2004 Mini-Grant Recipients
2005 Mini-Grant Recipients
2006 Mini-Grant Recipients

Submission and Selection Criteria for Mini-Grants
Proposal Cover Sheet

Submission Deadline

December 1, 2006

General Information

The Associated Colleges of the South - Introductory Science Courses for Non-Majors Program - invites natural science faculty from all sixteen ACS member institutions to submit proposals for mini-grants made possible by funding from the W.M. Keck Foundation of Los Angeles. The purpose of these grants is to encourage the design, evaluation, redesign, and implementation of introductory science courses for non-majors that will address the critical problem of science literacy and fluency among non-science majors, primarily in the disciplines of biology, chemistry, geology, and physics.

I. Projects may be proposed in one of the areas below. Collaborative and/or interdisciplinary approaches are strongly encouraged.

• New course design, development, and implementation (e.g., creation of new courses, preparation of interactive laboratory or field experiences, modules, or other course materials).
• Evaluation, redesign, and re-implementation of an existing course, laboratory or field experience, or module.
• Implementation of a new or redesigned introductory science course, laboratory or field experience, or module.
• Collaborative and/or interdisciplinary efforts in the above categories.

Whether the proposal addresses a new course, module, or other learning/teaching activity, the resulting experience should increase students’ ability to:

• understand and appreciate the scientific world-view, including its limitations, and how it differs from other perspectives;
• understand the increase of inter-relationships among the different disciplines of science;
• understand the connection between scientific concepts and technological developments, their impact on society, and the cultural and historical context in which they emerge; and
• use their understanding to evaluate rationally scientific controversies in the world.

II. Availability of Mini-Grants

It is anticipated that the ACS Reform of Science Education for Non-Science Majors Initiative will have mini-grants available each year during the three year grant cycle. The categories and anticipated funding amounts for the second round of mini-grants are shown below. The mini-grant review committee reserves the right to reduce the award amounts listed below, depending upon the proposals received.

It is important to note that the design and implementation mini-grants are to be used for courses that have not been taught previously by the faculty participant(s).

III. Acceptance Guidelines

A. For a proposal to be accepted for consideration, it must:

• directly address introductory science courses for non-majors and the mission, purposes, and objectives of this initiative;
• be able to be completed within one calendar year; and
• contain all of the proposal elements listed below.
• Evidence of institutional support is required for each mini-grant proposal in the form of a letter of support from the proposal author's Department Chair or Dean of Science.

B. Proposal Elements

Proposals should be prepared in 12 point double-spaced type with 1 inch margins and conform to the page limit recommendations listed below. Sections 2-4 may not exceed ten pages. A completed full proposal consists of a single hard copy and a copy submitted via email, and must include the following:

1. Standard Cover Sheet
   
   
• Title of Project.
• Name(s) of faculty submitting the request.
• Title, Department, Institution and mailing address.
• Phone, Fax, and e-mail information.
• Category of submission: new course/module/teaching and learning activity, course/module/teaching and learning activity assessment, redesign and implementation; or course/module/teaching and learning activity implementation.
• Date of submission and date of proposed period of grant.
• Signatures of applicant (s), department chair(s), and chief academic officer(s).
  
  
2. Summary recommended not to exceed one page:
   
   
• Issue, topic, problem, or process addressed by the proposal.
• Goals and objectives of the course/module/laboratory or field activity.
• Description of how the goals and objectives will be accomplished.
• Anticipated outcomes and benefits to non-major science students.
• Description of collaborative relationships, if any.
  
  
3. Project Description recommended not to exceed six pages that describes:
   
   
• Goals and objectives.
• Background and significance.
• Detailed project plan for course/module/activity components and implementation,demonstrating adequate planning, and including sample pedagogies, topics, and laboratory or field experiences, as appropriate.
• Prior activities or research related to proposal.
• Projected timetable.
• Requested budget, with justification for each line item: reassigned time, equipment, supplies, travel, student research assistants, etc. Faculty stipends cannot exceed $5,000 total per proposal. Consideration may be given for a larger stipend amount when more than two faculty are collaborating on the project and when evidence supporting the need for an additional amount is included. Indirect costs are not permitted.
• Context of course in curriculum.
• Impact on the Institution, including number of students per year.
• Evidence of Institutional support.
  
  
4. Evaluation, Dissemination, and Continued Support recommended not to exceed three pages including:
   
   
• A description of evaluation/assessment process. How will success be measured?
• Plans for dissemination of results. Include a plan to showcase the results of the project. For example, presentation of results at ACS and other conferences and workshops; publications in appropriate journals.
  
  
5. Literature Cited
   
   List all references. Each reference must include the title, names of all authors, book or journal, volume number, page numbers, and year of publication.
   
   
6. C.V. of Faculty Participant(s)
   
   Maximum of two pages. If multiple institutions are involved, include a c.v. for the principle faculty and at least one faculty c.v. from each collaborating institution.
   
   
7. Disclosure Statement
   
   Each applicant is asked to list other on-going grant activities or activities that will coincide with the submitted proposal. Each applicant is further requested to include current and pending funding information relevant to these activities.

C. Interim Progress Report

An Interim Progress Report is required of all grant recipients. The due date and guidelines for the Interim Report will be sent to the mini-grant recipients as part of the award/acknowledgement confirmation. Guidelines for the Interim Report also are posted on the ACS Science Reform Website: http://www.colleges.org/sciencereform/report/Interim_Report_Guidelines.pdf.

D. Final Report

It is expected that a detailed written report will be submitted within 30 days of the end of funding time frame, addressing project activities, outcomes, lessons learned, finances, and any follow-up plans. Final Report Guidelines are posted on the ACS Science Reform Website (http://www.colleges.org/sciencereform/report/Final_Report_Guidelines.pdf) and will be sent to the mini-grant recipients as part of the award/acknowledgement confirmation.

IV. Proposal Deadline and Submission Schedule

Deadline for submissions

December 1 , 2006

Submit an electronic copy by the due date to wardtj@millsaps.edu and a single hard copy (by mail, UPS, FEDEX, etc.) postmarked by the due date to

Dr. Tim Ward
Department of Chemistry
Millsaps College
1701 N. State Street
Jackson, MS 39210
Phone: 601-974-1405

Proposals will be reviewed by a sub-committee of the Science Reform Program Committee and the designated ACS staff person(s). Awards will be announced approximately 6 weeks from the submission deadline date.

V. Project Evaluation Criteria

• Does the project address the ACS goals?
• Does the proposal meet the submission guidelines and provide the requested information?
• Is the approach or design of the project appropriate to the goals and feasible?
• Is the project innovative and a potential model for adaptation?
• Are there adequate plans for evaluation and dissemination?
• Does the project director have the appropriate background?
• How will future offerings of the course be supported?
• What is the context of the activity within the curriculum?
• Is the proposal cost effective?
• What is the impact of the proposal on the Institution?

VI. Committee Review Process

Proposals will be read and discussed by a review committee of five faculty. The following guidelines will be used to ensure that the review and selection process is fair and unbiased:

• Review committee members who are directly or closely involved in any project must remove themselves from participation in the review process to avoid a conflict of interest
• Campaigning on behalf of any one project by members of the larger planning committee or the review committee is discouraged.
• The designated ACS staff person will coordinate/facilitate the submission and review process.
• The review process will be confidential.
• Feedback will be provided to the applicants.

 VII. Questions

If at any time there is a question related to the preparation of the proposal, please contact your on-campus program committee member; or Mini-grant Review Committee Chair Tim Ward (601-974-1405, wardtj@millsaps.edu).

View/print the required Proposal Cover Sheet.

ACS Science Reform Program Homepage

This ACS program is supported by the W.M. Keck Foundation of Los Angeles.