Contact Janet to be added to the mailing list.
Please note that OSC staff does not take individual grant search requests of any kind.
Under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Rehabilitation Act), as amended by the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA), the Rehabilitation Services Administration (RSA) makes grants to States and public or nonprofit agencies and organizations (including institutions of higher education (IHEs)) to support projects that provide training, traineeships, and technical assistance (TA) designed to increase the numbers of, and improve the skills of, qualified personnel, especially rehabilitation counselors, who are trained to: Provide vocational, medical, social, and psychological rehabilitation services to individuals with disabilities; assist individuals with communication and related disorders; and provide other services authorized under the Rehabilitation Act.
The Advancing Informal STEM Learning (AISL) program seeks to advance new approaches to and evidence-based understanding of the design and development of STEM learning opportunities for the public in informal environments; provide multiple pathways for broadening access to and engagement in STEM learning experiences; and advance innovative research on and assessment of STEM learning in informal environments.
The AISL program supports seven types of projects:
(1) Collaborative Planning,
(2) Exploratory Pathways,
(3) Research in Service to Practice,
(4) Innovations in Development,
(5) Broad Implementation,
(6) Conferences, and
(7) Informal STEM Learning Resource Center (FY 2016 only)
· Anticipated Type of Award: Standard Grant or Continuing Grant or Cooperative Agreement
· Estimated Number of Awards: 49 to 71, pending availability of funds, it is anticipated that about 10-12 Collaborative Planning awards, 10-12 Exploratory Pathways awards, 6-8 Research in Service To Practice awards, 8-10 Innovations in Development awards, 3-6 Broad Implementation awards, and 5-7 Conference awards will be made. AISL will also fund 5-7 awards made through the EAGER and RAPID mechanisms and 2-4 CAREER awards. Up to one (1) Informal STEM Learning Resource Center award is anticipated in FY 2016
· Anticipated Funding Amount: $28,000,000 to $38,000,000, limits for funding requests of AISL proposals are as follows: (1) Collaborative Planning projects: up to $150,000 with duration of one year; (2) Exploratory Pathways projects: up to $300,000 with duration up to two years; (3) Research in Service to Practice projects: from $300,000 to $2,000,000 with a duration from two to five years; (4) Innovations in Development projects: $500,000 to $3,000,000 with duration from two to five years; (5) Broad Implementation projects from $500,000 to $3,000,000 with a duration from two to five years; (6) Conference projects up to $250,000 with a duration of up to two years; and (7) up to one Informal STEM Learning Resource Center award up to $5 million with a duration of five years. If the Resource Center is funded in 2016, there will not be a competition for a Resource Center in 2017.
· The categories of proposers eligible to submit proposals to the National Science Foundation are identified in the Grant Proposal Guide, Chapter I, Section E.
· Who May Serve as PI: There are no restrictions or limits.
· Limit on Number of Proposals per Organization: There are no restrictions or limits.
· Limit on Number of Proposals per PI or Co-PI: There are no restrictions or limits for Full Proposals.
· Letters of Intent: Not required
· Preliminary Proposal Submission: Not required
· Cost Sharing Requirements: Inclusion of voluntary committed cost sharing is prohibited.
· Indirect Cost (F&A) Limitations: Not Applicable
· Other Budgetary Limitations: Other budgetary limitations apply. Please see the full text of this solicitation for further information.
The NSF Engineering (ENG) Directorate has launched a multi-year initiative, the Professional Formation of Engineers, to create and support an innovative and inclusive engineering profession for the 21st Century. Professional Formation of Engineers (PFE) refers to the formal and informal processes and value systems by which people become engineers. It also includes the ethical responsibility of practicing engineers to sustain and grow the profession in order to improve quality of life for all peoples. The engineering profession must be responsive to national priorities, grand challenges, and dynamic workforce needs; it must be equally open and accessible to all.
According to Michel Fabre, “To form is more ontological than to instruct or educate, for one’s entire being is at stake” (trans. G. Downey). Processes of formation should be holistic and carefully attend to how knowledge and personhood interrelate in the larger context of one’s life.
Professional Formation includes, but is not limited, to:
· Introductions to the profession at any age;
· Acquisition of deep technical and professional skills, knowledge, and abilities in both formal and informal settings/domains;
· Development of outlooks, perspectives, ways of thinking, knowing, and doing;
· Development of identity as an engineer and its intersection with other identities; and
· Acculturation to the profession, its standards, and norms.
As part of this initiative, the Research in the Formation of Engineers (RFE) program welcomes proposals that consider the construction of engineering knowledge, engineering identity, and the engineering profession, as well as interventions that expand the boundaries of each of these.
Ultimately RFE aims to transform the engineering formation system, and thus the impact of proposed projects on this system must be described. PIs should provide a roadmap detailing how they envision the proposed research will eventually broadly impact practice within the engineering formation system, even if these activities are not within the scope of the submitted proposal.
Engineering formation activities serve societal needs by supporting an innovative and inclusive engineering profession for the 21st Century. Challenges facing the engineering profession require new ideas about how to reshape processes of professional formation in multiple areas, including:
1. Advancing holistic engineering formation. The US labor market requires sufficient numbers of talented and well educated US engineers with outlooks, perspectives, and ways of thinking, knowing, and doing appropriate for professional practice across economic sectors. These include not only technical competence but also twenty-first century skills, “T-shaped” skills, critical thinking, creativity, intercultural competencies, entrepreneurship, and mindsets supporting sustainability. These competencies relate to several ABET-identified learning outcomes, including abilities to analyze social context in both historical and contemporary settings; to communicate effectively in listening, speaking, writing, and visual representation; to engage effectively in diverse teams; to reflect and act ethically; to engage in lifelong learning; and to design in context. Creating greater opportunities and preparation for engineers to engage interdisciplinary endeavors, especially in relation to complex sociotechnical systems (e.g., electric power grid; food-water-energy systems; telecommunications systems; machine learning and robotics; healthcare system; etc.) will enable the future workforce to adapt to changes in national priorities and emergent technologies.
2. Diversifying pathways to and through engineering. Research projects that align with this theme explore how engineering programs can create alternative pathways for students with a broad range of backgrounds, interests, and experiences; investigate how informal or real world experiences germane to engineering-such as military service or being a "maker" - serve as pathways to engineering; identify engineering norms of knowing, thinking, and doing that reflect and perpetuate climates and cultures of inequality, including but not limited to normative masculinities, heteronormativities, whiteness, and able-bodiedness in the profession; develop effective strategies to reshape these norms in ways that increase opportunities for engineers from groups traditionally underrepresented in engineering, including those with disabilities, as well as engineers from underserved or non-traditional backgrounds; develop engineering identities and processes of acculturation to the profession that are compatible with intersecting non-normative identities or investigate how to fundamentally restructure courses, curricula, or programs to substantially boost student success, especially for under-represented populations, including those with disabilities, and veterans. Research on approaches that lower barriers for students to transfer into or between engineering programs, from other majors or community colleges for example, is also sought.
3. Exploring citizen engineering, credentialing and expertise. Research in this area explores how to build capacity within communities and the general public to make well-informed decisions about engineering priorities; develop processes for engineers and the public to collaboratively define, ideate, and implement creative solutions related to major sociotechnical challenges in society; explores the relation among credentialing, expertise, and formation of engineers, developing new methods to assess, credential, and accredit engineering formation; characterizes how credentials are valued and interpreted in different settings; considers alternatives for obtaining professional credentials or expertise at manageable cost and time invested.
4. Developing engineering-specific theories of how engineers are formed. Theories on development of engineering epistemologies and identities, and methodologies to characterize different aspects of professional formation processes at the level of individuals, groups, institutions, and in society at large.
5. Understanding how change in engineering formation processes travels, translates, transfers, diffuses, and/or scales. This topic includes studies on how to improve the translation of engineering formation research to practice or scale innovations to have systemic impact. This topic also supports activities that inform engineering formation efforts and investments or spawn new research.
Competitive proposals advance understanding in engineering formation by grounding the proposed work in theory as well as relevant prior work. Proposals should clearly address why the proposed research fills gaps in existing knowledge and address how evaluation will inform the research effort and allow assessment of the project's impact and effectiveness.
RFE research projects should address the iterative cycle in which research questions that advance understanding are informed by practice and the results of research are, in turn, translated into practice. In other words, how will the research results travel, translate, transfer, or scale? Successful projects identify specific target audiences, effective communication channels, and novel partnerships to ensure effective propagation and scaling.
Proposals to build research capacity such as developing means to measure engineering thinking, doing, making, and knowing or proposals to build research networks or infrastructure will be considered. This program strongly discourages proposals that seek funding primarily to develop tools, curriculum, or laboratories, or that seek to implement classroom innovations that have already been shown to be effective in engineering. More information can be found in the program's Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ), see link below.
The RFE program accepts a diverse range of project scales from small, exploratory projects to large scale investigations with a broad, systemic scope; project budgets should match the project scope. Small-scale, exploratory projects with high transformative potential are strongly encouraged. The estimated number of awarded proposals is based on a projected average funding level of approximately $100,000 per project per year. All PIs should discuss the budget of proposed projects with a cognizant program officer before submission.
This Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA) encourages applications for Countermeasures Against Chemical Threats (CounterACT) exploratory/developmental translational research (R21). The mission of the CounterACT program is to foster and support research and development of new and improved therapeutics to mitigate the health effects of chemical threats. Chemical threats are toxic chemicals that could be used in a terrorist attack or accidentally released from industrial production, storage or shipping. They include traditional chemical warfare agents, toxic industrial chemicals, and pesticides. The scope of the research includes target/candidate identification and characterization, through candidate optimization, and demonstration of in vivo efficacy. Projects supported by this FOA are expected to generate preliminary preclinical, screening, and/or efficacy data that would facilitate the development of competitive applications for more extensive support from the NIH CounterACT Cooperative Agreement programs or other related initiatives.