Writing More Competitive Grant Proposals for NMR ... - ACS Publications

Downloaded by UNIV ILLINOIS URBANA on March 20, 2013 | http://pubs.acs.org Publication Date (Web): March 19, 2013 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2013-1128.ch021

Chapter 21

Writing More Competitive Grant Proposals for NMR Spectrometers: Research and Curriculum Programs of the National Science Foundation Thomas J. Wenzel* Department of Chemistry, Bates College, Lewiston, Maine 04240 *E-mail: [email protected]

The National Science Foundation has two important grant programs that provide support for NMR spectrometers. The Major Research Instrumentation Program operates under the research directorates and is focused on enabling research activities. The Transforming Undergraduate Education in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics Program operates under the Division of Undergraduate Education and is focused on promoting curricular development that enhances undergraduate student learning. Advice for writing successful grant proposals to both of these programs is provided.

Introduction The National Science Foundation (NSF) has two programs – Major Research Instrumentation (MRI) and Transforming Undergraduate Education in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (TUES) – that are possible sources of funding for the purchase of NMR spectrometers. The advice offered herein does not reflect an NSF opinion, as I have never served as an NSF program officer. It reflects my experience reviewing proposals on numerous occasions for NSF and other funding organizations as well as my experience in writing successful proposals to NSF research and education programs, including both MRI and TUES. Proposals to the MRI program focus on research activities © 2013 American Chemical Society In NMR Spectroscopy in the Undergraduate Curriculum; Soulsby, D., et al.; ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2013.


whereas those to the TUES program focus on educational activities. Even though the aims of these two programs are quite different, all proposals to NSF follow a general format and have specific evaluation criteria that are described in the Grant Proposal Guide (GPG) (1). The general components of all NSF proposals are as follows: Project Summary Project Description Literature References Biographical Sketch(es) Budget and Justification Current and Pending Support Facilities and Equipment Data Management Plan The GPG describes in general terms the features of each of these sections of the proposal. For example, the Project Description section of MRI and TUES proposals can be no longer than 15 pages with specific constraints on the margins and font size used in the document. Additional documents for the MRI (2) and TUES (3) programs describe further expectations within certain sections of the proposal; most often related to aspects of the Project Description. For example, the Project Description for an MRI proposal must describe a management plan for the instrument. Proposals to the TUES program must describe assessment plans for the project. Anyone intending to submit a proposal should scrupulously read the GPG and specific guidelines for the program and become familiar with all of the expectations before starting a proposal. While this seems like obvious advice, I cannot emphasize enough how essential it is to follow the guidelines. An observation I have made over many years of panel and individual reviewing is how often people fail to follow some aspect of the guidelines. In some cases (e.g., not including an instrument management plan, or focusing on curricular uses of the instrument in an MRI proposal) it can be responsible for rejection of the proposal regardless of the merits of other facets of the work. In other cases (e.g., providing biographical sketches that do not conform to the NSF style and do not provide all the requested categories of information), the error may be more subtle but may still have a profound impact on one or more of the reviewers. Failure to follow the guidelines in any form creates the possibility for doubt on the part of reviewers about the extent to which the investigator(s) will be careful and thorough in the execution of the work. Since I often find myself on the fence about what final ranking to apply (e.g., excellent or very good), a proposal that has not followed some obvious aspect of the guidelines may create enough doubt that I will give it the lower score. In the competitive world of grant-writing, one score going from an excellent to a very good may be sufficient to make the difference between whether the proposal is funded or not. Also, a failure to follow some aspect of the guidelines may become magnified in the panel discussion if a reviewer raises it as an issue. Each proposal only gets a small amount of time for discussion, and it is best if that time is spent discussing the merits of the work rather than an issue 322 In NMR Spectroscopy in the Undergraduate Curriculum; Soulsby, D., et al.; ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2013.


with following the guidelines. Similarly, it is essential to scrupulously proofread the proposal to remove typographical and grammatical errors, especially with the features that exist today for electronic spell- and grammar-checking. If a PI writes a sloppy proposal, does it imply that the person will do similarly sloppy work? With that thought in a reviewer’s head, it has a good chance of affecting her or his ranking of the proposal. The GPG also describes the two general criteria used by NSF in evaluating proposals: (i) intellectual merit and (ii) broader impacts. The nature of the intellectual merits and broader impacts is quite different for an MRI and TUES proposal, and will be described within the following sections on each program. A relatively recent change to the evaluation of intellectual merit is the additional requirement that reviewers evaluate whether the work has the potential to be transformative. The goal of this change is to improve the odds that high-risk, high-gain work gets funded. If a reasonable case can be made that some or all facets of the work have the potential to be transformative, it will help make the argument for funding. Since reviewers must complete a separate evaluation for the intellectual merits and broader impacts, give careful consideration to both when writing the proposal.

NSF Major Research Instrumentation (MRI) Program The MRI program operates through the research directorates of NSF and is the program within NSF that provides the majority of funding for the purchase of NMR spectrometers. It is essential to recognize that the MRI program primarily focuses on the research activities of the investigators who will use the instrument. Reviewers of MRI proposals focus on the quality of the research activities described in the proposal. Unlike many other NSF programs, the MRI program has historically received a separate allocation of funding for research universities and predominantly undergraduate institutions (PUIs). When I have been on MRI panels, we considered all the research universities as a group and ranked them separately from a consideration and ranking of the PUIs. Research universities must provide 30% of the cost of the instrument as a match. PUIs must request the entire amount of money needed to purchase the equipment; cost sharing is not allowed. There is no upper dollar limit on what can be requested, so it is possible through the MRI program to secure funding for any field strength NMR spectrometer. When requesting an NMR spectrometer, there will be an expectation that it will have multiple users, although a consideration of who to include in the proposal as users will be described in more detail in the section on the Project Description. Project Summary The Project Summary must have two distinct paragraphs, one of which discusses the intellectual merits and the other the broader impacts of the work. The intellectual merits of an MRI proposal are focused on the quality of the outcomes that can be expected to arise from completion of the research projects. 323 In NMR Spectroscopy in the Undergraduate Curriculum; Soulsby, D., et al.; ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2013.


The paragraph on intellectual merit should summarize the different areas of research that are developed in the proposal for the primary users of the instrument and describe the significant outcomes that may result from their work. The paragraph on broader impacts in an MRI proposal can address a number of points. An obvious broader impact is the undergraduate students, graduate students, postdoctoral associates, and other users who will benefit either educationally or in advancing their work by having access to the instrument. Involvement of research students from minority and other groups historically underrepresented in the sciences will be viewed favorably, provided it appears to be a credible goal. It will be important in the text of the Project Description to provide data or a specific plan for involvement of students from underrepresented groups that appears likely to succeed. Perhaps less obvious is that the research described in the intellectual merits section may also have broader impacts. Publications of papers and review articles or talks at conferences represent a broader impact. If work in the proposal may lead to a patent application, then that is a broader impact. Some work may cross fields and provide important insights to investigators not directly in that area of work. Having colleagues from other institutions who may use or benefit from data collected on the instrument is another broader impact. There may also be educational outcomes of the work (e.g., a discovery in the research lab may be incorporated into an experiment in an undergraduate instructional lab). Finally, an NMR spectrometer obtained at a PUI will almost certainly be used in courses and these uses represent a broader impact, although it is necessary to remember that it is a research proposal. Project Description The guidelines for MRI proposals specify the inclusion of additional information that must be addressed in the Project Description and recommend the length of each section. These include a description of the research activities that will be enabled (9 pages), the instrument and needs of the investigators (2 pages), the impact that the instrument will have on research and training infrastructure (2 pages), and a management plan (2 pages). It is important to note that these are recommended lengths. For example, the description of and needs for a standard 400 MHz NMR with a single broadband probe for liquid samples might require much less text than a request for a 600 MHz instrument with a solid and liquid probe and other specialized features. Similarly, a department with a full-time instrument technician who is already maintaining, operating and managing an existing but outdated high-field instrument that is being upgraded to a new model might require a shorter management plan than a department with no instrument technician that is trying to upgrade from a 60 to a 400 MHz instrument. Research Activities Reviewers will evaluate the quality of the research activities described in the proposal. Given that there are about nine pages for this section, and given that the work of three to six primary investigators might be included, there is a limited 324 In NMR Spectroscopy in the Undergraduate Curriculum; Soulsby, D., et al.; ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2013.


amount of space to describe each individual’s research project. The situation is further complicated by the makeup of the review panel. Because of the range of research areas that will be included within a single MRI proposal, review panels must be comprised of people who cover many areas of expertise. Proposals will be reviewed by people who are not an expert in every area of work included in it. How do reviewers make an assessment of the quality of the research and what key information belongs in this section? Because of the differences among reviewers’ priorities and the different situations that exist across chemistry departments, there is no single answer to this question. However, there are things that reviewers consider when evaluating a proposal. It is important to explicitly state the significance of each investigator’s area of research in a way that is comprehensible to non-experts in the field. I have read too many MRI proposals, especially from departments at PUIs, where people immediately jump into the experimental details of a project and never describe the general importance of the work. Once I appreciate that the research has potentially significant outcomes, I can then go on to examine the brief experimental plan included in the proposal to assess whether it seems likely to succeed. Obviously each investigator’s project will need references to appropriate and current literature that is informing the work. For faculty from PUIs, it is especially important to recognize that the proposal is being considered by a research directorate so the usual outcomes of a research project (e.g., peer-reviewed publications) are beneficial to the review of a proposal. Because of the limited space available to describe several projects, other facets of a person’s record become important in assessing the quality of the research. These include the recent publication record of the investigator as well as the record of pursuit and receipt of other external grant support for the work. Considerable care needs to be exercised in deciding who to include as the primary users of the instrument. If too many do not have a recent track record of research success, it may work against the proposal. Reviewers understand that relatively new faculty may not yet have publications from their independent work. Evidence that new investigators are seeking other forms of external support for their research helps. Inclusion of several senior faculty without a recent publication record may be detrimental to the review of an MRI proposal, especially if the department already has a high-field NMR spectrometer that it is trying to upgrade. If these people have not been able to complete work on an existing 300 MHz spectrometer, it can be difficult to claim that a new 400 MHz instrument will lead to an enhancement in productivity. Proposals can distinguish between primary users – those with full research descriptions, biographical sketches, data on current and pending support – and secondary users – those with much briefer descriptions. There is no single right number of primary users to include on a proposal. In general, primary users should be the most active people, as measured by the extent to which they will use the equipment. To the extent that it is possible, it is best if primary users have an active record of publications and/or grants or be relatively recent hires. Secondary users should be those who will occasionally use the equipment with students. Someone who may regularly use the equipment but has gone a long time without any publications may be better to include as a secondary user, provided 325 In NMR Spectroscopy in the Undergraduate Curriculum; Soulsby, D., et al.; ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2013.


there are enough other primary users within the department. Be careful not to include projects that may not even be possible on the instrument being requested. In an effort to increase their user pool, I have read proposals from PUIs where a biochemist with no experience with NMR spectroscopy proposed to use a 400 MHz instrument for structure determination of large proteins. There are many chemistry departments at PUIs that legitimately need a better NMR spectrometer for research and educational purposes, but need alone is not sufficient to justify an instrument through the MRI program. The goal of the MRI program is to provide instrumentation to people whose need, when fulfilled, will allow them to advance an important research agenda. Instrument and Needs of the Investigators It is essential to request an instrument that is justified by the needs of the ongoing research included in the proposal. If the goal is to complete protein structure determinations using NMR spectroscopy, a 400 MHz instrument will not be sufficient. A more common problem, especially at PUIs, is that a department requests a 500 or 600 MHz instrument that is not justified by the research described in the proposal. It is not acceptable to say that the higher field strength or capabilities are justified because it will make it easier to hire new faculty or allow people to move into different research areas in the future. The projects included in the proposal must themselves justify the instrument being requested. It is especially useful to provide spectra of representative samples that demonstrate what will be achievable with the new instrument that cannot be obtained on an existing instrument. These can be obtained from a colleague at another institution or from the vendor. Comparative spectra should be placed and discussed in the research descriptions, but referred to in the section on instrument needs. Investigators who regularly travel to another site to obtain spectra for their research can use that to show their dedication to their work. Reviewers recognize that such travel arrangements are seldom practical in the long-term. It is also important to include specific data on instrument usage. Information on the number of faculty and students who will use the equipment and estimates of the number of spectra that will be run (this may be based on a log for an existing but outdated instrument) can help justify the need for the instrument. If a department is seeking a second NMR because of high usage of the existing instrument, it will be necessary to show data on the volume of usage. Impact on Research and Training Infrastructure For those at PUIs, it is appropriate to describe the general involvement of students in research in the department. If a stated outcome of the project is the involvement of students from minority and underrepresented groups, this section should contain a thorough description of the plan for meeting this goal. Indicate if the department has an active summer research program, since this shows that the instrument will be used throughout the entire year. It can be tempting to mention that faculty at other institutions will use the equipment in a consortial arrangement as a way of enhancing the impact. Reviewers know that establishing shared 326 In NMR Spectroscopy in the Undergraduate Curriculum; Soulsby, D., et al.; ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2013.

instrument arrangements is often difficult. Specific plans should be provided to convince reviewers that the consortium will realize its potential. For PUIs, it can be helpful to describe how the instrument will be used in the curriculum. Since the emphasis is on research, descriptions of curricular uses should be brief. If curricular uses are described, it is important that the experiments be modern ones that take advantage of the various features of the equipment. If curricular uses are included, reviewers will evaluate the quality of the curricular plans in making their recommendation.


Management Plan Reviewers must be convinced that the department has a plan in place that will ensure the continual operation of the instrument. This plan should enable the integration of the instrument into the department’s holdings without undue time demands on the faculty. The ideal situation is to have a trained instrument technician who will help with the routine operation and maintenance of the NMR spectrometer. If such a person does not exist within your department, then it will be essential to show that faculty members have the time and expertise to maintain the instrument. This may be obvious if the department is replacing an existing high-field instrument. It will be less so if the department is upgrading from a 60 MHz to a high-field instrument. Issues about where the instrument will be housed, what arrangements are in place for the purchase of cryogens, and whether or not the institution will maintain a service contract and, if not, what arrangements exist for covering the cost of repairs must be addressed. While the institution cannot provide matching funds toward the purchase of the instrument, it will need to cover the maintenance costs beyond the expiration of the grant. A letter from the Dean or Provost that commits the institution to cover the maintenance costs or salary of an instrument technician should be included as an Appendix. Also, since there will be multiple users and the possibility of the need for different probes depending on the nature of the request, a plan for balancing the competing demands for the instrument must be provided.

NSF Transforming Undergraduate Education in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Program (TUES) The TUES program operates through the NSF’s Division of Undergraduate Education (DUE). This program supports curricular enhancements that provide more effective learning for undergraduates. A prior article provides general advice for obtaining instructional equipment through curriculum development grants (4). Admittedly, only a few departments have gotten grants to purchase NMR spectrometers in recent cycles of the TUES program. Nevertheless, it is still a program where it is possible to get support for an NMR spectrometer, and may be the best choice for a department that would have an especially difficult time justifying an instrument on the basis of research activities. Given the significance 327 In NMR Spectroscopy in the Undergraduate Curriculum; Soulsby, D., et al.; ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2013.


of NMR spectroscopy in several chemistry sub-disciplines, a TUES proposal to purchase an NMR spectrometer should describe its use in multiple places in the curriculum. Reviewers will evaluate the value to students and faculty of the curricular activities in determining whether a proposal deserves to be funded. Especially for faculty members at PUIs, involvement of undergraduates in research is a valuable educational opportunity. It is advisable to include brief descriptions of research projects that will use the spectrometer and indicate the extent to which the instrument will be used for research in the academic year and summer. Year-round and frequent use of the instrument will help to make a more compelling case for funding. However, it is important to remember that this is a curriculum proposal, so research uses will likely represent a minor component of the overall text compared to use in courses. There are Type 1, 2 and 3 TUES awards. Type 2 and 3 awards are for multiinstitutional or national initiatives aimed at developing and disseminating effective educational practices; these do not provide funds to purchase instruments. A Type 1 award is an appropriate place to request funds for an NMR spectrometer. Type 1 awards have a maximum of $200K for a single institution and $250K if the project involves significant involvement of one or more two-year colleges. In order to qualify for the extra $50K, curriculum development activities planned for the lead institution should also be implemented in comparable courses taught at the two-year college. In addition, faculty who teach these courses at the two-year college should collaborate with faculty at the lead institution in developing the new curriculum. A situation in which faculty members and students from the twoyear college will merely be provided access to the instrument to run spectra is not sufficient to justify the extra $50K. An issue for many departments with the TUES program is that $250K is insufficient to cover the entire cost of many highfield NMR spectrometers and NSF does not permit the use of and discussion of matching funds in the proposal.

Project Summary The Project Summary for a TUES proposal must have two distinct paragraphs discussing the intellectual merits and broader impacts of the work. Intellectual merits focus on the new curricular activities and the beneficial effect they are expected to have on student learning. If the curricular changes involve significant alterations in the way faculty members deliver courses or laboratories (e.g., replacement of traditional teaching methods with active-learning pedagogies), activities aimed at faculty development fall within the intellectual merit of the project. Broader impacts will include information on the number of students and faculty who will be affected by the curricular changes. It is important not to overstate the number of students who will be impacted by the project. NSF is especially interested in the dissemination of new curricular developments and activities that communicate the outcomes of the project to a larger audience are important broader impacts. 328 In NMR Spectroscopy in the Undergraduate Curriculum; Soulsby, D., et al.; ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2013.

Project Description


The Project Description should provide a thorough discussion of the curricular changes that will be implemented and the rationale for those changes. How the changes are expected to improve student learning must be emphasized. NSF identifies five components of curriculum development in the description for the TUES program. Creating learning materials and strategies Implementing new instructional strategies Developing faculty expertise Assessing and evaluating student achievement Conducting research on undergraduate STEM education A proposal to obtain an NMR spectrometer will likely have some aspects of items 1-4, although generally Type 1 proposals only focus on one or two of the areas. If the primary goal is to institute a new set of laboratory experiences that are facilitated by acquisition of a better NMR spectrometer, the emphasis will likely be the creation of new learning materials and strategies. If faculty members are changing the way they teach laboratories to emphasize more student independence in the execution of experiments, a plan to develop faculty expertise will be important. Every Type 1 proposal requires an assessment of student learning outcomes. However, the focus of a proposal to purchase an NMR spectrometer will not be on the development of new tools or techniques for the assessment of student achievement. It is essential to remember that reviewers will evaluate the quality of the learning experience for students affected through the project. It is doubtful, if not impossible, to get funding for a new NMR spectrometer that replaces an existing but outdated piece of equipment and continues the same set of experiments already being done. Presumably a new instrument will have capabilities that open up new types of experiments. It is essential to relate new experiments and teaching pedagogies described in the proposal to previous published work. While it is less common today, it is surprising how many education proposals I have reviewed over the years that had no references. Some facility with the education literature on chemistry will be essential. A proposal requesting an NMR spectrometer will almost certainly describe its use in several courses. This will enhance the broader impact of the project by affecting more students. The experiments will likely increase in sophistication as students advance in the curriculum. It is important to provide either a complete set of experiments and activities that will be implemented or specific examples of the types of experiments and learning activities that will be developed. Reviewers must be impressed by these examples. There is recognition in the education community that there are better ways to teach chemistry than a lecture approach and “cookbook” labs. Numerous reports have called for changes in the way we teach science (5–13). Various studies show the effectiveness of teaching techniques that engage the students more actively in the learning exercise (14–51). While it is not essential, it can be tempting to 329 In NMR Spectroscopy in the Undergraduate Curriculum; Soulsby, D., et al.; ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2013.


claim that more active forms of learning (e.g., inquiry-based experiments) will be developed as part of the project. However, sprinkling a phrase like “new inquirybased experiments will be developed” throughout the proposal without providing some well-constructed examples will ring hollow with reviewers. Reviewers must be convinced that an interesting set of activities has been selected or that the project participants have the ability to develop effective inquiry-based activities. If the development of inquiry-based experiments is a goal, examples should include inquiry-based techniques as their approach. If the project will involve developing new experiments for several courses, it is preferable to provide at least one specific example for each course. If one or more of the examples are too long to include in the proposal, they should be summarized in shorter form and it is possible to provide a link to a website where the complete materials are available. Reviewers may go to the website if the nature of the experiments to be developed is a key question they have. I have been on panels where we went to a website to examine materials during the discussion of a proposal. A curriculum proposal will need a timeline for completion of each activity. This will include when the equipment will be installed, when curriculum development will occur, and when changes will be incorporated into courses. Also, it is important to provide the names of individuals who are committing to develop experiments for each course. Assessment Plan A TUES proposal will need an assessment plan that includes formative and summative components. Formative assessment occurs early in the project and is used to refine curricular activities to make them more effective. Summative assessment occurs at the end of the project. Established processes that may already occur at your institution (e.g., end-of-semester course evaluations) can be incorporated into assessment. Since chemistry faculty members rarely have sufficient expertise in the area of assessment, so it is advisable to involve a consultant for this aspect of the project. This individual should have a proven track record in the area of assessment. An institutional research officer or faculty member at your institution with assessment expertise may fill this role. Many people involve someone from off campus. The individual leading the assessment cannot be intimately involved in the curriculum development activities. Instead they are in communication with the project participants to develop assessment activities as the project progresses. Most important is that this person has demonstrable experience in assessment, and can show that in their biographical sketch that will be included in the proposal. Dissemination Plan It is essential to have a dissemination plan that communicates your curricular development activities beyond your institution. This should involve more than putting the materials up on a website. Plans to give conference talks and participate in appropriate discipline-specific networking opportunities should be provided. Specific and realistic plans are better. Peer-reviewed publications are 330 In NMR Spectroscopy in the Undergraduate Curriculum; Soulsby, D., et al.; ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2013.

especially valuable, although it is important that any claims about plans to publish appear realistic. If earlier in the proposal you state that you have prior experience at curriculum development activities as a way of giving the reviewers more confidence in your future plans, the absence of publications on your previous work may diminish the veracity of claims that you will publish your future work.


Budget The budget for a TUES grant permits the inclusion of funds in all categories that appear in an NSF budget. In addition to the cost of the spectrometer, common items include summer salary for faculty and student assistants for curriculum development activities, travel to visit someone to observe effective practices that you want to include in your curriculum or to attend a conference for dissemination, and funds for an assessment consultant. Since the NMR spectrometer may use up all or most of the available $200K, there may not be much money available for these other items. You may have to develop the new curricular materials without summer salary. It is essential that the reviewers feel confident that assessment will occur, so having some funds to support an assessment consultant may be essential to incorporate into the request, even if it is listed in the budget justification as an expense being provided by your institution.

Concluding Remarks The grant process is highly competitive and NSF has insufficient levels of funding to support all deserving proposals. Many proposals are rejected. Some are rejected because the ideas contained in them are inferior and they may never warrant funding. A more common situation is that the proposal is lacking in some important details that the reviewers want to see developed better. In the latter case, the proposal should be revised and resubmitted. If a proposal is rejected, one piece of advice is to let one or more colleagues read the reviews and share with you their thoughts about a resubmission and what needs to be addressed. It is also helpful to talk to the program officer, but never handle such a conversation in a confrontational manner. Let news of the rejection and reviewers’ comments sit for a period of time before contacting the program officer. Since the program officers handle many proposals, it is best to contact the person via email to set up a phone appointment and to indicate that you want to talk about your rejected proposal. This will allow the program officer to review your file and be better prepared for the call. Organizations like the Council on Undergraduate Research offer a variety of programs aimed at furthering people’s proposal writing skills (52). American Chemical Society meetings also have sessions on NSF-catalyzed curriculum development activities that can help in the generation of ideas for a proposal. One thing I do know for sure is that you will not get a proposal funded if you do not submit it. Try your best and, if it is not funded on the first submission, do not give up. 331 In NMR Spectroscopy in the Undergraduate Curriculum; Soulsby, D., et al.; ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2013.

Note from the Editors: This chapter raises a number of important issues specifically concerning the TUES and MRI NSF programs. Since the guidelines governing these and other programs continue to evolve we strongly encourage all proposal writers to check the latest version of the official guidelines for the program to which you are applying. Readers are also encouraged to contact the appropriate program officer early in the proposal development process if you have questions related to the topics raised in this chapter.


References 1. 2.

3.

4. 5.

6. 7.

8.

9. 10.

11. 12.

13.

Grant Proposal Guide; http://www.nsf.gov/publications/ pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=gpg (accessed August 2012). Major Research Instrumentation Program: Instrument Acquisition or Development, NSF 11-503; http://www.nsf.gov/publications/ pub_summ.jsp?WT.z_pims_id=5260&ods_key=nsf11503 (accessed August 2012). Transforming Undergraduate Education in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (TUES), NSF 10-544; http://www.nsf.gov/ publications/pub_summ.jsp?WT.z_pims_id=5741&ods_key=nsf10544 (accessed August 2012). Wenzel, T. J. J. Chem. Educ. 2010, 87, 1128–1130. Shaping the Future: New Expectations for Undergraduate Education in Science, Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology; National Science Foundation: Arlington, VA, 1996. Science Teaching Reconsidered: A Handbook; National Academies Press: Washington, DC, 1997. Reinventing Undergrauate Education: A Blueprint for America’s Research Universities; Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching: Princeton, NJ, 1998. Project 2061; American Association for the Advance of Science, 1985; http://www.project2061.org/publications/sfaa/default.htm (accessed October 2012). BIO 2010, Transforming Undergraduate Education for Future Research Biologists; National Academies Press: Washington, DC, 2003. Kuwana, T. Curricular Developments in the Analytical Sciences; National Science Foundation: Washington, DC 1998; http://www.asdlib.org/files/ curricularDevelopment_report.pdf (accessed October 2012). Pienta, N. J.; Cooper, M. M.; Greenbowe, T. J. Chemists’ Guide to Effective Teaching; Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ, 2005. Rising Above the Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employing America for a Brighter Economic Future; National Academy Press: Washington, DC, 2005. How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience and School; Bransford, J., Brown, A. L.. Cocking, R. R.. Eds.; National Academies Press: Washington, DC, 2000. 332 In NMR Spectroscopy in the Undergraduate Curriculum; Soulsby, D., et al.; ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2013.


14. Gilbert, J. K.; de Jong, O.; Justi, R.; Treagust, D. F.; van Driel, J. H. Chemical Education: Towards Research-Based Practice; Gilbert, J. K., de Jong, O., Justi, R., Treagust, D. F., van Driel, J. H., Eds.; Kluwer Academic Publishers: Boston, 2002; pp 391−408. 15. How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience and School; Bransford, J., Brown, A. L., Cocking, R. R., Eds.; National Academies Press: Washington, DC, 2000. 16. Hohlach, J. M.; Grove, N.; Bretz, S. L. J. Chem. Educ. 2007, 84, 1530–1534. 17. Getzels, J. W. Creative thinking, problem solving and instruction. In Theories of Learning and Instruction, The 63rd Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education; Hilgard, E. R., Ed.; University of Chicago Press: Chicago, 1963. 18. Duch B. J.; Groh, S. E.; Allen, D. E. The Power of Problem-Based Learning; Stylus Publishing: Sterline, VA, 2001. 19. Johnson, D. W.; Johnson, R. T.; Smith, K. A. Cooperative Learning: Increasing College Faculty Instructional Productivity; ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No 4; The George Washington University, Graduate School of Education and Human Development: Washington, DC, 1991. 20. McKeachie, W. J. Teaching Tips: Strategies, Research, and Theory for College and University Teachers, 11th ed.; Houghton Mifflin: Boston, MA, 2002. 21. Mayer, R. E. Am. Psychol. 2004, 59, 14–19. 22. Astin, H. S.; Astin. A. W.; Bisconti, A.; Frankel, H. Higher Education and the Disadvantaged Student; Human Science Press: Washington, DC, 1972. 23. Wales, C.; Stager, R. The Guided-Design Approach; Educational Technology Publications: Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1978. 24. Astin, A. W. Achieving Education Excellence; Jossey-Bass: San Francisco, 1985. 25. Murray, H. G. Using Research to Improve Teaching; Donald, J. G., Sullivan, A. M., Eds.; Jossey-Bass: San Francisco, 1985. 26. Treisman, P. U. A Study of the Mathematics Performance of Black Students at the University of California, Berkeley, Ph.D. Dissertation, University of California, Berkeley, 1985. 27. Tinto, V. Leaving College: Rethinking the Causes and Cures of Student Attrition; University of Chicago Press: Chicago, 1987. 28. Johnson, D. W.; Johnson, R. T. Cooperation and Competition: Theory and Research; Interaction Book Company: Edina, MN, 1989. 29. Light, R. J. The Harvard Assessment Seminars; Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA, 1990. 30. Slavin, R. E. Group rewards make groupwork work. Educ. Leadership 1991, 48, 71–82. 31. Blosser, P. E. The Science Outlook: Using Cooperative Learning in Science Education; ERIC-CSMEE: Columbus, OH, 1993; pp 1−9, 32. Allen, D. E.; Duch, B. J.; Groh, S. E. New Directions in Teaching and Learning, No. 68; Jossey-Bass Publishers: San Francisco, 1996; pp 43−52. 33. Springer L.; Stanne, M. E.; Donovan, S. Effects of small-group learning on undergraduates in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology: A 333 In NMR Spectroscopy in the Undergraduate Curriculum; Soulsby, D., et al.; ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2013.


34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39.

40. 41. 42.

43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52.

meta-analysis; National Institute for Science Education: Madison, WI, 1997; http://www.wcer.wisc.edu/nise/CL1/CL/resource/R2.htm (accessed October 2012). Hake, R. R. Am. J. Phys. 1998, 66, 64–74. Towns, M. H. J. Chem. Educ. 1998, 75, 67–69. Wenzel, T. J. Anal. Chem. 1998, 70, 790A–795A. Spencer, J. N. J. Chem. Educ. 1999, 76, 566–569. Farrell, J. J.; Moog, R. S.; Spencer, J. N. J. Chem. Educ. 1999, 76, 570–574. Johnson, D. W.; Johnson, R. T.; Stanne, M. E. Cooperative Learning Methods: A meta-analysis; Cooperative Learning Center, University of Minnesota: Minneapolis, 2000; http://www.tablelearning.com/uploads/File/ EXHIBIT-B.pdf (accessed October 2012). Bowen, C. W. J. Chem. Educ. 2000, 77, 116–119. Towns, M. H.; Kreke, K.; Fields, A. J. Chem. Educ. 2000, 77, 111–115. Peer-led Team Learning: A Guidebook; Gosser, D. K., Cracolice, M. S., Kampmeier, J. A., Roth, V., Strozak, V. S., Varma-Nelson, P., Eds.; PrenticeHall: Upper Saddle River, NJ, 2001. Cabrera, A. F.; Crissman, J. L.; Bernal, E. M.; Nora, A.; Terenzini, P. T.; Pascarella, E. T. J. Coll. Stud. Development 2002, 43, 20–34. Smith, K. A.; Sheppard, S. D.; Johnson, D. W.; Johnson, R. T. J. Eng. Educ. 2005, 94, 87–101. Springer, L.; Stanne, M. E.; Donovan, S. S. Rev. Educ. Res. 1999, 69, 21–51. Hofstein, A.; Lunetta, V. N. Rev. Educ. Res. 1982, 52, 201–217. Reif, F; St. John, M. Am. J. Phys. 1979, 47, 950–957. Raghubir, K. P. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 1979, 16, 13–18. Wheatley, J. H. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 1975, 12, 101–109. Wright, J. C. J. Chem. Educ. 1996, 73, 827–832. Wright, J. C.; Millar, S. B.; Kosciuk, S. A.; Penberthy, D. L.; Williams, P. H.; Wampold, B. E. J. Chem. Educ. 1998, 75, 986–992. Council on Undergraduate Research Home Page; http://www.cur.org/ (accessed August 2012).

334 In NMR Spectroscopy in the Undergraduate Curriculum; Soulsby, D., et al.; ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2013.

Writing More Competitive Grant Proposals for NMR ... - ACS Publications

Recommend Documents