Research Experiences for Teachers (RET) in Engineering and Computer Science
Supplements and Sites

Program Solicitation
NSF 11-509

Replaces Document(s):
NSF 07-557

National Science Foundation Directorate for Engineering      Engineering Education and Centers Directorate for Computer & Information Science & Engineering

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

     February 28, 2011

     October 03, 2011

     First Monday in October, Annually Thereafter

IMPORTANT INFORMATION AND REVISION NOTES

SUMMARY OF PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS

General Information

Program Title:

Synopsis of Program:

Cognizant Program Officer(s):

Please note that the following information is current at the time of publishing. See program website for any updates to the points of contact.

• Mary Poats, Program Manager, Directorate for Engineering (ENG), Division of Engineering Education and Centers (EEC), 585 N, telephone: (703) 292-5357, fax: (703) 292-9051, email: mpoats@nsf.gov

• Harriet G. Taylor, Program Director, Directorate for Computer and Information Science and Engineering (CISE), Division of Computer and Network Systems (CNS), 1175N, telephone: (703) 292-8950, email: htaylor@nsf.gov

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

• 47.041 --- Engineering
• 47.070 --- Computer and Information Science and Engineering

Award Information

Anticipated Type of Award: Standard Grant or Continuing Grant

Estimated Number of Awards: 8

Anticipated Funding Amount: $5,500,000 The total anticipated funding in FY 2011 for both Sites and Supplements is approximately $5,500,000, subject to the availability of funds. The maximum total request for a Site is $500,000 for a duration of up to three years. Supplements are limited to a maximum of $10,000 per teacher for a duration of one year subject to the availability of funds.

Eligibility Information

Organization Limit:

Proposals may only be submitted by the following:

• Universities and Colleges - Universities and two- and four-year colleges (including community colleges) accredited in, and having a campus located in the US, acting on behalf of their faculty members. Such organizations also are referred to as academic institutions.
• Small businesses with an active SBIR or STTR grant are eligible to apply for an RET supplement.

PI Limit:

The principal investigator of a RET in Engineering and Computer Science Site proposal must have a faculty appointment, within a College/Department of Engineering or Engineering Technology or a College/Department of Computer and Information Science broadly defined (e.g., including HCI, Software Engineering, Networking Science, Informatics) within the submitting U.S. academic institution.

Limit on Number of Proposals per Organization: 3

Three site proposals may be submitted per competition by a U.S. academic institution, College/Department of Engineering, Engineering Technology, or Computer and Information Science as the lead institution.

Limit on Number of Proposals per PI: 1

Proposal Preparation and Submission Instructions

A. Proposal Preparation Instructions

• Letters of Intent: Not Applicable

• Preliminary Proposal Submission: Not Applicable

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

B. Budgetary Information

• Cost Sharing Requirements: Inclusion of voluntary committed cost sharing is prohibited.

• Indirect Cost (F&A) Limitations: Not Applicable

• Other Budgetary Limitations: Other budgetary limitations apply. Please see the full text of this solicitation for further information.

C. Due Dates

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

       February 28, 2011

       October 03, 2011

       First Monday in October, Annually Thereafter

Proposal Review Information Criteria

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

Award Administration Information

Award Conditions: Standard NSF award conditions apply.

Reporting Requirements: Standard NSF reporting requirements apply.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Summary of Program Requirements

1. Introduction
   
   
2. Program Description
   
   
3. Award Information
   
   
4. Eligibility Information
   
   
5. Proposal Preparation and Submission Instructions
   1. Proposal Preparation Instructions
   2. Budgetary Information
   3. Due Dates
   4. FastLane/Grants.gov Requirements
      
      
6. NSF Proposal Processing and Review Procedures
   1. NSF Merit Review Criteria
   2. Review and Selection Process
      
      
7. Award Administration Information
   1. Notification of the Award
   2. Award Conditions
   3. Reporting Requirements
      
      
8. Agency Contacts
   
   
9. Other Information

I. INTRODUCTION

II. PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

III. AWARD INFORMATION

IV. ELIGIBILITY INFORMATION

Organization Limit:

Proposals may only be submitted by the following:

• Universities and Colleges - Universities and two- and four-year colleges (including community colleges) accredited in, and having a campus located in the US, acting on behalf of their faculty members. Such organizations also are referred to as academic institutions.
• Small businesses with an active SBIR or STTR grant are eligible to apply for an RET supplement.

PI Limit:

The principal investigator of a RET in Engineering and Computer Science Site proposal must have a faculty appointment, within a College/Department of Engineering or Engineering Technology or a College/Department of Computer and Information Science broadly defined (e.g., including HCI, Software Engineering, Networking Science, Informatics) within the submitting U.S. academic institution.

Limit on Number of Proposals per Organization: 3

Three site proposals may be submitted per competition by a U.S. academic institution, College/Department of Engineering, Engineering Technology, or Computer and Information Science as the lead institution.

Limit on Number of Proposals per PI: 1

V. PROPOSAL PREPARATION AND SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS

A. Proposal Preparation Instructions

Full Proposal Preparation Instructions: Proposers may opt to submit proposals in response to this Program Solicitation via Grants.gov or via the NSF FastLane system.

• Full proposals submitted via FastLane: Proposals submitted in response to this program solicitation should be prepared and submitted in accordance with the general guidelines contained in the NSF Grant Proposal Guide (GPG). The complete text of the GPG is available electronically on the NSF website at: http://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=gpg. Paper copies of the GPG may be obtained from the NSF Publications Clearinghouse, telephone (703) 292-7827 or by e-mail from nsfpubs@nsf.gov. Proposers are reminded to identify this program solicitation number in the program solicitation block on the NSF Cover Sheet For Proposal to the National Science Foundation. Compliance with this requirement is critical to determining the relevant proposal processing guidelines. Failure to submit this information may delay processing.

• Full proposals submitted via Grants.gov: Proposals submitted in response to this program solicitation via Grants.gov should be prepared and submitted in accordance with the NSF Grants.gov Application Guide: A Guide for the Preparation and Submission of NSF Applications via Grants.gov. The complete text of the NSF Grants.gov Application Guide is available on the Grants.gov website and on the NSF website at: (http://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=grantsgovguide). To obtain copies of the Application Guide and Application Forms Package, click on the Apply tab on the Grants.gov site, then click on the Apply Step 1: Download a Grant Application Package and Application Instructions link and enter the funding opportunity number, (the program solicitation number without the NSF prefix) and press the Download Package button. Paper copies of the Grants.gov Application Guide also may be obtained from the NSF Publications Clearinghouse, telephone (703) 292-7827 or by e-mail from nsfpubs@nsf.gov.

In determining which method to utilize in the electronic preparation and submission of the proposal, please note the following:

Collaborative Proposals. All collaborative proposals submitted as separate submissions from multiple organizations must be submitted via the NSF FastLane system. Chapter II, Section D.4 of the Grant Proposal Guide provides additional information on collaborative proposals.

Proposal for RET in Engineering and Computer Science Site

(1) Cover Sheet. Select the number for the RET in Engineering and Computer Science program solicitation from the pull-down list. (Grants.gov users: The program solicitation number will be pre-populated by Grants.gov on the NSF Grant Application Cover Page.) The NSF organizational unit to which proposals should be directed is EEC - Research Experiences for Teachers (RET) in Engineering and Computer Science. In the title of the project, include the label "RET in Engineering and Computer Science Site."

(2) Information about Principal Investigators. A single individual should be designated clearly as principal investigator. This individual will be responsible for overseeing all aspects of the RET Site award. However, the institution may designate one additional person as co-principal investigator, should developing and operating the RET Site involve such shared responsibility. Other anticipated research supervisors or mentors are listed as senior personnel.

(3) Project Summary (one-page limit). Must clearly address in separate statements (within the one-page summary): (1) the intellectual merit of the proposed activity; and (2) the broader impacts resulting from the proposed activity. (See Section VI.A for further descriptive information on the NSF merit review criteria.)

In addition, provide a description of the activities that would result if the project is funded, including comments on its objectives, teachers and/or community college faculty to be accepted, intended impact on participating teachers and/or community college faculty and their students, and academic year follow-up. The project summary should include the following information: name of the host institution/organization, school districts and other institutions involved; the major field and subfields that describe the proposal area; a project title that will permit a prospective participant to identify the focus of the site (the title will be used in web-based lists of RET in Engineering and Computer Science sites); number of teachers and/or community college faculty involved; number of summer weeks on site and academic year activity; name, telephone number, and email address of the point-of-contact for teacher and/or community college faculty recruitment; and a web address for site information (if known).

(4) Table of Contents. The Table of Contents is system-generated and cannot be edited.

(5) Project Description. The project description contains the following items "a" through "h" and is not to exceed 15 pages in length.

a. Overview. Provide a brief description of the objectives of the proposed RET in Engineering and Computer Science Site, targeted teacher and/or community college faculty participants, intellectual focus, broader impact of the proposed activity, organizational structure, timetable, and institutional commitment to the RET activity.

b. Nature of Teacher and/or Community College Faculty Activities. A RET in Engineering and Computer Science Site program may be conducted during the summer, academic year, or both, and must have a well-defined focus, with clearly articulated research projects and activities for teachers and/or community college faculty. The teachers and/or community college faculty must be involved in an engineering or computer science research project for a duration of at least six weeks. In those cases where limited availability of specialized facilities, such as clean rooms, electron microscopes, etc., make it possible to offer an extraordinary experience in a shorter timeframe, a research component of a shorter duration may be proposed with appropriate justification. An orientation session must be included at the beginning of the program for the teachers and/or community college faculty to acquaint them with laboratory methods, safety procedures, analytical methods, etc. as appropriate to the proposal. Proposals must address the approach to research training being undertaken, and must provide detailed descriptions of examples of research projects that the teachers and/or community college faculty will pursue. These research projects must be relevant to the subjects taught by the participating teachers and/or community college faculty during the academic year. Proposals must present plans that will ensure the development of RET in Engineering and Computer Science participant-faculty interaction and communication. Development of collegial relationships and interactions is an important part of the project opportunity therefore the teachers and/or community college faculty should work closely in teams with university faculty and students.

c. The Research Environment. This subsection should describe the experience and record of involvement with K-12/community college education and research of the principal investigator, the faculty who may serve as research mentors, and the institution. This should include information on the record of faculty/mentors in publishing work and providing professional development opportunities for K-12 STEM teachers and/or community college faculty. The facilities, equipment, and other resources available to support the proposed research experiences should be described in relation to those activities.

The NSF form on Facilities, Equipment, and Other Resources should be marked "See the Project Description" and the information should be included in this subsection instead.

d. Participant Recruitment and Selection. The overall quality of the participant recruitment and selection processes and criteria will be an important element in proposal evaluation. The recruitment plan should be described with as much specificity as possible, including the types and/or names of institutions where participants will be recruited and the efforts to be made to attract members of underrepresented groups (women, minorities, and persons with disabilities) It is encouraged, but not required, that at least two STEM teachers and/or community college faculty be recruited for the program from the same K-12 school/community college in order to help ensure that outcomes of the program are more effectively disseminated to the participating institutions. RET Site participants must be currently teaching a STEM subject at their institution in order to participate in this program. It is also strongly encouraged that participants be allowed to participate in the RET in Engineering and Computer Science Site program for two consecutive years.

e. Follow-up Plan. A major goal of the RET in Engineering and Computer Science Site program is to help encourage and develop long-term relationships between the teacher and/or community college faculty participants, the RET Site project faculty team and the participating school districts particularly during the academic year. The RET experience also will lead to the transfer of new knowledge to classroom activities, therefore, the proposal must provide a plan for sustained follow-up by the RET in Engineering and Computer Science Site project team with the teachers and/or community college faculty to ensure that the research experience is translated into classroom practice during the academic year. A plan involving ongoing interaction that supports classroom implementation of lesson plans, curricula, or skills developed in the RET in Engineering and Computer Science project must be included in the proposal. In addition, plans to hold a workshop to disseminate RET program experiences to a broader group of teachers and/or community college faculty not involved in the RET site program may be included in the proposal.

If a request is being made for renewal support of a previously funded RET in Engineering Site, documentation must be provided on follow-up activities conducted during the prior RET in Engineering project.

f. Project Evaluation and Reporting. This subsection should provide a plan for evaluation of the proposed project. The objective of the evaluation process is to measure qualitatively and quantitatively the success of the project in achieving its goals, particularly the degree to which the participants have learned and their perspectives on science, engineering, or computer science have been expanded, as well as the impact on K-12 and community college students and their curriculum. The evaluation plan is an important part of the RET in Engineering and Computer Science Site proposal, but proposers have much latitude in designing a plan that best suits their particular project. Although not required, RET Site project directors may wish to engage educational research specialists from their or another institution in planning and implementing the project evaluation. Evaluation may involve periodic measures throughout the project to ensure that it is progressing satisfactorily according to the project plan, and may involve pre-project and post-project measures aimed at determining the degree of teacher and student learning that has been achieved as a result of the project. Additionally, it is highly desirable to have a structured means of tracking participants with the aim of gauging the degree to which the RET in Engineering and Computer Science Site experience has been a lasting influence as they follow their career paths.

Annual progress reports are required through the NSF FastLane project reports system. The progress report calls for information on project participants, on the research training provided and other educational activities, on publications and products, and most importantly on contributions to education and human resource development. Data for the progress report should feed into the project evaluation plan which in turn should enable informed statements about contributions and success in meeting project goals.

g. Results from Prior Support (if applicable). If no prior support has been received through an RET Site award, the maximum of 15 pages may be employed for items "a" through "f" above. If the applicant institution has received prior support through an RET Site award in the disciplinary area(s) of the proposal, the proposal must include a section (limited in length to five pages) entitled Results from Prior NSF Support within the 15-page narrative description of the project. This section must describe the earlier RET project(s) and outcomes(s) in sufficient detail to permit reviewers to reach an informed conclusion regarding the value of the results achieved. This will likely include results from the project evaluation, summary information on recruiting efforts and number of applicants, demographic make-up of participants and their home institutions, and career choices of participants; and a list of publications or reports (if to be submitted for publication) resulting from the NSF award.

h. Dissemination. To fulfill NSF dissemination requirements, as well as ensure long-term, free teacher access of the K-12 engineering and computer science curricula you create, RET Site awardees are strongly encouraged to publish the lessons or hands-on activities developed through this award in the TeachEngineering digital library (http://teachengineering.org/). With NSF funding provided by the National STEM Education Distributed Learning (NSDL) program, a multi-university team of engineering researchers embarked on creating the TeachEngineering digital library in January 2003. Engineering educators from the University of Colorado at Boulder, Duke University, Worcester Polytechnic Institute and Colorado School of Mines, with advice from dozens of K-12 teachers, pooled their K-12 engineering curricula developed through four NSF GK-12 grants into a unified collection freely accessible through the web. The TeachEngineering digital library was launched in January 2005 as a searchable, educational standards-based repository of high-quality, classroom-tested lessons and activities for use by teachers and engineering faculty to teach engineering in K-12 settings. TeachEngineering's multi-state alignment capability enables it to serve teachers from any state searching for K-12 engineering curricula that align to their state's standards. It also creates dissemination opportunities for authors with engineering curricula who desire to meet educational standards from any state.

This NSDL collection of 900+ classroom-tested K-12 engineering lessons and activities (including contributions from RETs and other NSF grantees) presents a common "look & feel" for users, and is fully searchable by many criteria, including science, math and technology standards. Using the TeachEngineering templates to document your curricula from the start simplifies the publication process. See templates, examples, review rubrics and other author submission information at http://teachengineering.org/submit_curricula.php.

(6) References Cited. A listing of references to pertinent literature is required.

(7) Current and Pending Support. This form should be provided for all persons listed as senior personnel (up to a total of 12 people).

(8) Biographical Sketches. The basic guidelines for biographical material apply; however, senior personnel are encouraged to include activities or accomplishments relevant to a successful RET Site. Senior personnel are the principal investigator; the co-principal investigator if one has been designated; and other faculty/professionals who are anticipated to serve as research mentors. The number of biographical sketches is limited to 12.

(9) Project Budget. The proposal should include a detailed project budget and budget justification, as described in the GPG or the NSF Grants.gov Application Guide. The budget justification (not to exceed three pages) should explain and justify major cost items and any unusual situations/inclusions and address the cost-effectiveness of the project. Project costs may include such items as faculty salaries and participant stipends, housing meals, travel, tuition, or laboratory use. A site may not charge the participant an application fee. Proposers are urged to consult a RET program manager concerning any questions about the project budget.

The total amount which may be requested for a RET Site may not exceed $500,000, with a program duration of up to three years. The program may be carried out during summer months, academic year, or both. The total cost per teacher is limited to $10,000 per year, which includes funds for the teacher/community college faculty stipend and up to $2,000 for the cost of materials, equipment, software, and other supplies for developing classroom instructions and experiments. The budget should include a request for funds to cover the cost of attendance of the Principal Investigator at each year's annual awardee meeting in the Washington, DC area. It is expected that teacher and community college faculty stipends will be adjusted according to their length of residency and that stipends for in-service teachers will generally be higher than those for pre-service teachers (education majors who are still pursuing their degrees). It is expected that participating teachers/community college faculty be paid at least every two weeks during the summer.

Additional funds up to 25% of the total Participant Support Costs listed in the proposed budget may be requested for activities in other cost categories (e.g., salaries, wages and fringe benefits, travel, materials and supplies, and applicable indirect costs) that contribute to the effectiveness of the RET program; any such costs must be listed under the appropriate NSF budget categories and must be explained in the Budget Justification. Organizations should propose in accordance with their current disclosed accounting practices.

If funds are requested to conduct a workshop please add them into the yearly proposal budget and fully itemize and describe the funds requested in the budget justification.

(10) Supplementary Documentation. In addition to those listed in the GPG, the following two items may be provided.

Optional Ethics Component (limit, three pages). RET in Engineering and Computer Science applicants may apply for up to $4,000 per year of additional funding (direct costs) for carefully designed, clearly articulated activities focusing on ethics in science and engineering. If this optional funding is requested, the activities should be described fully in the Supplementary Documentation section of the proposal, not in the Project Description. The description of the supplementary ethics component should include the following: 1) ethics issues or topics that relate to the scientific/engineering content of the project and/or to issues of professional conduct of research; 2) participating faculty and other individuals with appropriate credentials in ethics, including outside ethicists as necessary; 3) activities that show how participants and RET mentors will be engaged in ethics discussions designed to present ethics concepts and skills for resolution of ethical issues, using approaches such as seminars, student presentations and reports, role-playing, case studies, and outside speaker presentations; 4) products such as reports, presentations, and Web-based materials; 5) a formative evaluation plan to be used to improve the component; and 6) results from any prior support for an ethics component.

Proposal budgets may include up to $4,000 per year in direct costs to support ethics activities in a RET Site project. These funds are not included in the guideline of $10,000 per teacher or community college faculty. Because a separate budget sheet for the ethics activities is not possible in FastLane or Grants.gov, the funds should be added in the appropriate categories in the yearly proposal budget. In the Budget Justification, the special ethics activities must be itemized separately and clearly, and the total (up to $4,000) for the activities must be indicated. Questions regarding the ethics component should be directed to the SBE Ethics program officer at 703-292-8543.

Letters of Commitment. Signed letters of commitment documenting collaborative arrangements of significance to the proposal must be scanned and placed in this section. Letters of support and commitment from participating school districts are required. Letters may be relevant where the awardee and performing organizations are different, where faculty or facilities of more than one institution are to be employed, or where international activities are arranged. Letters of endorsement are not permitted.

Request for RET Supplement

RET Supplements are supported by the various disciplinary research programs within the Directorates for Engineering and for CISE. A RET supplement request may be included in a proposal for a new or renewed ENG or CISE grant or cooperative agreement submitted later as a supplement to an ongoing award. Guidance for use of either mechanism is given below. In either case, the description of the RET activity should clearly articulate in some detail the form and nature of the prospective teacher and/or community college faculty's involvement in the principal investigator's ongoing or proposed research. For example, the teacher and/or community college faculty member may participate in the design of new experiments, modeling and analysis of experimental data, algorithm and software development, and other activities that will result in intellectual contributions to the project. It is expected that the RET supplement experience will also lead to the transfer of new knowledge to classroom activities. Therefore, the RET supplement description should also indicate what type of sustained follow-up will be provided to help in translating the teacher/community college faculty research experience into classroom practice. The request should also discuss the experience of the principal investigator (or other possible research mentors) in involving K-12 teachers and/or community college faculty in research, including any previous RET supplement support and the outcomes from that support; and the process and criteria for selection of the teachers and/or community college faculty. A brief biographical sketch of the teacher and/or community college faculty should also be included, if available.

The duration of the RET supplement will be one year and the project may be carried out during summer months, academic year, or both. The total cost of the supplement is limited to $10,000 per teacher. The budget includes a teacher's stipend and up to $2,000 for the cost of materials, equipment, software and other supplies for developing classroom instructions and experiments. Additional funds up to 25% of the total Participant Support Costs listed in the proposed budget may be requested for activities in other cost categories (e.g., salaries, wages and fringe benefits, travel, materials and supplies, and applicable indirect costs) that contribute to the effectiveness of the RET program; any such costs must be listed under the appropriate NSF budget categories and must be explained in the Budget Justification. Organizations should propose in accordance with their current disclosed accounting practices.

Normally, funds may be available for one to two teachers, but exceptions will be considered. Participation of teachers and/or community college faculty who are members of underrepresented groups (women, underrepresented minorities, and persons with disabilities) is strongly encouraged. Center or large research efforts may request support for a number of teachers commensurate with the size and nature of the project. For guidance concerning RET supplement requests, please consult with the cognizant ENG or CISE program director of the particular research program of the proposal or award.

An award decision will be based on internal review by the cognizant ENG or CISE program director and availability of funds in a particular program.

Results from any RET Supplement activity must be included in the annual project report of the award. The NSF FastLane Project Reports System requires inclusion of information on participants and on publications and products, as well as discussion of activities and contributions in education and human resource development.

A request for a RET Supplement to an existing award must be submitted via the NSF FastLane System. After login to FastLane, choose Award and Reporting Functions, then Supplemental Funding Request. Next choose the award to be supplemented. In the form entitled Summary of Proposed Work, state that this is a request for an RET supplement. In the form entitled Justification for Supplement, include the information requested above, limited to three pages. If a RET participant has been pre-selected, then a brief biographical sketch should be placed in supplementary documentation. Prepare a budget, including justification of the funds requested for teacher and/or community college faculty support and their proposed use. All teacher and/or community college faculty costs are entered under line F as participant support costs. Additional funds up to 25% of the total Participant Support Costs listed on line F may be requested for activities in other cost categories (e.g., salaries, wages and fringe benefits, travel, materials and supplies, and applicable indirect costs) that contribute to the effectiveness of the RET program; any such costs must be listed under the appropriate NSF budget categories and must be explained in the Budget Justification. Organizations should propose in accordance with their current disclosed accounting practices. The term of a RET supplement may not exceed that of the underlying research project. The request is then forwarded to the institution's Authorized Organizational Representative for submission to NSF.

A request for a RET Supplement submitted as part of a proposal for a new or renewed grant or cooperative agreement is embedded in the proposal as follows. The description of the RET activity, as specified above and limited to three pages, is entered in FastLane or Grants.gov in the section for supplementary documentation. The budget for the RET supplement is included in the yearly project budget. All teacher and/or community college faculty costs are entered under line F as participant support costs. Additional funds up to 25% of the total Participant Support Costs listed in the proposed budget may be requested for activities in other cost categories (e.g., salaries, wages and fringe benefits, travel, materials and supplies, and applicable indirect costs) that contribute to the effectiveness of the RET program; any such costs must be listed under the appropriate NSF budget categories and must be explained in the Budget Justification. Organizations should propose in accordance with their current disclosed accounting practices. The budget justification for the proposal must contain a separate explanation of the RET supplement request, with the proposed teacher and/or community college faculty costs itemized and justified and a total given for all proposed costs.

B. Budgetary Information

Cost Sharing: Inclusion of voluntary committed cost sharing is prohibited

Other Budgetary Limitations:

Total budget amount for an RET Site may not exceed $500,000 for up to three years, for approximately $165,000 per year. Total cost of an RET supplement is limited to $10,000 per teacher per year. For both the RET Site and RET supplement the budget includes a teacher and/or community college faculty stipend and up to $2,000 for the cost of materials, equipment, software and other supplies for developing classroom instructions and experiments.

Funds awarded to teacher/community college faculty participants in the RET in Engineering and Computer Science program for stipends, fees, lodging, travel and other miscellaneous expenses must be listed as Participant Support Costs (lines F1-F4 in FastLane and Field E in Grants.gov) in the NSF proposal budget. Additional funds up to 25% of the total Participant Support Costs listed in the proposed budget may be requested for activities in other cost categories (e.g., salaries, wages and fringe benefits, travel, materials and supplies, and applicable indirect costs) that contribute to the effectiveness of the RET program; any such costs must be listed under the appropriate NSF budget categories and must be explained in the Budget Justification. Organizations should propose in accordance with their current disclosed accounting practices.

Proposal budgets may include up to $4,000 per year in direct costs to support an ethics component. See Supplementary Documentation section for further guidance.

The RET Site budget must include a request for funds to cover the cost of attendance of the Principal Investigator at each year's annual awardee meeting in the Washington, DC area.

C. Due Dates

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

       February 28, 2011

       October 03, 2011

       First Monday in October, Annually Thereafter

D. FastLane/Grants.gov Requirements

• For Proposals Submitted Via FastLane:

  Detailed technical instructions regarding the technical aspects of preparation and submission via FastLane are available at: https://www.fastlane.nsf.gov/a1/newstan.htm. For FastLane user support, call the FastLane Help Desk at 1-800-673-6188 or e-mail fastlane@nsf.gov. The FastLane Help Desk answers general technical questions related to the use of the FastLane system. Specific questions related to this program solicitation should be referred to the NSF program staff contact(s) listed in Section VIII of this funding opportunity.

  Submission of Electronically Signed Cover Sheets. The Authorized Organizational Representative (AOR) must electronically sign the proposal Cover Sheet to submit the required proposal certifications (see Chapter II, Section C of the Grant Proposal Guide for a listing of the certifications). The AOR must provide the required electronic certifications within five working days following the electronic submission of the proposal. Further instructions regarding this process are available on the FastLane Website at: https://www.fastlane.nsf.gov/fastlane.jsp.

• For Proposals Submitted Via Grants.gov:

  Before using Grants.gov for the first time, each organization must register to create an institutional profile. Once registered, the applicant's organization can then apply for any federal grant on the Grants.gov website. Comprehensive information about using Grants.gov is available on the Grants.gov Applicant Resources webpage: http://www07.grants.gov/applicants/app_help_reso.jsp. In addition, the NSF Grants.gov Application Guide provides additional technical guidance regarding preparation of proposals via Grants.gov. For Grants.gov user support, contact the Grants.gov Contact Center at 1-800-518-4726 or by email: support@grants.gov. The Grants.gov Contact Center answers general technical questions related to the use of Grants.gov. Specific questions related to this program solicitation should be referred to the NSF program staff contact(s) listed in Section VIII of this solicitation.

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

VI. NSF PROPOSAL PROCESSING AND REVIEW PROCEDURES

Proposals received by NSF are assigned to the appropriate NSF program where they will be reviewed if they meet NSF proposal preparation requirements. All proposals are carefully reviewed by a scientist, engineer, or educator serving as an NSF Program Officer, and usually by three to ten other persons outside NSF who are experts in the particular fields represented by the proposal. These reviewers are selected by Program Officers charged with the oversight of the review process. Proposers are invited to suggest names of persons they believe are especially well qualified to review the proposal and/or persons they would prefer not review the proposal. These suggestions may serve as one source in the reviewer selection process at the Program Officer's discretion. Submission of such names, however, is optional. Care is taken to ensure that reviewers have no conflicts of interest with the proposal.

A. NSF Merit Review Criteria

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

The two NSB-approved merit review criteria are listed below. The criteria include considerations that help define them. These considerations are suggestions and not all will apply to any given proposal. While proposers must address both merit review criteria, reviewers will be asked to address only those considerations that are relevant to the proposal being considered and for which the reviewer is qualified to make judgements.

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

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

Additional Solicitation Specific Review Criteria

• Must provide in-service and/or pre-service K-12 STEM teachers and/or community college faculty with discovery and technology based learning experiences in engineering or computer science labs/research facilities, which can be incorporated into classroom activities.
• It is recommended but not required that at least two teachers and/or community college faculty be recruited for the program from the same K-12 school/community college in order to ensure that outcomes of the program are more effectively disseminated to the participating institutions. Participants must be currently teaching a STEM subject at their institution in order to participate in the program.
• Research program must involve participants in an ongoing engineering or computer science research project for a duration of at least six weeks. Shorter duration may be proposed with justification.
• Program must have a well-defined focus, with clearly articulated research projects and activities. Research projects must have significant engineering or computer science relevance.
• Program must include a sustained follow-up plan between the faculty and the participants to ensure that the research experience is translated to classroom practice and the program provides maximum benefit to all participants.
• Program must include a detailed plan for evaluation of the project and classroom impact.

NSF staff also will give careful consideration to the following in making funding decisions:

Integration of Research and Education
One of the principal strategies in support of NSF's goals is to foster integration of research and education through the programs, projects, and activities it supports at academic and research institutions. These institutions provide abundant opportunities where individuals may concurrently assume responsibilities as researchers, educators, and students and where all can engage in joint efforts that infuse education with the excitement of discovery and enrich research through the diversity of learning perspectives.

Integrating Diversity into NSF Programs, Projects, and Activities
Broadening opportunities and enabling the participation of all citizens -- women and men, underrepresented minorities, and persons with disabilities -- is essential to the health and vitality of science and engineering. NSF is committed to this principle of diversity and deems it central to the programs, projects, and activities it considers and supports.

B. Review and Selection Process

Proposals submitted in response to this program solicitation will be reviewed by Ad hoc Review and/or Panel Review.

Reviewers will be asked to formulate a recommendation to either support or decline each proposal. The Program Officer assigned to manage the proposal's review will consider the advice of reviewers and will formulate a recommendation.

After scientific, technical and programmatic review and consideration of appropriate factors, the NSF Program Officer recommends to the cognizant Division Director whether the proposal should be declined or recommended for award. NSF is striving to be able to tell applicants whether their proposals have been declined or recommended for funding within six months. The time interval begins on the deadline or target date, or receipt date, whichever is later. The interval ends when the Division Director accepts the Program Officer's recommendation.

A summary rating and accompanying narrative will be completed and submitted by each reviewer. In all cases, reviews are treated as confidential documents. Verbatim copies of reviews, excluding the names of the reviewers, are sent to the Principal Investigator/Project Director by the Program Officer. In addition, the proposer will receive an explanation of the decision to award or decline funding.

In all cases, after programmatic approval has been obtained, the proposals recommended for funding will be forwarded to the Division of Grants and Agreements for review of business, financial, and policy implications and the processing and issuance of a grant or other agreement. Proposers are cautioned that only a Grants and Agreements Officer may make commitments, obligations or awards on behalf of NSF or authorize the expenditure of funds. No commitment on the part of NSF should be inferred from technical or budgetary discussions with a NSF Program Officer. A Principal Investigator or organization that makes financial or personnel commitments in the absence of a grant or cooperative agreement signed by the NSF Grants and Agreements Officer does so at their own risk.

VII. AWARD ADMINISTRATION INFORMATION

A. Notification of the Award

Notification of the award is made to the submitting organization by a Grants Officer in the Division of Grants and Agreements. Organizations whose proposals are declined will be advised as promptly as possible by the cognizant NSF Program administering the program. Verbatim copies of reviews, not including the identity of the reviewer, will be provided automatically to the Principal Investigator. (See Section VI.B. for additional information on the review process.)

B. Award Conditions

An NSF award consists of: (1) the award letter, which includes any special provisions applicable to the award and any numbered amendments thereto; (2) the budget, which indicates the amounts, by categories of expense, on which NSF has based its support (or otherwise communicates any specific approvals or disapprovals of proposed expenditures); (3) the proposal referenced in the award letter; (4) the applicable award conditions, such as Grant General Conditions (GC-1); * or Research Terms and Conditions * and (5) any announcement or other NSF issuance that may be incorporated by reference in the award letter. Cooperative agreements also are administered in accordance with NSF Cooperative Agreement Financial and Administrative Terms and Conditions (CA-FATC) and the applicable Programmatic Terms and Conditions. NSF awards are electronically signed by an NSF Grants and Agreements Officer and transmitted electronically to the organization via e-mail.

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

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

C. Reporting Requirements

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

Failure to provide the required annual or final project reports, or the project outcomes report will delay NSF review and processing of any future funding increments as well as any pending proposals for that PI. PIs should examine the formats of the required reports in advance to assure availability of required data.

PIs are required to use NSF's electronic project-reporting system, available through FastLane, for preparation and submission of annual and final project reports. Such reports provide information on activities and findings, project participants (individual and organizational), publications, and other specific products and contributions. PIs will not be required to re-enter information previously provided, either with a proposal or in earlier updates using the electronic system. Submission of the report via FastLane constitutes certification by the PI that the contents of the report are accurate and complete. The project outcomes report must be prepared and submitted using Research.gov. This report serves as a brief summary, prepared specifically for the public, of the nature and outcomes of the project. This report will be posted on the NSF website exactly as it is submitted by the PI.

VIII. AGENCY CONTACTS

Please note that the program contact information is current at the time of publishing. See program website for any updates to the points of contact.

General inquiries regarding this program should be made to:

• Mary Poats, Program Manager, Directorate for Engineering (ENG), Division of Engineering Education and Centers (EEC), 585 N, telephone: (703) 292-5357, fax: (703) 292-9051, email: mpoats@nsf.gov

• Harriet G. Taylor, Program Director, Directorate for Computer and Information Science and Engineering (CISE), Division of Computer and Network Systems (CNS), 1175N, telephone: (703) 292-8950, email: htaylor@nsf.gov

For questions related to the use of FastLane, contact:

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

For questions relating to Grants.gov contact:

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

IX. OTHER INFORMATION

The NSF Website provides the most comprehensive source of information on NSF Directorates (including contact information), programs and funding opportunities. Use of this Website by potential proposers is strongly encouraged. In addition, National Science Foundation Update is a free e-mail subscription service designed to keep potential proposers and other interested parties apprised of new NSF funding opportunities and publications, important changes in proposal and award policies and procedures, and upcoming NSF Regional Grants Conferences. Subscribers are informed through e-mail when new publications are issued that match their identified interests. Users can subscribe to this service by clicking the "Get NSF Updates by Email" link on the NSF web site.

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

ABOUT THE NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

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

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

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

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

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

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

PRIVACY ACT AND PUBLIC BURDEN STATEMENTS

The information requested on proposal forms and project reports is solicited under the authority of the National Science Foundation Act of 1950, as amended. The information on proposal forms will be used in connection with the selection of qualified proposals; and project reports submitted by awardees will be used for program evaluation and reporting within the Executive Branch and to Congress. The information requested may be disclosed to qualified reviewers and staff assistants as part of the proposal review process; to proposer institutions/grantees to provide or obtain data regarding the proposal review process, award decisions, or the administration of awards; to government contractors, experts, volunteers and researchers and educators as necessary to complete assigned work; to other government agencies or other entities needing information regarding applicants or nominees as part of a joint application review process, or in order to coordinate programs or policy; and to another Federal agency, court, or party in a court or Federal administrative proceeding if the government is a party. Information about Principal Investigators may be added to the Reviewer file and used to select potential candidates to serve as peer reviewers or advisory committee members. See Systems of Records, NSF-50, "Principal Investigator/Proposal File and Associated Records," 69 Federal Register 26410 (May 12, 2004), and NSF-51, "Reviewer/Proposal File and Associated Records," 69 Federal Register 26410 (May 12, 2004). Submission of the information is voluntary. Failure to provide full and complete information, however, may reduce the possibility of receiving an award.

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, an information collection unless it displays a valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. The OMB control number for this collection is 3145-0058. Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 120 hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions. Send comments regarding the burden estimate and any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to:

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