A Collaborative Planning grant should allow institutions to gather data, design shared mechanisms for data collection and student support, and establish the necessary memorandum of understanding MOUs or articulation agreements to facilitate students' transition between institutions and ultimate success.
Different methodological approaches may be employed to uncover the needs across institutions. PIs should propose approaches they feel are appropriate to their specific context. Surveys, focus groups, interviews, etc. Furthermore, Collaborative Planning proposals must the following:. Furthermore, if appropriate, Collaborative Planning Grants may request funds to pilot evidence-based supports at one or more institutions in order to collect preliminary data and strengthen those activities.
Participating institutions can also test new policies and administrative procedures that, per a needs assessment or other institutional data, have potential to remove barriers or otherwise improve outcomes for potential S-STEM Scholars. Please note that, while collaborative planning projects may wish to share any findings or implementation mechanisms, a formal dissemination plan is not required.
The PI must provide the required leadership and the capacity to convene and shepherd a team of inter-institutional STEM faculty and social science or education researchers to write the desired proposal in a year time-frame. A successful Track 3 proposal will likely require a range of expertise including STEM faculty and administrators at all institutions, financial aid officers, and education, learning science or social science researchers interested in low-income student success or other pertinent topics.
It is ideal that management of the planning grant incorporate the appropriate senior personnel across institutions as needed. Planning grants can also speak to potential gaps in expertise that might hinder a forthcoming Track 3 proposal and work to identify and build relationships with qualified individuals or organizations that would enhance the impact of future collaborative efforts.
A cohesive S-STEM proposal clearly articulates the rationale for decisions and the details regarding how project components fit together in a logical framework. Supporting data, the educational literature, or lessons learned should be presented, as appropriate.
About additional participation requirements in other project activities: S-STEM projects often include enhancements such as seminars, field trips, social activities, student-faculty interaction outside classes, research opportunities, tutoring, and internships. These activities are valuable program components and often distinguish successful S-STEM implementations.
Such activities may be expected as part of the scholarship program, but the expectations should be structured so that students who have other family, health, or work responsibilities can reasonably participate, and the expectations should be flexible enough to allow reasonable justified absences.
Proposals should all include adequate justification that any required courses or activities will not increase Scholars' time to degree completion. Under no circumstances should the scholarship funds be structured as compensation for either work or other project activities.
In this context, S-STEM projects should strive to increase understanding about the contributions that proposed student supports can make to program goals of STEM retention and graduation when coupled with scholarships.
Track 1 and Track 2 projects are expected to contribute to knowledge by disseminating results from their external evaluation reports. Track 3 projects are expected to generate knowledge through external evaluation as well as through a clear research plan based on the scalability of the interventions to different institutions. This research is led by Co-PIs or senior staff who are faculty in social sciences or educational research. The faculty involved in the research component of Track 3 proposals cannot act as the external evaluator.
For Track 1, 2 and 3 projects, external evaluation must be conducted by an experienced evaluator who is not PI, Co-PI or senior personnel, but rather treated as an independent consultant to the project. About Cost of Attendance COA and Unmet Need Calculations: In demonstrating unmet need, financial aid offices should not include loans and work study, instead, the S-STEM scholarship should be used to reduce or replace Scholars' need to work or acquire additional debt, to the extent possible.
The calculation of need may include any other grants or scholarships that the student is entitled to. In that sense, an S-STEM scholarship should be treated as a "last dollar scholarship" that is, intended to be paid after all other grants and scholarships for which the student qualifies have been awarded; the calculation is based on the gap between what aid has been awarded and what aid is still needed to help a student meet the cost of attendance fully. The number and size of awards will vary depending upon the scope of projects and subject to availability of funds.
The level of funding requested should be based on the focus, scope, and size of the effort. S-STEM scholarship recipients will be selected by the awardee institution s , but recipients must:. 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 FastLane.
Please note that the proposal preparation instructions provided in this program solicitation may deviate from the PAPPG instructions. The following descriptions of content sections refer to Track 1, 2 and 3 proposals. While filling out the cover sheet in FastLane, it is important to choose the program solicitation number indicated on the cover of this document "NSF Scholarships in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics" from the list of programs in the "NSF Unit Consideration" section.
The information on this form is used to direct proposals to appropriate reviewers and to determine the characteristics of projects supported by DUE. In FastLane, this form appears in the list of forms for the proposal only after the appropriate Program Solicitation number has been selected indicated on the cover of this document and indicated on the proposal cover sheet that has been saved.
Select the appropriate Track in the drop-down menu. The Project Summary is a one-page description of the proposed project that consists of an overview, a statement on Intellectual Merit, and a statement on Broader Impacts. For Track 1, 2 and 3, also include the number of scholarships to be provided, the number of unique scholarship recipients, the disciplinary areas to be served by the scholarship funds, the objectives of the project, the expected retention or transfer and graduation rates, and basic information about the student recruitment, selection, support, and career placement services to be provided as part of this S-STEM project.
See Section VI. NSF will return without review proposals that do not address both criteria in the Project Summary. The proposal should clearly describe the plan for implementing a program with the goals and characteristics outlined in the prior and following sections. Proposers must make sure that the proposal includes, within the project description limited to 15 single-spaced pages , the following:. For Track 1, Track 2 and Track 3 proposals, it must not exceed 15 single-spaced pages.
For Collaborative Planning grants, it must not exceed 12 single-spaced pages. Proposals that exceed the page limit will be returned without review. In addition to the requirements specified in the PAPPG, the Project Description for Collaborative Planning grants must describe relevant institutional needs and challenges, the envisioned collaboration and rationale, the population of students that the collaboration will target and the activities at each collaborating institution that will be enabled by the planning grant in order to prepare all parties involved to plan and prepare for a future Track 3 project with the potential to benefit equally all institutions and students involved.
The proposed project should build on the experience from the prior or ongoing project. Proposals should include quantitative and qualitative outcomes of any current or former project s and how the experience has informed plans for the current project. Required information is listed below. Results from prior or ongoing STEP and S-STEM awards should include at a minimum: Award number s ; amount of the scholarship; number of scholarship recipients; number and percentage of recipients transferring from 2-year institutions to 4-year programs if appropriate ; number of recipients graduating; percentage of recipients graduating; and number and percentage of recipients leaving the program.
If available, proposers could include a concise description of the project activities, retention and graduation rates. S-STEM projects should build on existing academic infrastructure and student supports and evidence from the research literature that those supports are effective.
Proposals should discuss such already existing academic and student supports and program elements that are relevant to the S-STEM project and describe ways in which the S-STEM project will use or enhance those structures.
The project should have specific objectives that reflect the goals of the S-STEM program and local needs. The proposal should provide detailed plans to foster expected student outcomes as discussed in Section II.
All Track 1, 2 and 3 proposals should include the following, as detailed in Section II. B: Scholar eligibility criteria, each institutions' cost of attendance, a clear mechanism to determine Scholar eligibility, a justification of scholarship amounts and an analysis of the prospective Scholar pool.
When discussing the pool of potential Scholars, data on all low-income students at the institution is insufficient unless it addresses the disciplines and academic eligibility requirements put forth in the proposal. For example, consider a project that targets computer science students and defines a student to be low income if they are Pell eligible. In this case, the potential pool of applicants should be calculated by considering historic or current data for computer science students who are both a Pell eligible, b have demonstrated unmet financial need, and c meet measurable academic eligibility requirements imposed by the project team e.
The following table or similar should be included in this section:. Proposals should also include current 1-year retention rates and graduation rates for the above pool of students in each S-STEM eligible discipline that is included in the proposal. It is expected that awardee institutions will have or will adapt existing high-quality evidence-based practices e. For all tracks, the selection of activities, students support services and other planned interventions should draw upon the current research literature and the ways in which the impact of these evidence-based approaches can be assessed.
S-STEM scholarships may not be, nor appear to be, payment for services. Since the scholarship often provides funds that allow a student to concentrate on full-time studies, opportunities for extracurricular activities are valuable components of S-STEM projects that can be strongly encouraged but not required.
The primary criteria for continued scholarship eligibility should be satisfactory progress towards degree or successful transfer. The one exception is that graduate students can be required to conduct research if they are doing research as part of their thesis or dissertation. Proposals should include adequate justification that any suggested courses, seminars or other activities will not increase Scholars' time to degree completion.
See Section II. B for additional types of allowable Scholar support, and Section V. S-STEM projects must be guided by a management plan in which the key personnel and project logistics are defined. The roles and responsibilities of the personnel involved should be clear.
The proposal must describe specific roles for each person in the project. The lead PI will have overall responsibility for administering the project and for interacting with NSF.
Responsibility for activities such as recruitment, selection, and retention of students; studies to determine the effectiveness of project activities; maintenance of S-STEM records; coordination of data collection, analysis, and reporting responsibilities; oversight of student supports; and implementation of a process by which students who lose S-STEM eligibility will be replaced by new students, etc.
See Section V. The project's effectiveness should be assessed according to the nature of the problem that the proposed approach is intended to address. While an external evaluator independent from the project team must be substantively responsible for the design and execution of the evaluation plan, dissemination of what works is still the responsibility of the PI team. Incorporation of local expertise in institutional, educational, or social science research could provide significant guidance for the development and execution of focused programming and facilitate generation of knowledge but is not a requirement for Track 1 and 2.
For Track 3, proposals should clearly describe the approach and research questions to be tested and should provide a strong theoretical or empirical justification for their choices, including the role and impact of institutional and student contexts. The study design should leverage this justification to identify suitable project data, describe plans for data collection, and select appropriate methodologies for data analysis.
These features of the study design should be aligned with the scope and focus of the project approach. The inclusion of appropriate expertise in institutional, educational, or social science research is expected to guide the development and implementation of knowledge generation within the project. The research component of Track 3 projects is different from the external evaluation and should not be executed by the same personnel.
External evaluation is discussed in the next section. Each Track 1, 2 and 3 proposal should describe a clear and specific external evaluation plan that is clearly aligned with the stated goals of the project and is executed by an external evaluator as detailed in Section II. Collaborative Planning Grant proposals do not require an external evaluator and should include a mechanism to assess the collaborative planning effort's progress towards its stated goals. References should draw on the discipline-based education research literature, on the literature on STEM teaching and learning, and on the research literature on higher education.
Provide a budget for each year of support requested. The maximum duration for a Track 1, 2 or 3 project is expected to be 6 years. Proposals requesting a six-year budget must be submitted via FastLane. The following instructions refer to the NSF proposal budget form. The sections and budget line designations correspond to the FastLane budget screen.
For Tracks 1, 2 and 3 these funds should cover participation for at least one member of the PI team to come to Washington DC every other year at least 3 times during the life of the award. For Track 3 proposals, funds for the entire leadership team to come to Washington for the third-year review should be included.
For proposals with a duration of six years, current and pending support should be reported for the first five years of the project. Proposals that include supplementary documents beyond those specified in the PAPPG and this solicitation may be returned without review. Other budgetary limitations apply. To prepare and submit a proposal via Research.
For FastLane or Research. The FastLane and Research. 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. Before using Grants. Once registered, the applicant's organization can then apply for any federal grant on the Grants.
Comprehensive information about using Grants. In addition, the NSF Grants. A provides instructions regarding the technical preparation of proposals via Grants. For Grants. The Grants. Specific questions related to this program solicitation should be referred to the NSF program staff contact s listed in Section VIII of this solicitation.
The AOR must then sign and submit the application to Grants. Proposers that submitted via FastLane or Research. For proposers that submitted via Grants. After proposers have received an e-mail notification from NSF, Research. 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 either as ad hoc reviewers, panelists, or both, who are experts in the particular fields represented by the proposal.
These reviewers are selected by Program Officers charged with oversight of the review process. 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.
In addition, Program Officers may obtain comments from site visits before recommending final action on proposals. Senior NSF staff further review recommendations for awards. These strategies are integrated in the program planning and implementation process, of which proposal review is one part.
NSF's mission is particularly well-implemented through the integration of research and education and broadening participation in NSF programs, projects, and activities. One of the strategic objectives in support of NSF's mission is to foster integration of research and education through the programs, projects, and activities it supports at academic and research institutions.
These institutions must recruit, train, and prepare a diverse STEM workforce to advance the frontiers of science and participate in the U.
NSF's contribution to the national innovation ecosystem is to provide cutting-edge research under the guidance of the Nation's most creative scientists and engineers.
NSF also supports development of a strong science, technology, engineering, and mathematics STEM workforce by investing in building the knowledge that informs improvements in STEM teaching and learning. NSF's mission calls for the broadening of opportunities and expanding participation of groups, institutions, and geographic regions that are underrepresented in STEM disciplines, which 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. The National Science Foundation strives to invest in a robust and diverse portfolio of projects that creates new knowledge and enables breakthroughs in understanding across all areas of science and engineering research and education. To identify which projects to support, NSF relies on a merit review process that incorporates consideration of both the technical aspects of a proposed project and its potential to contribute more broadly to advancing NSF's mission "to promote the progress of science; to advance the national health, prosperity, and welfare; to secure the national defense; and for other purposes.
These principles are to be given due diligence by PIs and organizations when preparing proposals and managing projects, by reviewers when reading and evaluating proposals, and by NSF program staff when determining whether or not to recommend proposals for funding and while overseeing awards.
Given that NSF is the primary federal agency charged with nurturing and supporting excellence in basic research and education, the following three principles apply:.
With respect to the third principle, even if assessment of Broader Impacts outcomes for particular projects is done at an aggregated level, PIs are expected to be accountable for carrying out the activities described in the funded project. Thus, individual projects should include clearly stated goals, specific descriptions of the activities that the PI intends to do, and a plan in place to document the outputs of those activities.
These three merit review principles provide the basis for the merit review criteria, as well as a context within which the users of the criteria can better understand their intent. In some instances, however, NSF will employ additional criteria as required to highlight the specific objectives of certain programs and activities.
The two merit review criteria are listed below. Both criteria are to be given full consideration during the review and decision-making processes; each criterion is necessary but neither, by itself, is sufficient. Therefore, proposers must fully address both criteria. When evaluating NSF proposals, reviewers will be asked to consider what the proposers want to do, why they want to do it, how they plan to do it, how they will know if they succeed, and what benefits could accrue if the project is successful.
These issues apply both to the technical aspects of the proposal and the way in which the project may make broader contributions. To that end, reviewers will be asked to evaluate all proposals against two criteria:. Broader impacts may be accomplished through the research itself, through the activities that are directly related to specific research projects, or through activities that are supported by, but are complementary to, the project.
NSF values the advancement of scientific knowledge and activities that contribute to achievement of societally relevant outcomes. Such outcomes include, but are not limited to: full participation of women, persons with disabilities, and underrepresented minorities in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics STEM ; improved STEM education and educator development at any level; increased public scientific literacy and public engagement with science and technology; improved well-being of individuals in society; development of a diverse, globally competitive STEM workforce; increased partnerships between academia, industry, and others; improved national security; increased economic competitiveness of the United States; and enhanced infrastructure for research and education.
Proposers are reminded that reviewers will also be asked to review the Data Management Plan and the Postdoctoral Researcher Mentoring Plan, as appropriate. Reviewers will be asked to evaluate proposals using two National Science Board approved merit review criteria and, if applicable, additional program specific criteria. For Congress. Cross-Cutting Initiatives. Learn About Funding. Policies and Procedures. Programs for Small Businesses. Search for Awards. Learn About Awards. Public Access Initiative.
Biological Sciences. Computer and Information Science and Engineering. See program website for any updates to the points of contact. Keith Sverdrup, telephone: , email: ksverdru nsf. Michael J. Ferrara, telephone: , email: mferrara nsf. Sami Rollins, telephone: , email: srollins nsf. Alexandra Medina-Borja, telephone: , email: amedinab nsf.
Abiodun Abby Ilumoka, telephone: , email: ailumoka nsf. Karen A. Keene, telephone: , email: kkeene nsf. Andrea L. Nixon, telephone: , email: anixon nsf. Mark A. Pauley, telephone: , email: mpauley nsf. Pushpa Ramakrishna, telephone: , email: pusramak nsf.
Connie K. Della-Piana, telephone: , email: cdellapi nsf. Michelle M. Camacho- Walter, telephone: , email: mcamacho nsf. Jennifer E. Lewis, telephone: , email: jenlewis nsf. Dawn M. Rickey, telephone: , email: drickey nsf.
John Jackman, telephone: , email: jjackman nsf. Thomas B. Higgins, telephone: , email: thhiggin nsf. The program supports three types of projects. In all cases, the totals are inclusive of direct and indirect costs. For Track 1 Institutional Capacity Building and Track 2 Design and Development: Single Institution projects, the Principal Investigator must be a faculty member currently teaching in an S-STEM eligible discipline who can provide the leadership required to ensure the success of the project.
Projects involving more than one department within an institution are eligible, but a single Principal Investigator must accept overall management and leadership responsibility.
For Track 3 Design and Development: Multi-Institutional Consortia projects, the Principal Investigator must be a faculty member currently teaching in an S-STEM eligible discipline or an institutional, educational, or social science researcher who can provide the leadership required to ensure the success of the project. A consortium project must have a Principal Investigator who accepts overall management and leadership responsibility.
An Institution may submit one proposal either as a single institution or as subawardee or a member of a Collaborative Research project from each constituent school or college that awards degrees in an S-STEM eligible discipline. Eligibility Information. Other budgetary limitations apply. Please see the full text of this solicitation for further information. Additional reporting requirements apply.
Eligible programs of study are the biological science except medicine and other clinical fields , physical sciences, mathematical sciences, computer and information sciences, the geosciences, and engineering, as well as technology areas associated with the preceding fields FR Doc.
The program seeks to increase the success of low-income academically talented students with demonstrated financial need who are pursuing associate, baccalaureate, or graduate degrees in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics STEM [3] , [4] , [7] , [10]. The program addresses the challenges facing low-income academically talented students with demonstrated financial need by providing a wide range of IHEs with funds to support scholarships to students from a diverse student population seeking degrees in S-STEM eligible disciplines.
See Section IV. B for additional details. Likewise, PIs looking to conduct foundational research on factors associated with student success or degree attainment, academic or career pathways, workforce development, or the impact of financial aid on student outcomes should submit proposals to the EHR Core Research ECR program. The S-STEM program provides Institutions of Higher Education IHEs with funds for scholarships to encourage and enable low-income academically talented students with demonstrated financial need to enter the workforce or graduate study following completion of associate, baccalaureate, or graduate degrees in S-STEM eligible disciplines.
Recognizing that scholarships alone cannot address low retention and graduation rates in STEM, the program also supports the implementation and testing of existing effective evidence-based curricular and co-curricular activities e.
A project is expected to contribute to the STEM education knowledge base. The complexity, scope, and size of those contribution s should be a commensurate with the experience and expertise of the institution in this area, b aligned with the needs identified in an institutional scan where greater understanding of an issue would be beneficial , c aligned with the interests of the leadership and management team, and d appropriate for the budgeted resources specified for this area of the project.
Successful projects must include involvement of the Offices of Financial Aid, Student Services, and Institutional Research [2] , [5] , [13] , [18] , [19]. Proposals with a strong focus on workforce development are encouraged to partner with business, industry, local community organizations, national labs, or other federal or state government organizations. Proposals with a strong focus on the transfer or advancement of students from one educational level to another should collaborate with appropriate institutional partners for example proposals focused on the transfer of students from 2-year institutions to 4-year institutions should include 2-year institutions and 4-year institutions or proposals focusing on the advancement of undergraduate students to graduate programs should include institutions with undergraduate programs and institutions with graduate programs.
Proposals should include a literature review that establishes the basis for the proposed project activities along with a description of how the project plans to generate knowledge about student success and degree attainment in STEM.
Formative evaluation should be used to improve local implementation and outcomes of financial support and academic and student supports. Summative evaluation should assess project outcomes and accomplishments and document lessons learned for accountability purposes.
IHEs are expected to establish selection criteria for scholarships. To receive scholarships, students must be low-income, academically talented, and have unmet financial need. They must be U. Scholarship Recipients for additional details.
It is expected that scholarship recipients will achieve at least one of the following outcomes by the end of the scholarship award period:. For all tracks, proposers are encouraged to utilize data analytics to examine patterns in institutional student data that describe and predict the successful completion of student academic and career paths.
Track 1 projects seek to increase the participation of institutions that have limited experience with designing and conducting activities, as described in the description of the S-STEM Design and Development projects. Track 1 provides funds to establish new collaborative partnerships and infrastructure that support projects with these types of activities: 1 to provide scholarships to low-income academically talented students with demonstrated financial need, 2 to advance the adaptation, implementation and understanding of evidence-based academic and student support activities for NSF S-STEM Scholars and other students pursuing STEM degrees, 3 to increase retention, student success and graduation in STEM, and 4 to test strategies for systematically exploring student academic and career pathways in STEM in ways that are congruent with the context of the institution.
The leadership and management team should also include a STEM administrator and an institutional, educational, or social science researcher who studies STEM higher education. In addition, funds should be requested to support the adaptation and implementation of existing high quality evidence-based academic and student support activities; the investigation of factors or evidence-based academic and student support activities to determine their effectiveness in recruiting, retaining, and graduating students in STEM; and the management and evaluation of the project.
Track 2 are expected to:. Track 2 single Institution projects are focused on well-documented institutional needs or concerns. The program strongly encourages proposals to build on completed needs analyses or institutional self-studies. The leadership and management team should also include a STEM administrator and an institutional, educational, or social science researcher. In addition, funds should be requested to support the adaptation and implementation of existing high-quality evidence-based academic and student support activities; the investigation of factors or evidence-based academic and student support activities to determine their effectiveness in recruiting, retaining, and graduating students in STEM; and the management and evaluation of the project.
Track 3 projects are expected to:. Track 3 supports institutional collaborations that focus on a common interest or problem. For example, a collaboration among community colleges and four-year colleges or universities may focus on issues associated with the transfer of students from 2-year institutions to 4-year programs or a consortium of institutions may focus on investigating factors, such as self-efficacy or identity, associated with student success or degree attainment.
Multi-Institutional Consortia projects are expected to:. Multi-Institutional Consortia projects are managed by leadership and management teams composed of faculty members who are currently teaching in an S-STEM eligible discipline s , STEM administrators, and institutional, educational, or social science researchers. In multi-institutional projects the PI must be either a faculty member currently teaching in one of the S-STEM eligible disciplines or a researcher whose expertise is in institutional, educational, or social science research in higher education.
In addition, funds should be requested to support the adaptation and implementation of a common set of existing high quality evidence-based academic and student support activities; the investigation of factors or evidence-based academic and student support activities to determine their effectiveness in recruiting, retaining, and graduating students in STEM; and the management and evaluation of the project.
The level of funding requested should be congruent with the focus, scope, and size of the effort. Track 3 projects will be reviewed during their third year to determine whether satisfactory progress has been made, with continued funding contingent on the result of the third-year review. In addition to the Tracks above the S-STEM program also supports a small number of conferences, workshops, and special projects that generate knowledge to better understand issues in the recruitment, retention, student success, degree attainment, and entry into graduate programs or the STEM workforce by low-income students.
It is expected that the conferences and workshops will be outcomes-based, and that the final report should contain a statement of the impacts of the event months after completion of the event s. Proposals for conferences and workshops may be submitted at any time during the year, but the proposers should plan on at least 10 months lead time to allow for review and processing of the proposal.
A prospective PI is encouraged to contact an S-STEM program officer to discuss the conference or workshop prior to submitting a proposal. Such proposals may be submitted at any time during the year. PIs are encouraged to contact their project's managing program officer to discuss the grant supplement prior to submitting a proposal.
The list is not meant to be a complete bibliography. Redesigning America's community colleges: A clearer path to student success. Princeton, N. Department of Education. The College Board. New York: New York. January Increasing college opportunity for low-income students: Promising models and a call to action. Double the numbers: Increasing postsecondary credentials for underrepresented youth.
Indianapolis, IN. Expanding Underrepresented Minority Participation. Hrabowski, III, Chair. Singer, N. Nielsen, and H. Schweingeruber, Editors. Olson and J. Labov, Rapporteurs. Prepared by Steve Olson.
Alexandria, VA. February Engage to excel: Producing one million additional college graduates with degrees in science, technology, engineering and mathematics. Completing college: Rethinking institutional action. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Making reform work: The case for transforming American higher education. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.
The number and size of awards will vary depending upon the scope of projects. The level of funding requested should be based on the focus, scope, and size of the effort.
S-STEM scholarship recipients will be selected by the awardee institution s , but recipients must:. The COA, determined by each educational institution, is the total amount it will cost a student to go to school, including tuition and fees; on-campus room and board or a housing and food allowance for off-campus students ; allowances for books, supplies, transportation, loan fees, dependent care, and costs related to a disability; and miscellaneous expenses.
It is recommended that the PI work closely with the campus financial aid office for more information regarding the institutional COA and the calculation of student financial need. 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.
0コメント