2004 Mini-Grant Recipients
2005 Mini-Grant Recipients
2006 Mini-Grant Recipients
Submission and Selection Criteria for
Proposal Cover Sheet
December 1, 2006
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,
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
- 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
Courses must be given by the 07-08 academic year.
Maximum Award (each)
Implementation of new courses/modules/laboratory
or field activities
$ 5,000 each
Review, redesign, and/or reimplementation
of pilot or existing courses/modules/activities
Design and implementation of new courses/modules/activities
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
- Standard Cover Sheet
Summary recommended not to exceed one page:
- Title of
- 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.
of submission and date of proposed period of grant.
of applicant (s), department chair(s), and chief academic officer(s).
Project Description recommended not to exceed six pages that describes:
- 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.
and Continued Support recommended not to exceed three pages
- Goals and objectives.
- Background and significance.
- Detailed project plan for course/module/activity components
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
- Evidence of Institutional support.
- 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
List all references. Each reference must include the
title, names of all authors, book or journal, volume number, page numbers,
and year of publication.
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.
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
IV. Proposal Deadline and Submission Schedule
Deadline for submissions
December 1 , 2006
Submit an electronic
copy by the due date to email@example.com and
a single hard copy (by mail, UPS, FEDEX, etc.) postmarked by the due date to
Dr. Tim Ward
Department of Chemistry
1701 N. State Street
Jackson, MS 39210
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
- Is the approach or design of the project appropriate to the goals
- 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.
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, firstname.lastname@example.org).
View/print the required Proposal Cover
ACS Science Reform Program Homepage
This ACS program is supported by the W.M. Keck
Foundation of Los Angeles.