Due Third Wednesday in September, Annually Thereafter
The Office for Research Development is requesting letters of intent for the National Science Foundation (NSF) – Research Experiences for Teachers (RET) in Engineering and Computer Science.
Research Office Letter of Intent Deadline: Monday, August 6, 2018
Agency Deadline: September 19, 2018
Anticipated Funding Amount: $5,800,000
Estimated Number of Awards: 9
Limit on Number of Proposals per Organization: 3
Three Site proposals may be submitted per competition by a U.S. academic institution, including a College/Department of Engineering, Engineering Technology, or Computer and/or Information Science as the lead institution. No more than two of the three proposals may have an engineering focus and only one of the three proposals may have a computer and/or information science focus. Potential PIs are advised to contact their institutional office of research regarding processes used to select proposals for submission.
This program supports the active involvement of K-12 science, technology, engineering, computer and information science, and mathematics (STEM) teachers and community college faculty in engineering and computer science research in order to bring knowledge of engineering, computer science, and technological innovation into their classrooms.
In an effort to provide the highest level of excellence and viability for funding, a review process will be put in place if more than three proposals are submitted. The finalist will be asked to represent Oregon State University and to submit their proposal to the NSF-RET program by the NSF deadline of September 19, 2018
Information: email Research.Development@oregonstate.edu
General guidance for preparation of letters of intent to the Research Office:
COVER SHEET (1 page)
Solicitation Name and Descriptive Title
Project Summary: 3 or 4 sentences that provide an overview of the objective of your proposed research, how you plan to do it, and the expected outcome.
Unique Aspects: 3 or 4 sentences that highlight how your research/approach is different/better.
Key PI/co-PIs: 5 or 6 sentences that highlight team expertise as it relates to the project.
Budget: Example: The total cost of the project is anticipated to be $ X, with $ Y being requested from the NSF. NSF funds will be used for: $ A for personnel; $ B for operations, and $ C for broader impacts/subcontracts etc.
Justification for NSF support: One paragraph explaining why this research fits with the RFP and strategic goals of NSF.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION (2 to 4 pages)
Problem statement - Clear and concise statement of 1) research question(s) and how the project will address the research question(s); 2) what technical barriers need to be overcome to perform the research; and 3) how the proposed research can lead to the advancement of research/knowledge in this area.
Conceptual framework: Conceptual framework describing, for example, how the synthesis of various project components, approaches, and participant expertise are linked together to address the problem of interest. Graphics may be used.
Proposed activities: Describe the project to be undertaken and provide the technical specifications of the research activities and timelines that will be undertaken.
Expected results: Describe the outcome you anticipate from the research. (Remember your initial motivation for wanting to do this!)
Peer Groups: Who else is doing something similar, why their discoveries are useful for you, and what discriminates you.
Broader Impact/Metrics for Success: What metrics are the most appropriate for evaluating the success of the proposed project (e.g., peer-reviewed papers, policy-directed efforts, databases, models, development of new resources, etc.)? If successful, who would most likely use the knowledge or tools developed?
Fundraising: List any matching fund requests, industry commitments etc. List any current proposals pending.
SUGGESTED REVIEWERS: (1 page) Optional – but as you write envision who might be a reviewer of your proposal or the Program Officer.
Reviewer 1: Area of expertise
Name, Title, Contact
State why you think this person would be a good reviewer.