There are no hidden
agendas. Proposals are funded in a competitive system based on
merit and promise.
While this Guide may provide valuable information for proposal
writing in general, it was specifically prepared for programs in
the Division of Undergraduate Education (DUE). Because programs,
priorities, technologies, funding levels, and many other details
change, advice in this Guide will also change with time.
Following the advice given here certainly does not guarantee
funding although we hope it will help applicants write better and
more competitive proposals. Another factor that must be
considered is that NSF receives many more proposals that are
worthy of funding than there are funds to support. National
priorities and the desire for a balanced portfolio of projects
influence what is ultimately funded.
We hope that you find this Guide informative. NSF, together with
creative partners, make an important difference in undergraduate
science, mathematics, engineering, and technology education.
Program Information
Following is a list of grant publications with a short
description. For those that are published annually, no NSF
publication numbers are shown since they will change. The
documents are available on the NSF Web page which can be accessed
at http://www.nsf.gov.
- The Guide to Programs provides background information about
all of the Foundation's activities in education and research
as
well as the instructions to obtain individual program
announcements. This can be ordered by contacting the NSF
Publication Clearinghouse, P.O. Box 218, Jessup, MD 20794-0218.
Copies may be requested via voice mail: phone at (301) 947-2722,
fax (301) 953-3848 or via e-mail (pubs@nsf.gov).
- Proposers also can consult the publication Grant Proposal
Guide and DUE's Program Announcement and Guidelines (see below)
for additional guidance. They are also available from
the Forms
and Publication Unit.
- The DUE publication Undergraduate Education Science,
Mathematics, Engineering and Technology: Program Announcement
and
Guidelines (hereafter, Program Announcement) describes each
program and indicates the exact format for the preparation of
the
grant proposal and the criteria for evaluation. DUE also
regularly publishes information about recently awarded grants.
Information specific to undergraduate programs can be accessed
by e-mail (undergrad@nsf.gov) or by phone at 703-306-1666.
You can also get information fast via the World Wide Web
(www.nsf.gov.)
- NSF has also published the User-Friendly Handbook for
Project Evaluation (NSF 93-152), FOOTPRINTS: Strategies
for Non-
Traditional Program Evaluation (NSF 95-41), and User-Friendly
Handbook for Mixed Method Evaluations (NSF 97-153) which
proposers may wish to obtain.
Review Process
NSF awards grants on a competitive basis. In selecting proposals
to be supported, NSF is assisted by reviewers who are scientists,
engineers, mathematicians, technologists, and educators in
related disciplines. These reviewers are drawn primarily from
two- and four-year colleges and universities, secondary schools,
industry, foundations, and professional societies and
associations, as appropriate for the program being reviewed.
The
reviewers are chosen based on their demonstrated ability to
assess the merits of a proposal based on the criteria for
evaluation shown in the next section. Faculty writing proposals
are advised to contact NSF program officers to learn the general
demographics of the reviewers for the program for which they are
submitting proposals.
The majority of proposals submitted to DUE are considered by
panels of peer reviewers. The purpose of the review is to
provide NSF with a written critique and an individual rating from
each reviewer as well as a summary analysis by the panel. Each
panelist writes his or her own review for all proposals assigned
to the panel. Reviewers are asked to provide a detailed
evaluation of both the merits and the shortcomings of each
proposal and to provide a rating. The Proposal Evaluation Form
which is used for comments is attached. The panel then convenes
as a group to discuss the proposals. This gives each reviewer
the benefit of an informed discussion upon which to base a
decision. Following these discussions, panelists complete their
individual reviews and one panel member writes a summary of the
discussion for each proposal. Reviews are used by NSF Program
Directors to inform funding decisions; and anonymous copies are
sent to all proposers.
Reviewers are charged with safeguarding the confidentiality of
proposals and are asked not to copy, quote, or otherwise use
material from any proposal. Reviews are not disclosed to persons
outside NSF except to the principal investigator. At the end
of
the review process, the principal investigator is sent the
written verbatim reviews with the reviewers' names and
affiliations omitted. Reviews are forwarded whether the proposal
is funded or not. All reviews are confidential. NSF releases
abstracts and other information about funded proposals only.
Criteria for Evaluation
Proposals to NSF are evaluated for merit on the basis of two
general criteria. The criteria are described in Chapter III,
Section A, of the Grant Proposal Guide and are printed on the NSF
Proposal Evaluation Form (NSF Form 1). These criteria, as they
relate to education, are defined below. In addition to the
suggestions listed in the "Advice for Proposal Writers" section,
special attention should be paid to the criteria and questions
specified below. These criteria are given to the review
panels
as guidance for evaluating program proposals. Some programs
include additional criteria for their programs. See the DUE
Program Announcement for this information about DUE programs.
I. Intellectual Merit
What is the intellectual merit of the proposed activity? This
criterion is used to assess the importance of the proposed
activity to advancing knowledge and understanding within the
context of undergraduate science, mathematics, engineering, and
technology (SMET) education. This criterion also relates to the
quality, currency, and significance of the scientific/technical
content and related instructional activity, the capability of the
Principal Investigator(s), the extent to which the proposed
activity applies innovative approaches or explores creative
concepts, the technical soundness and organization of the
proposed approach, and the adequacy of the institutional
resources available. Typical questions raised in the review
process include:
- Does the project address a major challenge facing
SMET
undergraduate education?
- Are the goals and objectives, and the plans and
procedures
for achieving them, innovative, well-developed,
worthwhile, and
realistic?
- Does the project have potential for improving student
learning of important principles of
science, mathematics,
engineering, or technology?
- Is the project informed by research in teaching
and
learning, current pedagogical issues,
what others have done, and
relevant literature?
- Does the project provide for effective assessment
of student
learning, which reflects the proposed
educational objectives and
practices?
- Does the project design consider the background,
preparation, and experience of the target
audience?
- Does the project have the potential to provide
fundamental
improvements in teaching and learning
through effective uses of
technology?
- Is the project led by and supported by the involvement
of
capable faculty (and where appropriate,
practicing scientists,
mathematicians, engineers, technicians,
teachers, and student
assistants), who have recent and relevant
experience in
education, in research, or in the workplace?
- Is the project supported by adequate facilities
and
resources, and by an institutional and
departmental commitment?
II. Broader Impacts
What are the broader impacts of the proposed activity? This
criterion relates to the extent to which the activity advances
discovery and understanding while promoting teaching and
learning, how well it broadens participation of underrepresented
groups (e.g., based on gender, ethnicity, disability, geography,
etc.), the extent to which it enhances the infrastructure for
research and education (e.g., facilities, instrumentation,
networks, partnerships), the degree to which it plans broad
dissemination to enhance scientific and technological
understanding, and the benefits of the activity to society.
Typical questions raised in the review process include:
- To what extent will the results of the project
contribute
to the knowledge base of activities
that enhance student
learning?
- Are the proposed course, curriculum, faculty or
teacher
professional development, experiential
learning, or laboratory
activities integrated into the institution's
academic program?
- Are plans for evaluation of the project appropriate
and
adequate for the project's size and
scope?
- Are the results of the project likely to be useful
at
similar institutions?
- What is the potential for the project to produce
widely used
products which can be disseminated through
commercial or other
channels? Are plans for producing,
marketing and distributing
these products and communication of
results appropriate and
adequate?
- For ATE projects, does the project address the
current and
future needs of industry for technicians?
Does the project
enhance the current status of technician
education?
- Will the project result in solid content and pedagogical
preparation of faculty and teachers
of science, mathematics,
engineering, and technology?
- Does the project effectively address one or more
of the
following objectives:
- ensure the highest quality education
for those students
planning to pursue
SMET careers?
- increase the participation of
women, underrepresented
minorities, and persons
with disabilities?
- provide a foundation for scientific,
technological, and
workplace literacy?
- develop multi- and interdisciplinary
courses and curricula,
that are aligned with
SMET standards, as appropriate?
Additional Questions Relevant to NSF Collaboratives for
Excellence in Teacher Preparation (CETP):
I. Intellectual Merit
- Is the rationale for selecting particular activities
or
components for development or adaptation
clearly articulated?
- As appropriate, is there evidence of collaboration
among
faculty and departments in the sciences,
mathematics, technology,
education, and/or engineering?
- For multi-institutional projects, is there significant
evidence of participation and commitment
by the member
institutions including school personnel
(teachers, supervisors,
administrators) in proposal preparation
and in the planning and
implementation of the project?
- Is there demonstrated leadership from the science,
mathematics, and/or engineering faculty
in close collaboration
with the science and mathematics education
faculty? Does the
institutional structure and culture
promote the requisite
collaboration between the institutions,
departments and faculties
involved?
- Is there integration of mathematics and science,
use of
advanced technologies, applications
to engineering and
technology, and/or new methods of student
assessment appropriate
to the teaching methodologies?
- Does the project contain exemplary mentoring and
field
experiences (e.g., student teaching,
laboratory research
opportunities, support for novice teachers)?
- Are there strategies for recruiting, supporting,
and
graduating high-quality prospective
mathematics and science
teachers, particularly from underrepresented
groups including
persons with disabilities?
- Are there creative plans to maintain continuing
relationships with graduates of the
proposed Collaborative
program to encourage their retention
in science and mathematics
teaching?
II. Broader Impacts
- Is the evidence for institutional support clear
and
compelling?
- Will the project contribute to the preparation
of preK-12
teachers who are: knowledgeable in,
and comfortable with science,
mathematics, and technology; confident
in their abilities in
these disciplines; and able to effectively
use a variety of
pedagogical approaches and technology
to improve student
learning?
- Does the proposal indicate how the project relates
to a
teacher preparation program? Is
there significant redesign of
activities, including discipline courses,
which serve prospective
teachers as part of the audience, and
are these activities
integrated into the curriculum and institutional
requirements?
- Will the project result in increased involvement
of
mathematics, science and, as appropriate,
engineering and
technology departments and their faculty
in the preparation of
prospective teachers?
- Is there evidence that programs initiated by the
collaborative entity will become established
within the
participating science, mathematics,
education and/or engineering
departments and the sponsoring institution
or institutions? Are
there effective mechanisms included
to promote the incorporation
of successful models or results into
statewide practice and
policy?
- Is there significant cost sharing by the institution
or each
of the institutions within the Collaborative?
- Is there cognizance of and cooperation with other
programs
in the region (Local Systemic Change
[LSC], State Systemic
Initiative [SSI], Urban Systemic Initiative
[USI], Rural Systemic
Initiative [RSI], Alliances for Minority
Participation [AMP], and
large systemic efforts in preK-12 curriculum
reform) designed to
improve the teaching of math and science?
- Are adequate systems provided to facilitate the
collection
of baseline and subsequent data to measure
program impact?
ADVICE TO PROPOSAL WRITERS
The following steps are provided to help the proposal writer
understand the steps that go into preparing a proposal and to
share some advice that others have found useful.
Step 1 - Before You Write
Getting Started
NSF grants provide funds based on merit, not on need.
A good proposal begins with a clear idea of
the goals and
objectives of the project-for example,
creating a course or
curriculum, improving a laboratory by teaching
new concepts
directly, teaching new material to undergraduate
faculty, or
preparing future technicians or K-12 teachers
in a more
effective way.
In addition, a good project begins with a sense
of why it
will be a significant improvement over current
practice.
Envision what improvements your project will
make, and then
ask yourself what activities and course(s)
must be
developed, what instruments will be needed,
or what
coalitions must be formed to make the desired
improvements.
Focusing first on the goals and objectives
helps ensure that
the activities are designed to reach those
goals.
After the goals and associated activities are
well defined,
consider what resources (e.g., people, time,
equipment,
technical support) will be necessary as part
of the request
to NSF. A better proposal is likely
to result if the goals
and activities are clear before resources
are considered.
Your project should be innovative within its
context. It
should not be designed merely to bring your
institution up
to the level of other similar institutions,
nor should it be
used to fill program deficiencies that have
been caused by
changing student registration patterns.
Projects should explore teaching and learning
methods that
use equipment, scientific knowledge, or teaching
techniques
in effective ways; perhaps by adapting techniques
to a new
context or by teaching in a novel or attractive
way.
In addition, more extensive projects, such
as Advanced
Technological Education (ATE)Centers and Collaboratives
for
Excellence in Teacher Preparation (CETP),
must show clearly
that they can initiate important changes in
the teaching of
undergraduate science, mathematics, engineering,
or
technology for a significant segment of the
community.
Mention what work has been done in preparation
for the
project, and describe specific attempts that
have been made
to try the proposed improvement on a small
scale. Evidence
of preliminary work demonstrates planning
and commitment to
the project and often indicates the project's
potential for
success.
When the proposal requests significant funds
for equipment,
it is helpful to consider alternatives and
explain why the
instruments chosen are particularly suitable
for the project
and why others, especially less expensive
ones, are less
suitable.
Get advice from people who have been successful
in the
proposal process. (See the Getting Advice
Section listed in
Step 3 and consider these activities early
in the process.)
Gathering Background Information
When writing a proposal, look for previously
awarded NSF
projects or work supported in other ways that
are similar.
The relationship of the proposed project to
work of others
should be described. In addition, the
proposal must give
appropriate attention to the existing relevant
knowledge
base, including awareness of current literature.
Results of
previous projects may have been presented
at professional
meetings or published in journals, and NSF
regularly
publishes abstracts of its recently awarded
grants.
Information can also be obtained from NSF's
World Wide Web
site, <http://www.nsf.gov/>.
When you find a funded project that is
similar, call the
principal investigator, discuss his/her project,
and ask
him/her to send or e-mail you a copy of
the grant proposal.
You will then be better able to see how that
project is
outlined and developed and how it meets certain
needs on
that particular campus and in the broader
community.
Clearly you will wish to use this only as
guidance and
should not copy the project. There will
be differences in
what is needed in each new project.
Feel free to call a DUE Program Director (current
number 703-
306-1666) when unsure about any details or
procedure.
Looking at the Program Announcement
Identify the program or programs that best
fit what you hope
to accomplish.
Read the Program Announcement guidelines carefully
and
consider what is requested.
Each program's section of that announcement
specifies
requirements for that program and information
that is used
to review the proposal.
The Program Announcement clearly spells out
requirements,
including format requirements. All parts
of the proposal
should conform to the requirements, i.e.,
target dates, font
size, page limits, program objectives, budget
limits,
matching funds, etc. The proposal should
be concise and not
exceed any text restrictions.
The review criteria are particularly important
to consider
in writing the proposal. Keep in mind
that different
programs may have special emphases for review.
These will
be mentioned in the Program Announcement.
You should
consider, if appropriate, how your project
might address
these areas.
In some cases, programs have specific requirements
that
differ from the general requirements.
When there are
differences, the guidelines closest to the
program should be
followed (i.e., follow the program guidelines
provided in
the DUE Program Announcement). For example,
the DUE Program
Announcement calls for double line spacing
while the NSF
Grant Proposal Guide leaves line spacing to
the discretion
of the proposer. In that case, you should
use double line
spacing.
Thinking About the Target Audience
The target audience of the grant should be
clearly explained
in terms of demographic characteristics, size,
and special
characteristics or problems/challenges faced
by the group.
The project design should be developed in
a manner which
will effectively assist the target group in
addressing those
special problems or challenges. The
disparity between the
educational sophistication of the project
and the
educational naivete‚ of the audience (e.g.,
a software
package which is primarily being used for
research that is
proposed to be used in a developmental mathematics
class) is
usually noted by the reviewers and can be
one reason for
declination of funding.
One of the goals of the Foundation is to increase
the
participation in science, mathematics, engineering,
and
technology of women, underrepresented minorities,
and
persons with disabilities. If your project
is going to
provide learning opportunities for women,
underrepresented
minorities, and persons with disabilities,
explain exactly
how this is going to be done. The proposal
should
explicitly identify components that will result
in increased
participation by and/or success of these groups.
There must
be a focused plan, explaining in detail how
your project
will accomplish this.
Building Coalitions
When several departments, several institutions,
or
constituencies outside the academic community
are involved
in the project, it is important to have these
groups
involved in the planning and to obtain letters
of commitment
to the project.
When faculty or teacher enhancement activities
or industry
partners are included, involve these potential
participants
in the planning of project activities.
Where appropriate in terms of the project's
size and its
potential for national impact, consider designing
the
project with an advisory board of outside
experts to provide
additional levels of expertise and experience
and to help
widely disseminate the project results.
Even in smaller projects, an advisory board
of outside
experts from the college or local community
can provide
additional levels of expertise and experience.
Build consensus on your idea within your own
department and
institution. If the courses are taught
by different faculty
members, reviewers may be more receptive if
the proposal is
submitted jointly by several members of the
department or
institution rather than by a single faculty
member. It is
often valuable to include a letter of support
from the
department chair or other individuals to establish
institutional support.
Include information about where the project
fits in the
context of the institution's academic program.
As
appropriate, show how your project is part
of an overall
plan to improve education by your institution
and other
institutions.
Discuss involving other institutions in your
proposal either
as partners in the endeavor or as test sites.
Other Considerations
Organize a good working team. Distribute
duties and develop
a firm schedule of activities needed to prepare
the proposal
in time to meet the proposal deadline.
Schedule proposal writing and information gathering
activities over a reasonable time and carefully
manage the
schedule. Consider scheduling the writing
in small, regular
amounts of time. The effort needed to
write a proposal
might, at first sight, seem insurmountable.
By proceeding a
step at a time, you will be able to accomplish
the task.
Remember to allow enough time to have the proposal
revised
by a third party if needed and to obtain all
the necessary
internal and external support letters and
permissions.
Consider having one person write the final
proposal to
assure consistency.
Typically a final version of a proposal will
have gone
through several drafts and revisions.
Don't plan on writing
a final version in a first draft.
Invest time running a pilot program and preparing
preliminary versions of curricular materials
prior to the
actual writing of the proposal.
The proposal should be written so that, if
funded, it can
serve as a blueprint for executing the plan.
Step 2 - Writing the Proposal
Writing the Proposal Narrative
A good proposal is always readable, well-organized,
grammatically correct, and
understandable.
Be explicit in your narrative about how the
program will
make an improvement. This narrative
must contain specifics
including details of experiments and/or applications,
both
to show that planning has been done and to
help reviewers
understand why the particular application
you propose is
better than other ideas. You and your
colleagues should
think through several iterations of the definition
of the
project.
The narrative should be specific about the
proposed
activities. Reviewers want details of
the project's
organization, the course content, laboratory
and other
inquiry-based experiments, and participant
activities, both
to show that groundwork has been laid
and to help them
understand why the particular ideas you propose
are better
than others.
Careful writing should allow you to describe,
in the limited
space available, enough about your project
to give the
reviewers a clear idea of exactly what you
plan to do and
why your plan is a good one. How would
the project improve
education at your institution and how might
it be emulated
at other similar institutions? How will
your plan
ultimately improve students' understanding
of concepts in
science, mathematics, engineering, or technology?
How will
you know it has been done?
You must demonstrate in the narrative that
you have a broad
knowledge of current scholarship and activities
in your
field and how this is relevant to your project's
design.
This knowledge should include current research
in teaching
and learning practices. However, do
not focus entirely on
this aspect and fail to adequately describe
the components
of your project.
The project description/narrative of the proposal
should be
written by the person or persons in the science,
engineering, or mathematics departments who
will be the
principal investigator(s). The submitting
institution's
sponsored research office or grant administration
expert can
assist in some areas of the proposal writing,
e.g., with
budgets or grammar, but usually do not have
the scientific
qualifications or classroom experience to
describe the
project in an appropriately technical or pedagogical
manner.
It is helpful to reviewers to see that you
have devised a
time frame. This will show that you
have done adequate
planning and are realistic about the program's
implementation.
Include examples that illustrate, for example,
the
innovative activities or exercises
that students will be doing. Reviewers
usually respond to
projects that include an emphasis on active
learning and
student directed inquiry.
In most cases, it is well to describe your
plans to continue
the project and institutionalize
courses and curriculum beyond the funding
period.
Including Budget Information
The budget request should be realistic for
the project and
reflect the goals of the project. It must
also be consistent
with the requirements of the particular NSF
program. It
should request sufficient resources needed
to carry out the
project, but it should not be excessively
high.
Budget information should be complete and unambiguous.
Carefully review your budget to ensure that
ineligible items
do not appear in the budget and that adequate
attention has
been given to cost sharing. Consult the Program
Announcement
for eligible and ineligible items. Most
reviewers and all
Program Directors look carefully at the proposed
budgets to
find evidence of careful reflection and realistic
project
planning.
Institutional and other leveraged commitments
toward the
budget is one way to demonstrate institutional
support of
the project. Institutional and other
contributions in terms
of matching funds or released time are usually
looked upon
by reviewers as a positive sign of institutional
commitment.
Some programs require specific cost-sharing.
For example,
for proposals in the Adaptation and Implementation
track of
DUE's Course, Curriculum, and Laboratory Improvement
program, cost-sharing from non-Federal sources
equal to or
greater than the requested NSF funds is required
for the
entire budget. In addition, a specific
1:1 or greater match
is required on equipment requests. Cost-sharing
information
must be included on line M of the budget form,
and if the
proposal is awarded becomes a condition of
the award.
Remember that cost-sharing is subject to audit.
(For more
information, see the Grant Proposal Guide
and the DUE
Program Announcement.)
Make sure that your budget narrative reflects
both your
official NSF budget pages and the needs
of the project.
Cost of the project must be realistic.
Many budget requests
are out-of-line with others submitted to the
program. Look
at the Program Announcement for average size
of awards and
the award range.
Budgets are often negotiated as a proposal
is being
considered; but a clear, realistic budget
request
strengthens a proposal.
Writing the Credentials of the PI and Other Staff
When writing up the credentials of faculty
for the grant
proposal, each biographical sketch should
be written with
the proposal in mind and should display the
unique
background of the principal investigator(s)
which will be
valuable in working on the proposed project.
Carefully follow program guidelines about format
and length
of biographical sketches.
Be sure that the roles of all personnel, especially
the
principal investigators, are described in
the proposal
itself. Having the roles of the principal
investigators and
other personnel discussed within the narrative
is important
so that reviewers can understand their involvement,
leadership, and commitment to the project.
If your project involves industry, consider
having a co-
principal investigator representing
industry.
Including Evaluation and Dissemination Information
A good evaluation plan appropriate to the scale
of the
project will provide information as the project
is
developing and will determine how effectively
the project
has achieved its goals. The effects
of formative evaluation
should be described. Also include how
you intend to
evaluate the final project and how you will
determine
whether this project met your scientific and
pedagogical
expectations.
Discuss how you plan to collect and analyze
data on the
project's impact (i.e., number of students
or faculty
affected.)
Describe why the proposed project is a good
way to improve
education at your institution and how it might
be emulated
at other similar institutions.
Explain in detail how you will disseminate
information on
the success and content of your project to
other scientists
and educators. In general, setting up
a Web page about the
project is not considered sufficient.
For projects which are creating instructional
materials,
include information on potential commercial
publication.
What products-text, software, CD ROMS,
manuals, or other
publications-might result, and what plans
are in place to distribute them effectively?
Projects which include plans for commercial
publication are
encouraged by NSF. Authors who submit
such proposals should
demonstrate that NSF funding is necessary
to create the
work, make the product available earlier,
or better serve
the community.
When extensive utilization of educational technology
is
expected, how will the student learning outcomes
be
evaluated? What are the plans to ensure
that electronic
dissemination will lead to broad implementation
of material
so provided, and that such material will be
subjected to
continued scrutiny for editorial quality and
currency of
content?
Consider the value that an outside evaluator
may add to your
project.
Letters of Commitment
Include letters of commitment from your department
chair and
other appropriate administrators.
If your project involves other people or groups
not on your
campus (e.g., K-12 teachers, consultants,
or other
colleges), include letters of commitment and
support from
appropriate individuals.
Include letters of commitment with specific
contributions
from the participants' supporting institutions.
These should
make specific commitments and not just be
generic support of
good will. Uniquely phrased letters
of commitment from
different institutions are better than nearly
identical
letters from the institutions to be served.
Project Summary and Project Data Form
The project summary (abstract) is the first
thing that
reviewers and NSF staff read. It should
be written clearly
and concisely. In the space allotted,
it should outline the
problem, the objectives and the expected outcomes,
project
activities, and the audience to be addressed.
Project
directors use the summary to choose reviewers
for the
proposal. It is also the reviewers'
introduction to the
project. NSF publishes an abstract of
the project (both in
hard copy and electronically) should it be
funded.
Considerable effort and thought should be
spent in preparing
a well-written summary.
The numbers given on the Project Data Form
concerning
student impact should be as accurate as possible.
Reviewers
look for discrepancies in enrollment data
and the projected
numbers of students. They look for reasonable
expectations
in those numbers.
Step 3 - Before
Sending Your Proposal to NSF
Learning More About the Review Process
To gain expertise in NSF's proposal review
system, volunteer
to serve on a program review panel yourself.
Each Division
compiles names of appropriate individuals
who can serve as
reviewers. Contact the pertinent division
for a form to
fill out to volunteer for reviewer status.
Encourage your professional organization to
form a committee
to help members review their proposals
before submitting
them to NSF.
Getting Advice
Consider asking someone who has served on an
NSF program
review panel to assess your proposal.
If possible, have someone not connected with
the proposal
read and comment on a draft of your proposal-with
sufficient
time allowed for changes prior to the submission
of your
proposal. This person can help identify
omissions or
inconsistent logic before reviewers see the
proposal.
Some programs require a preliminary proposal.
Check the
Program Announcement and with NSF staff.
When working on a proposal or award for several
years, you
may be transferred from one Program Director
to another.
Many Program Directors come to NSF from colleges
and
universities for one or two-year assignments
and then return
to their schools at the end of their rotational
assignments.
Before Finishing the Proposal
When a checklist is provided in the Program
Announcement,
use it to ensure that all needed information,
signatures,
and/or administrative details are included.
Look again at the goals and objectives and
at your written
plans and procedures for achieving the goals.
Check to see
that the goals are well-developed and realistic
and that
your plans are innovative and appropriate.
Consider using graphics to make
your point stronger and
clearer.
A time line to show when different components
of your
project are to take place can be particularly
effective.
Include a table of contents. This makes
it easy for
reviewers to locate important
sections of your proposal.
Little Things That Can Make a Difference
Use a spell checker before submitting the proposal.
Proofread carefully.
Be sure to follow the directions given in the
Program
Announcement. In particular, follow
any specific
requirements such as page limitations.
In general avoid abbreviations. For example,
use
laboratory, not lab and mathematics, not math.
The first time you use an acronym, write out
what it stands
for and put the acronym in parentheses.
For example,
American Mathematical Association of Two-Year
Colleges
(AMATYC). After that you can use the
acronym.
Make sure all your references are correct.
Step 4 - Awards and Declinations
If The Grant is Awarded
If the proposal is successful, make the best
possible use of
the funds awarded. Situations may arise
that require
changes in your plans to accomplish the goals
of the
project. Within broad limits described
in the grant
conditions (reference GC-1, FDP III, and NSF's
Grant Policy
Manual) and within the overall budget, such
changes may be
possible. Consult your institution's
sponsored research
office or grant administration office for
guidance.
In addition, let others know about your project.
This may
include providing advice or assistance to
faculty developing
similar projects. It clearly includes
disseminating
products and results. Make sure that
other scientists and
educators learn about your activities through
correspondence, telephone conversations, presentations,
and
publications. Finally, reference the
National Science
Foundation as well as the sponsoring Division
and/or program
in all presentations and publications.
If Your Proposal is Not Funded
If the proposal is not funded, consider the
reviews of the
panel and the comments from NSF staff objectively
and
seriously. Consult NSF staff if necessary
and, unless the
feedback indicates otherwise, submit a revised
or new
proposal the following year. Many awards
made in the
programs have been for proposals that were
revised
thoughtfully and resubmitted after having
been declined
initially.
Your institution may have a strong enough commitment
to the
project to provide funding. You may
also discover other
funding avenues open to you. If you
have contacts with
business and industry in your community, a
company in the
private sector may be interested in helping
fund your
project. Often, institution grant officers
have directories
that include the names of other foundations
and their
funding priorities.
A Final Note
The National Science Foundation is looking
for proposals of
programs that will improve the quality of
education in
science, mathematics, engineering, and technology
at all
levels. It seeks to support the best
science, mathematics,
engineering, and technology education activities
that meet
the needs of target audiences. It is
in our mutual best
interest to have your proposal be of the highest
quality.
We hope that you have found this Guide helpful
and encourage
you to contact a Program Director at NSF for
additional
information.
PROPOSAL EVALUATION FORM (NSF FORM 1)
(Form Not Available)
To get the latest information about program deadlines, to download copies
of NSF publications, and to access abstracts of awards, visit
the NSF Web site at: http://www.nsf.gov
To order publications or forms send and e-mail message to
pubs@nsf.gov or telephone (703) 306-1130.
NSF 98-91
(Replaces NSF 97-83)