Chemical Education Today edited by
Michelle M. Bushey Trinity University San Antonio, TX 78212
Recent Trends in Instrumentation Requests to NSF's CCLI Chemistry Program Susan Hixson Division of Undergraduate Education, National Science Foundation, Arlington, Virginia 22230 Eun-Woo Chang Division of Undergraduate Education, National Science Foundation, Arlington, Virginia 22230, and Department of Chemistry, Truckee Meadows Community College, Reno, Nevada 89512 Bert E. Holmes* Division of Undergraduate Education, National Science Foundation, Arlington, Virginia 22230, and Department of Chemistry, University of North Carolina-Asheville, Asheville, North Carolina 28804 *
[email protected];
[email protected] Program Officers at the National Science Foundation (NSF) often hear that the greatest need in departments of chemistry is instrumentation for the teaching laboratories and that austere academic budgets for the foreseeable future are likely to exacerbate this need. It also appears that the chemistry community has a perception that the Division of Undergraduate Education (DUE) no longer supports instrument requests for undergraduate instruction. In this paper, we will examine some of these claims by first providing a historical overview illustrating the evolution of NSF's philosophy regarding support for undergraduate education. We will then compare the number of proposals submitted by chemistry departments and the funding rate for fiscal years (FY) 1996-1998 versus 2006-2008. Finally, data covering the past 5 years for the Course, Curriculum and Laboratory Improvement (CCLI) Program will be analyzed to explore whether:
• The percentage of awards with an instrument tracked the percentage of proposals requesting an instrument • Changes occurred in the number or type of instruments requested by departments of chemistry • We might observe any unexpected trends
Historical Overview of the NSF's Support for Undergraduate Education Support of science education has been a mandate of the NSF beginning with its inception in 1950. At that time Public Law 81-507 was passed directing the NSF to initiate and support “science and engineering education programs at all levels and in all the various fields of science and engineering” (1). College Science Improvement Program One of the first NSF programs to provide the opportunity to purchase instrumentation was the College Science Improvement Program (CoSIP). Operating from 1967 to 1973, CoSIP provided more than $31 million to 160 four-year colleges to “enhance the science capabilities... and increase the capacity of these institutions for continuing self-renewal” (2). The average award was $225,000 with a required institutional match of $100,000.
College Science Instrumentation Program The first NSF program explicitly targeted at enhancing the instrumentation infrastructure of teaching laboratories was the College Science Instrumentation Program (CSIP). Launched in 1985, CSIP was intended to correct a perceived decline in the scientific workforce by attracting more students to majors in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). CSIP was also a response to the findings of the 1985 Oberlin report (3), which surveyed the top 50 liberal arts colleges and highlighted their importance as incubators for the nation's Ph.D. scientists. CSIP originally targeted four-year undergraduate institutions, providing them with funds to buy instrumentation to support laboratory instruction. CSIP required each institution to meet a one-to-one match of NSF funds, and prohibited institutional overhead. Instrumentation and Laboratory Improvement Program In 1988, as a response to the Neal Report (4), the range of CSIP-eligible institutions was expanded to include both two-year and doctoral-granting institutions, and the name of the program was changed to the Instrumentation and Laboratory Improvement (ILI) Program. The objectives of the ILI Program were similar to those of CSIP, but they also emphasized the need to educate nonscience majors and preservice teachers. The ILI Program solicitation asked for projects that developed and implemented laboratories that went beyond the traditional “cookbook” approach. Instead, the ILI Program encouraged projects that required students to design experiments, collect data, interpret results, and communicate their findings in various ways. The ILI Program received 1200-2000 proposals from all disciplines each year and funded about 28% of them. Evaluation of the ILI Program by Westat (5) found that about 50% of ILI principal investigators initiated some course reform as a result of their improved laboratory capabilities. Course, Curriculum, and Laboratory Improvement Program In 1999, the ILI Program was folded into a new, three-track Course, Curriculum, and Laboratory Improvement (CCLI) Program. The CCLI Program included the option to submit
_
This article not subject to U.S. Copyright. Published 2010 by the American Chemical Society and Division of Chemical Education, Inc. pubs.acs.org/jchemeduc Journal of Chemical Education 10.1021/ed800100a Published on Web 02/09/2010
_
Vol. 87 No. 3 March 2010
_
247
Chemical Education Today
instrumentation or equipment proposals, but it gave increased priority to testing the effectiveness of materials and practices in terms of gains in student learning. The option to adapt and implement proven materials and classroom practices was incorporated into CCLI as the Adaptation and Implementation Track (CCLI-A&I). Most proposals requesting instrumentation used this track. CCLI budgets also allowed for indirect costs, although the A&I Track still required that awardees provide matching funds to purchase instrumentation. The 2006 CCLI Program solicitation presented a redesign that incorporated components for knowledge production and practice improvement in STEM education1 as described in the 2003 Rand Report (6). NSF's DUE reviewed the program and concluded that CCLI projects differed along three dimensions: scope, size, and maturity. As a result, the three “tracks” introduced in the 1999 CCLI Program were replaced by three “phases”. In 2009, the CCLI Program replaced the three phases with three types, and only in Type 1 is an instrumentation request appropriate. Type 2 and 3 projects in the 2009 solicitation required either regional or national dissemination of proven “best practices”. As with Phase 1 projects, Type 1 proposals are designed to support small-scale and exploratory efforts that address at least one component of the knowledge production model1 and involve a limited number of students and faculty at one institution. Type 1 proposals are limited to a maximum of $200,000 or to $250,000 if a two-year college partner is included. Indirect costs are allowed, but an institutional match is no longer required. Comparing Proposals and Funding in 1996-1998 with Those in 2006-2008
proposals from all disciplines, with 306 of these being from chemistry departments. Compare this to FY 2010, when there were 1363 total proposals, with only 159 of these being from chemistry departments. Further, during FYs 1996-1998 between 20 and 23% of all ILI proposals were from chemistry departments, but 10 years later that number had fallen to between 10 and 12%. The important message from these data is that chemistry departments have greatly reduced the number of proposals requesting an instrument from DUE, which reminds us that proposals not submitted are not funded. We also note that NSF instituted the Major Research Instrumentation (MRI) Program in the 1990s and that many undergraduate colleges that engage students in research secure instruments from the MRI Program that serve in both the research and traditional teaching laboratories. CCLI Data for Chemistry Proposals, FYs 2006-2010 One reason for the decline in the number of proposals submitted may be that some chemistry faculty question whether DUE funds teaching instruments; thus, we analyzed the CCLI data for chemistry proposals submitted during the past five fiscal years (Tables 1 and 2). Note that proposals were submitted the year prior to the fiscal year in which an award was made; i.e., proposals submitted in the 2009 CCLI competition will be funded in FY 2010. Data for FY 2010 awards will not be finalized until September 2010. Data are included only if a particular type of instrument was requested in more than one proposal. The number of CCLI chemistry proposals was fairly constant (between 81 and 110) between FYs 2006 and 2009, but the proposals received increased significantly to 159 for FY 2010. This increase may have many causes:
The previous paragraphs illustrate that from the 1960s up through the 1990s, NSF focused on building the infrastructure of institutions or replacing their antiquated instruments. Consequently, NSF funds for undergraduate education were directed toward building infrastructure without explicit requirements for improvements in teaching and learning in the classroom or laboratory. To provide a comparison to the current situation, data for FYs 1996-1998 are presented for the ILI Program.
• Submitters may have an expectation that American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funds (commonly known as stimulus monies) are available for CCLI awards, but no stimulus funds were allocated for the CCLI Program. • Cuts in most higher education budgets have placed a premium on external funding sources, including CCLI awards. • Many departments have aging instruments in need of replacement. • The maximum budget request grew by $50,000 for Type 1 proposals.
During FYs 2006-2008, between 81 and 110 chemistry proposals were submitted to the CCLI Program per year, and the success rate ranged from 11 to 32%. Removing the requirement for an institutional match for FYs 2006-2008 compared with FYs 1996-1998 forced the funding rate to decline because the total CCLI budget did not significantly increase. The data presented in the previous paragraph clearly show that the number of chemistry departments submitting to DUE a proposal requesting an instrument for the teaching enterprise has fallen by a factor of at least 3 in the past 10 years. In other STEM disciplines, the decrease in the number of submitted proposals has not been as dramatic. For example, in FY 1998 there were 1335 total
However, the percentage of proposals requesting an instrument in FY 2010 (63%) was very close to the mean (60%) for FYs 2006-2009. Future submissions should be analyzed to determine whether the increase in the total number of proposals is sustained. The most frequently requested instruments were NMR, GC-MS, LC (both HPLC and IC), and spectrophotometers (FT-IR, UV-vis, fluorescence, and so on). NMR requests with an electromagnet exceeded superconductors by a factor of 4 to 5 during FYs 2006-2009, but the number of proposals requesting an electromagnet dropped by a factor of 2 in FY 2009. By FY 2010, nearly an equal number of each type of NMR was requested. However, the number of proposals requesting an instrument was the lowest in FY 2009. Requests for spectrophotometers (both UV-vis and IR) and for GCs steadily declined during FYs 2006-2009. Requests for basic instruments (spectrophotometers and LCs) increased in FY 2010; thus, it is tempting to speculate that this reflects an attempt by institutions to replace aging instruments that are normally purchased from internal capital equipment budgets that have been reduced or eliminated.
• In FY 1996 ILI received 1664 proposals from all disciplines (332 proposals from chemistry departments and 95 chemistry proposals funded for a 28% success rate). • In FY 1997 ILI received 1499 total proposals (313 proposals from chemistry departments and 111 chemistry funded for a 35% success rate). • In FY 1998 ILI received 1335 total proposals (306 proposals from chemistry departments and 94 chemistry proposals funded for a 31% success rate).
248
Vol. 87 No. 3 March 2010
_
pubs.acs.org/jchemeduc
_
This article not subject to U.S. Copyright. Published 2010 by the American Chemical Society and Division of Chemical Education, Inc. Journal of Chemical Education
Chemical Education Today
Table 1. Comparison of CCLI Proposals Requested and Awarded Fiscal Years for Which the Data Pertain a
Proposal Information
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Total number of proposals
81
110
99
100
159
Proposals requesting instruments
54
80
54
47
96
Proposals with no instrument
27
30
45
53
63
Total awards
9
22
32
17
NA
Total awards with instrument
5
17
21
9
NA
All proposals funded, %
11
20
32
17
NA
Proposals requesting instruments, %
67
73
56
47
63
Awards with an instrument, %
56
77
66
53
NA
a Some proposals requested more than one type of instrument; thus, the sum of the number of instruments requested may exceed the number of proposals requesting an instrument.
Table 2. Distribution of Instruments Requested and Awarded in CCLI Proposals Requested:Awardeda Data by Fiscal Year Instrument Types NMR (superconducting) NMR (electromagnet) GC-MS (LC-MS)
2006 2:0 9:2 12(1):0
2007 3:1 16:3 11(1):3(1)
2008
2009
2010b
4:0
4:1
8
13:3 9(1):6(1)
6:2
10
7(1):1(0)
17(2)
GC
8:0
5:0
1:0
0:0
6
LC
4:0
9:0
8:3
4:3
15
24:0
10:4
8:5
6:2
20
7:2
4:1
4:1
2:0
13
Spectrophotometersc FT-IR and Raman a
Some proposals requested more than one type of instrument; thus, the sum of the number of instruments requested may exceed the number of proposals requesting an instrument. b Data for proposal requests only; award data not yet available. c UV-vis, NIR, fluorescence, etc.
Conclusion The data show that, on average, the number of proposals requesting an instrument each year (60%) matches the number of awards with an instrument (63%). The number of proposals not requesting an instrument steadily increased from 27 in FY 2006 to 63 in FY 2010. While some variation from year to year is typical, the funding percentage for all proposals during FYs 2006-2009 was 20%. In FY 2010, the number of proposals requesting an instrument was more than double that requested in the previous year. An interesting future trend to explore will be whether the increase in 2009 from $150,000 to $200,000 in the allowed request for Type 1 proposals will be reflected in an increase in the request for instruments (for example, LC-MS or high-field NMR) with a cost typically above $150,000. Another useful trend to explore in the future is the type of institutions (two-year, liberal arts, doctoral granting, and so on) both submitting proposals and receiving awards. For more information about DUE, visit http://www.nsf. gov/div/index.jsp?div=DUE (accessed Jan 2010). Information about the more than 1000 CCLI awards can be found by following links to CCLI and finding the Abstracts of Recent Awards. The 2010 solicitation should be available in early 2010, but be aware that the name of the CCLI Program might have changed by that time. Note 1. Five components for knowledge production and practice improvement in STEM education were identified: (i) Creating learning materials and strategies; (ii) Implementing new instructional strategies; (iii) Developing faculty expertise; (iv) Assessing
and evaluating student achievement; and (v) Conducting research on undergraduate STEM education.
Literature Cited 1. A Timeline of NSF History. http://www.nsf.gov/about/history/ overview-50.jsp (accessed Jan 2010). 2. Drew, D. E. A Study of the NSF College Science Improvement Program; American Council on Education Research Reports, Vol. 6 (4), Washington, D.C. 1971. 3. Davis-Van Atta, D.; Carrier, S. C.; Frankfort, F. Educating America's Scientists: The Role of the Research Colleges; A Report for the Conference on the Future of Science at Liberal Arts Colleges held at Oberlin College; Oberlin College: Oberlin, OH, 1985. 4. Task Committee on Undergraduate Science and Engineering Education, Homer A. Neal, Chairman, Undergraduate Science, Mathematics, and Engineering Education. Role for the National Science Foundation and Recommendations for Action by Other Sectors To Strengthen Collegiate Education and Pursue Excellence in the Next Generation of U.S. Leadership in Science and Technology; National Science Board: Washington, DC, 1986; http://www.pkal.org/ documents/TheNealReport1986Page3.cfm (accessed Jan 2010). 5. Westat, A. Short-Term Impact Study of the NSF ILI Program ( NSF97-6); http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/1996/nsf976/nsf976.htm (accessed Jan 2010). 6. Mathematical Proficiency for All Students: Towards a Strategic Research and Development Program in Mathematics Education; Ball, D. L., Chair, Rand Mathematics Study Panel; Rand Corp.: Santa Monica, CA, 2003.
This article not subject to U.S. Copyright. Published 2010 by the American Chemical Society and Division of Chemical Education, Inc. Journal of Chemical Education
_
pubs.acs.org/jchemeduc
_
Vol. 87 No. 3 March 2010
_
249
