IUSE/Professional Formation of Engineers: Revolutionizing Engineering Departments (IUSE/PFE: RED)

IUSE/Professional Formation of Engineers: Revolutionizing Engineering Departments (IUSE/PFE: RED) is sponsored by NSF. Supports fundamental changes to undergraduate engineering education to equip students with necessary technical and professional skills.

NSF 24-564: IUSE/Professional Formation of Engineers: Revolutionizing Engineering Departments (IUSE/PFE: RED) | NSF - U.S. National Science Foundation Active funding opportunity This document is the current version.

Important information for proposers and award recipients All proposals must be submitted in accordance with the requirements specified in the funding opportunity and in the Proposal & Award Policies & Procedures Guide (PAPPG) and its supplements . All NSF grants and cooperative agreements are subject to the applicable set of NSF award terms and conditions . NSF has updated its research security policies for NSF funded projects.

NSF 24-564: IUSE/Professional Formation of Engineers: Revolutionizing Engineering Departments (IUSE/PFE: RED) To save a PDF of this solicitation, select Print to PDF in your browser's print options. Program Solicitation NSF 24-564 U.S. National Science Foundation Directorate for Engineering Engineering Education and Centers Directorate for STEM Education Division of Undergraduate Education Full Proposal Deadline(s) (due by 5 p. m.

submitting organization's local time): Planning (Track 1), Adaptation & Implementation (Track 2), Innovation (Track 3), and Innovation Partnerships (Track 4) proposals Second Tuesday in April, Annually Thereafter Planning (Track 1) proposals Second Tuesday in September, Annually Thereafter Planning (Track 1), Adaptation & Implementation (Track 2), Innovation (Track 3), and Innovation Partnerships (Track 4) proposals Summary of Program Requirements IUSE/Professional Formation of Engineers: Revolutionizing Engineering Departments (IUSE/PFE: RED) The Directorates for Engineering (ENG) and STEM Education (EDU) are funding projects as part of the RED program, in alignment with the Improving Undergraduate STEM Education (IUSE) framework and Professional Formation of Engineers (PFE) initiative.

These projects are designing revolutionary new approaches to engineering education, ranging from changing the canon of engineering to fundamentally altering the way courses are structured to creating new departmental structures and educational collaborations with industry.

A common thread across these projects is a focus on organizational and cultural change within the departments, involving students, faculty, staff, and industry in rethinking what it means to provide an engineering program.

In order to continue to catalyze revolutionary approaches, while expanding the reach of those that have proved efficacious in particular contexts, the RED program supports four tracks: RED Planning (Track 1), RED Adaptation and Implementation (Track 2), RED Innovation (Track 3), and RED Innovation Partnerships (Track 4). Two- and four-year institutions are encouraged to submit to any track as appropriate for their goals and context.

RED Planning (Track 1) projects will support capacity-building activities at institutions of special interest to NSF's mission, including two-year engineering-centered programs building transfer partnerships, two-year or four-year institutions in EPSCoR jurisdictions, Primarily Undergraduate Institutions (PUIs), and Institutions of Higher Education (IHEs) in order to create more opportunities in engineering for students in every part of the country.

Planning projects should provide the support for such institutions to explore the development of a RED Project in Tracks 2, 3, & 4. RED Adaptation and Implementation (Track 2) projects will adapt and implement evidence-based organizational change strategies and actions to the local context, which helps propagate this transformation of undergraduate engineering education.

RED Innovation (Track 3) projects will develop new, revolutionary approaches and change strategies that enable the transformation of undergraduate engineering education. RED Innovation Partnerships (Track 4) projects will achieve the same goals as Track 3 projects across multiple institutions. Of particular interest to this track are projects partnering two-year institutions with other eligible institutions.

Projects in tracks 2, 3, & 4 will include consideration of the cultural, organizational, structural, and pedagogical changes needed to transform one or more departments to ones in which students are engaged, develop their technical and professional skills, and establish identities as professional engineers or technologists. The focus of projects in these tracks should be on the department's disciplinary courses and program.

RED project initiatives are expected to be institutionalized at the end of the funding period. Proposals are especially encouraged that address areas of increased national interest including but not limited to advanced manufacturing, advanced wireless, artificial intelligence, biotechnology, microelectronics and semiconductors, net zero technologies, sustainability, systems engineering, and quantum engineering.

NSF welcomes submissions from all researchers, particularly those earlier in their careers and those working in research areas aligned with agency and administration priorities. NSF also expects the highest standards of scientific rigor, integrity, and adherence to tenets of Gold Standard Science in proposals, as appropriate for the field of science and research modality.

Cognizant Program Officer(s): Please note that the following information is current at the time of publishing. See program website for any updates to the points of contact. Alice L.

Pawley, telephone: (703) 292-7286, email: eer-programs@nsf. gov Matthew A. Verleger, ENG/EEC, telephone: (703) 292-2961, email: eer-programs@nsf.

gov Jennifer E. Lewis, email: eer-programs@nsf. gov Applicable Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number(s): 47.

076 --- STEM Education Anticipated Type of Award: Standard Grant or Continuing Grant Estimated Number of Awards: 13 to 19 The program estimates making 10-13 awards for projects in Track 1. The program estimates making a total of 3-6 awards for projects in Tracks 2, 3, & 4. The budget for Planning (Track 1) proposals is up to $75,000 per year for a duration of up to 2 years.

The budget for Adaptation & Innovation (Track 2) proposals is a maximum of $1,000,000 for a duration of up to 5 years. The budget for Innovation (Track 3) proposals is between $1,000,000 and $2,000,000 for a duration of up to 5 years. The budget for Innovation Partnerships (Track 4) proposals is between $1,500,000 and $2,500,000 for collaborations across multiple institutions for a duration of up to 5 years.

Anticipated Funding Amount: $7,000,000 to $8,000,000 Estimated program budget and number of awards are subject to the availability of funds. Proposal Preparation and Submission Instructions A. Proposal Preparation Instructions Letters of Intent: Not required Preliminary Proposal Submission: Not required For proposals submitted via Research.

gov, PAPPG guidelines apply. For proposals submitted via Grants. gov, NSF Grants.

gov Application Guide guidelines apply. Cost Sharing Requirements: Inclusion of voluntary committed cost sharing is prohibited. Indirect Cost (F&A) Limitations: Other Budgetary Limitations: Other budgetary limitations apply.

Please see the full text of this solicitation for further information. Full Proposal Deadline(s) (due by 5 p. m.

submitting organization's local time): Planning (Track 1), Adaptation & Implementation (Track 2), Innovation (Track 3), and Innovation Partnerships (Track 4) proposals Second Tuesday in April, Annually Thereafter Planning (Track 1) proposals Second Tuesday in September, Annually Thereafter Planning (Track 1), Adaptation & Implementation (Track 2), Innovation (Track 3), and Innovation Partnerships (Track 4) proposals Proposal Review Information Criteria National Science Board approved criteria.

Additional merit review criteria apply. Please see the full text of this solicitation for further information. Award Administration Information Standard NSF award conditions apply.

Additional reporting requirements apply. Please see the full text of this solicitation for further information. Important Information and Revision Notes This solicitation is revised to include four tracks.

Track 1 – Planning: designed to help institutions of significant interest to NSF's mission in building capacity toward the development of proposals for projects in Tracks 2, 3, & 4. Track 2 – Adaptation & Implementation adapt and implement evidence-based organizational change strategies and actions in the local context.

Track 3 – Innovation - Projects develop new, revolutionary approaches and change strategies that enable the transformation of undergraduate engineering education. Track 4 – Innovation Partnerships - Innovation projects developed across multiple institutions, with particular interest in projects that support two-year institutions in partnership with other eligible institutions.

A greater emphasis is placed on both two- and four-year institutions being eligible to apply for all tracks.

This solicitation is also updated to encourage proposals addressing a broad spectrum of engineering topics, including but not limited to advanced manufacturing, advanced wireless, artificial intelligence, biotechnology, microelectronics and semiconductors, net zero technologies, sustainability, systems engineering, and quantum engineering.

Proposals must be prepared in accordance with the NSF Proposal & Award Policies & Procedures Guide (PAPPG) . Use the version of the guide that is in effect on the proposal's due date. The goal of the RED program is to catalyze revolutionary, not incrementally reformist, changes to the education of the next generation of engineers.

Revolutionary means radically, suddenly, or completely new; producing fundamental, structural change; or going outside of or beyond existing norms and principles. The complex problems facing society in the 21 st Century demand changes to the way engineers are educated and the integration of new modes of learning for engineering students[ 1 ].

For example, solving the National Academy of Engineering (NAE) Grand Challenges will require engineers who not only have deep technical knowledge, but also an understanding of the societal and global contexts in which those problems occur[ 2 ]. Obstacles to change that have been cited include underlying departmental and curricular structures, faculty reward systems, and faculty development.

Among the common challenges facing engineering departments are how to weave both technical and professional skills throughout the curriculum, including skills defined by the ABET ( https://www. abet. org ) outcomes; and how to promote and incentivize faculty engagement in the change process.

Revolutionary change is needed in the structure of departments and the way students are educated to meet these challenges. The RED program is intended to address the holistic formation of engineers. Engineering has many unique aspects that differ from other STEM disciplines.

Engineering undergraduate programs prepare students for professional practice; in engineering, the BS degree provides eligibility to qualify for the Professional Engineer license[ 3 ].

Furthermore, in the high-tech environment upon which the global economy is based, the perennial debate about workforce shortages of engineers requires a more precise understanding of dynamic industry needs and of the abilities of departments to address them. Therefore, NSF is taking a holistic look at how engineers are being prepared for lifelong careers in technical and socio-technical professions.

The RED program seeks to respond to the call from different stakeholders (e.g., industry, the public, government, and the profession itself) for Professional Formation of Engineers with a broad set of professional abilities. Professional Formation of Engineers (PFE) refers to the formal and informal processes and value systems through which people become engineers.

This includes the ethical responsibility of practicing engineers to sustain and grow the profession to improve quality of life for all people. [1] National Academy of Engineering. 2013.

Educating Engineers: Preparing 21 st Century Leaders in the Context of New Modes of Learning: Summary of a Forum . Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.

org/10. 17226/18254 . [2] National Academy of Engineering.

(n. d.) Grand Challenges - Grand Challenges for engineering .

Grand Challenges - Grand Challenges for Engineering. https://www. engineeringchallenges.

org/ . [3] National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying. (2023, December 7).

PE exam . NCEES. https://ncees.

org/exams/pe-exam/ . While previous efforts have made pedagogical changes to the way engineering and engineering technology students are educated, RED projects must consider the cultural, organizational, structural, and pedagogical changes needed to transform the department to one in which students are engaged, develop their technical and professional skills, and establish identities as professional engineers.

In recent years there has been a growing recognition of the need to create and support an innovative engineering profession for the 21 st Century. Doing so requires an understanding of how engineers are formed and how to inculcate them with the technical and professional skills needed to solve the complex problems facing society.

While some innovation has been adopted in the freshman and senior years, the middle two years remain largely untouched[ 4 ]. Educating the next generation requires that coherent technical and professional threads be developed and woven across all four years.

The RED program is focusing on the middle two years because of the significance of these years play in the retention and development of engineering students and the relative lack of research on them compared to first-year and capstone research[ 4 ].

Further, the RED program focuses on structural and cultural change because past attempts have shown that curricular and pedagogical change does not take hold if underlying structures remain the same.

In addition, RED funding has demonstrated the need to engage both internal (e.g., faculty, staff, administrators, students) and external (e.g., industry, community) stakeholders to build shared vision in departmental change projects [ 5 6 ].

In particular, RED projects should seek to actively include faculty at all levels throughout the project development lifecycle and to explore how to better support those faculty making change [ 13 ]. Projects are expected to include an underlying theory of change to inform the activities and expected outcomes [ 8 9 10 ].

RED projects should create a seamless educational experience for students in their disciplinary degree programs, bridging the foundational science and engineering courses and capstone projects. The result will be students who are prepared to be professionals in their chosen paths after graduation.

Specific activities supported by the RED solicitation may include, but are not limited to: Establishing convergent technical and professional threads that must be woven across the four years, especially in core technical courses of the middle two years, in internship opportunities in the private and public sectors, and in research opportunities with faculty; Exploring strategies for institutional, systemic, and cultural change, including new approaches to faculty governance or department structures and to restructuring faculty incentive or reward systems; Exploring collaborative arrangements with industry and other stakeholders who are mutually interested in developing the best possible professional formation environment and opportunities for students; Exploring strategies to bridge the engineering education research-to-practice gap, primarily through faculty development and adoption of best practices in the professional formation of engineers; and Exploring revolutionary means of recruiting and retaining students and faculty.

Exploring new modes of delivering content (or facilitating learning) that respond to the learning needs of students, making engineering more accessible. RED Planning (Track 1): The RED Planning track supports efforts necessary to build capacity and establish collaborations endeavoring to address the broader goals of the RED program.

Planning grants are designed to foster and facilitate the engineering community into thinking about how to form convergent research that supports the goals of the RED program.

Planning grants must be led by IHEs that meet one or more of the following criteria: (a) two-year institutions that support transfer students [11], (b) institutions in EPSCoR jurisdictions, (c) Primarily Undergraduate Institutions (PUIs), or (d) non-R1 institutions in the Carnegie Classification framework.

Planning grants funded through this solicitation are expected to cultivate potential RED research teams and to develop competitive RED proposals for future submissions. As a result of planning grant activities, potential RED teams should be better equipped to carry out the activities associated with a track 2, 3, or 4 RED grant.

Proposers supported through this mechanism may use the funding to organize activities that help stimulate the formation of RED teams (in terms of PI, co-PI, Senior/Key Personnel, and organization type) and to crystalize the ideas and research plans to be presented in a potential RED proposal.

Examples of planning grant activities can include, but are not limited to: Workshop(s) to recruit and form a team in line with the goals expressed in this solicitation Structured mentoring for PIs and co-PIs focused on submitting for mid-size NSF awards Development of research goals Leadership and management of mid-size projects Development of a research plan that is responsive to the RED solicitation Building cohesiveness within the team based on best practices to address collaboration challenges such as those described in Proximity and Innovation: A Critical Assessment [ 12 ]: Geographical distance: The physical distance between researchers at collaborating institutions Cognitive distance: The degree of overlapping specialized knowledge between members of an inter- or multidisciplinary team Social distance: The "trust and friendship" (at the micro-level) among members of the team; the personal trust between team members necessary for the team to be successful Organizational distance: The methods or networks used to exchange information, knowledge, and make decisions; The level of autonomy afforded to each member of the team Institutional distance: The level of shared values, norms, and language present among collaborating team members and institutions Assessment of planning grant goals Given the complexity of a RED proposal, NSF recognizes that many teams will identify important research priorities but may not have the full complement of skills needed to effectively address the challenge.

The planning grant can be used to support team formation activities that create opportunities for the development of partnerships between researchers and institutions that are bi-directional and mutually beneficial, thus engaging a wide array of perspectives and scientific talent to address the national needs and grand challenges presented in the RED solicitation.

The National Institutes of Health Collaboration Team Science Field Guide can provide a starting point for team formation activities. Planning grants are expected to have at least one individual who was a PI, co-PI, or Senior/Key Personnel on an awarded RED project involved in the planning grant in an advisory, mentorship, or leadership position.

RED Planning (Track 1) proposals should be prepared in accordance with the guidance for the Planning type of proposal contained in PAPPG Chapter II. F. 1 and the solicitation specific instructions in Section V.

A. , below. RED Adaptation & Implementation (Track 2) The RED A&I track support projects that use evidence-based and evidence-generating change strategy approaches and actions that are adapted to the local context.

The goal of this track is to: Generate new knowledge related to the adaptation of proven change strategies and actions in a new context. Strategies should be developed with impact on the student as the focus. Proposed efforts must be grounded in sound educational theory and work to enable a continuous progression of professional formation through the four-year experience.

Efforts should address 21 st Century T-shaped skills [13] (i.e., cross-disciplinary breadth), and they should be aligned with stakeholder expectations. This track encourages proposals from two-year or four-year institutions that are interested in adopting change strategies at a single institution.

RED Innovation (Track 3): The RED Innovation track supports projects that involve radically, suddenly, or completely new approaches and action; producing fundamental, structural change; and that go outside of or beyond existing norms and principles. Innovations in similar departments across multiple institutions is particularly encouraged.

This track has two goals: Generate new knowledge on best practices for meaningfully and thoughtfully incorporating into the middle two years and technical core of the engineering curriculum oft-neglected "professional skills" (i.e. 21 st Century skills, design, communication, teamwork, historical and contemporary social context, lifelong learning, and ethics).

Changes in the middle two years need to be integrated with freshman and senior experiences in order to form an unbroken sequenced thread through the curriculum so that the process of professional formation deepens and strengthens as students move through engineering programs.

Generate new knowledge on how to transform the departmental cultures to be environments that create opportunities for all, are innovative, and are supportive of faculty, faculty development to support cultural or structural change, and build new department structures and cultures through innovative practices and policies that support significant holistic professional formation.

Strategies should be developed with impact on the student as the focus. Proposed efforts must be grounded in sound educational theory and work to enable a continuous progression of professional formation through the four-year experience. Efforts should address 21 st Century T-shaped skills (i.e., cross-disciplinary breadth), and they should be aligned with stakeholder expectations.

RED Innovation Partnerships (Track 4): The RED Innovation Partnerships track holds identical goals to the RED Innovation (Track 3) track but also recognizes that developing revolutionary changes capable of spanning multiple contexts adds additional complexity and may therefore require additional resources and support.

In addition to the Track 3 goals, projects in Track 4 have an additional goal to: Generate new knowledge on best practices and the support structures necessary for meaningfully and thoughtfully leveraging or managing cross-institutional partnerships in ways that enable transferability and interoperability of research findings.

Collaborative partnerships that include IHEs that are (a) two-year institutions that support transfer students, (b) institutions in EPSCoR jurisdictions, (c) PUIs, and/or (d) non-R1 institutions are strongly encouraged. [5] Doten-Snitker, K. , Margherio, C.

, Litzler, E. , Ingram, E. , & Williams, J.

(2021). Developing a shared vision for change: Moving toward inclusive empowerment. Research in Higher Education, 62, 206-229.

https://doi. org/10. 1007/s11162-020-09594-9 .

[6] Margherio, C. , Doten-Snitker, K. , Williams, J.

, Litzler, E. , Andrijcic, E. , & Mohan, S.

(2020). Cultivating strategic partnerships to transform STEM education. Transforming Institutions: Accelerating Systemic Change in Higher Education.

[7] Cutler, S. , & Strong, A. C.

(2023). The Overlooked Impact of Faculty on Engineering Education. International Handbook of Engineering Education Research, 286.

[8] Reinholz, D. L. , & Andrews, T.

C. (2020). Change theory and theory of change: what's the difference anyway?.

International Journal of STEM Education, 7, 1-12. https://doi. org/10.

1186/s40594-020-0202-3 . [9] Reinholz, D. L.

, White, I. , & Andrews, T. (2021).

Change theory in STEM higher education: a systematic review. International Journal of STEM Education, 8(1), 37. https://doi.

org/10. 1186/s40594-021-00291-2 . [10] Connolly, M.

R. , & Seymour, E. (2015).

Why Theories of Change Matter. WCER Working Paper No. 2015-2. Wisconsin Center for Education Research.

Retrieved from the University of Wisconsin-Madison, Wisconsin Center for Education Research website: https://wcer. wisc. edu/publications/abstract/wcer-working-paper-no.-2015-02 .

[11] Sislin, J. , & Mattis, M. C.

(Eds.) (2006). Enhancing the community college pathway to engineering careers.

National Academies Press. [12] Boschma, R. (2005).

Proximity and innovation: a critical assessment. Regional studies, 39(1), 61-74. [13] Tranquillo, J.

(2017). The T-shaped engineer. Journal of Engineering Education Transformations, 30(4), 12-24.

Prospective PIs are encouraged to consider the IUSE: EDU program for projects that are outside the scope of RED (see https://www. nsf. gov/funding/opportunities/iuse-edu-improving-undergraduate-stem-education-directorate-stem ).

Specifically, the IUSE:EDU Institutional and Community Transformation (ICT) track promotes innovative approaches to using research to catalyze change that addresses challenges across and within institutions (institutional transformation), as well as within and across specific disciplines (community transformation).

In addition, IUSE: Innovation in Two-Year College STEM Education (ITYC) represents NSF's intentional investment in two-year institutions and supports the development and implementation of evidence-based practices that improve STEM education at two-year institutions of higher education (see https://www. nsf. gov/funding/opportunities/iuse-innovation-two-year-college-stem-education ).

Prospective PIs are not allowed to submit identical or substantively similar proposals to multiple NSF programs . Anticipated Type of Award: Standard Grant or Continuing Grant Estimated Number of Awards: The program estimates making 10-13 awards for projects in Track 1. The program estimates making a total of 3-6 awards for projects in Tracks 2, 3, & 4.

The budget for Planning (Track 1) proposals is up to $75,000 per year for a duration of up to 2 years. The budget for Adaptation & Innovation (Track 2) proposals is a maximum of $1,000,000 for a duration of up to 5 years. The budget for Innovation (Track 3) proposals is between $1,000,000 and $2,000,000 for a duration of up to 5 years.

The budget for Innovation Partnerships (Track 4) proposals is between $1,500,000 and $2,500,000 for collaborations across multiple institutions for a duration of up to 5 years. Anticipated Funding Amount: $7,000,000 - $8,000,000 Anticipated Funding Amount and number of awards are subject to the availability of funds. IV.

Eligibility Information Who May Submit Proposals: Proposals may only be submitted by the following: Institutions of Higher Education (IHEs): Two- and four-year IHEs (including community colleges) accredited in, and having a campus located in the US, acting on behalf of their faculty members.

Special Instructions for International Branch Campuses of US IHEs: If the proposal includes funding to be provided to an international branch campus of a US institution of higher education (including through use of sub-awards and consultant arrangements), the proposer must explain the benefit(s) to the project of performance at the international branch campus, and justify why the project activities cannot be performed at the US campus.

For all tracks, the Principal Investigator (PI) must be a Department Chair/Head (or equivalent) of a department for whom a significant percentage of students will graduate or transfer to a program with a bachelor's degree in engineering or engineering technology. The PI must be empowered to provide leadership for the proposed change process.

In cases where the institutional responsibilities of a Department Chair/Head do not enable them to support the degree of change being sought, a Dean, Provost, or other senior leader may serve as PI, provided they will be responsible for the active leadership of the RED project. The qualifications of the PI can be justified in the required letter from senior institutional leadership.

It is recommended that projects consider including individuals with expertise in (a) engineering education research and (b) organizational change on the leadership team. 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.

Additional Eligibility Info: RED Planning (Track 1) proposals may only be submitted by IHEs that meet one or more of the following criteria: Two-year institutions that support transfer students Institutions in EPSCoR jurisdictions Primarily Undergraduate Institutions (PUIs) V. Proposal Preparation and Submission Instructions A.

Proposal Preparation Instructions Full Proposal Preparation Instructions : Proposers may opt to submit proposals in response to this Program Solicitation via Research. gov or Grants. gov. Full Proposals submitted via Research.

gov: Proposals submitted in response to this program solicitation should be prepared and submitted in accordance with the general guidelines contained in the NSF Proposal and Award Policies and Procedures Guide (PAPPG). The complete text of the PAPPG is available electronically on the NSF website at: https://www. nsf.

gov/publications/pub_summ. jsp? ods_key=pappg .

Paper copies of the PAPPG may be obtained from the NSF Publications Clearinghouse, telephone (703) 292-7827 or by e-mail from nsfpubs@nsf. gov. The Prepare New Proposal setup will prompt you for the program solicitation number. Full proposals submitted via Grants.

gov: Proposals submitted in response to this program solicitation via Grants. gov should be prepared and submitted in accordance with the NSF Grants. gov Application Guide: A Guide for the Preparation and Submission of NSF Applications via Grants.

gov . The complete text of the NSF Grants. gov Application Guide is available on the Grants.

gov website and on the NSF website at: ( https://www. nsf. gov/publications/pub_summ.

jsp? ods_key=grantsgovguide ). To obtain copies of the Application Guide and Application Forms Package, click on the Apply tab on the Grants.

gov site, then click on the Apply Step 1: Download a Grant Application Package and Application Instructions link and enter the funding opportunity number, (the program solicitation number without the NSF prefix) and press the Download Package button. Paper copies of the Grants. gov Application Guide also may be obtained from the NSF Publications Clearinghouse, telephone (703) 292-7827 or by e-mail from nsfpubs@nsf.

gov. In determining which method to utilize in the electronic preparation and submission of the proposal, please note the following: Collaborative Proposals. All collaborative proposals submitted as separate submissions from multiple organizations must be submitted via Research. gov. PAPPG Chapter II.

E. 3 provides additional information on collaborative proposals. See PAPPG Chapter II.

D. 2 for guidance on the required sections of a full research proposal submitted to NSF. Please note that the proposal preparation instructions provided in this program solicitation may deviate from the PAPPG instructions.

Proposers are encouraged to prepare their proposals with consideration for the purpose, justification, design features, and expected outcomes of Foundational Research and/or Early-stage or Exploratory Research as outlined in the Common Guidelines for Education Research and Development ( NSF 13-126 ).

The following instructions supplement the guidance in the PAPPG: The proposal should conform to the PAPPG guidance for "Planning Proposal" found in PAPPG Chapter II. F. 1 except where this solicitation supersedes that guidance.

Concept outlines should be emailed to a cognizant program officer at least 30 days prior to the proposal deadline. Concept outlines should be a maximum of 2 pages addressing the following: The intended duration and approximate budget for the project. A high-level overview of the Intellectual Merit and Broader Impacts of a RED Track 2, 3, or 4 project that this planning project could enable.

How this planning project will provide the preliminary supports necessary for development of a larger proposal.

The title of the proposal must begin with: Planning: IUSE/PFE:RED Planning In addition to the guidance in the PAPPG, including the requirement for a separate section labeled "Broader Impacts", the Project Description must include: Vision for Revolutionizing the Engineering Department– Explain what you hope to achieve in pursuing a Track 2, 3, or 4 RED grant.

While the idea may not be fully developed at this stage, describe the conditions or situation that necessitates revolutionary change and broadly what you hope to achieve through the RED program. Provide a concise answer to the question, "What could be different?" Need for Planning Support– The purpose of the planning grant is to provide the support needed to develop a competitive proposal aimed at the vision specified above.

What makes the planning grant a valuable support mechanism in developing that proposal? Provide a concise answer to the question, "What can this planning grant provide that cannot be achieved using existing institutional resources?" Project Plan– Informed by the department's vision and need for support, provide: Goals and Objectives Planning grant goals and objectives should address the specific needs from the planning grant.

The goals and objectives should provide the outcomes and targets that will move the department toward having the capacity to pursue the vision. Specific Actions: Describe the activities that will allow achievement of the goals and objectives. Where appropriate, actions should cite relevant literature to support the specific activities.

You are encouraged to review prior RED projects and the outcomes of those projects. Barriers: Identify the anticipated barriers in carrying out the planning process and pursuing the development of a RED project. Describe how these barriers will be addressed and any contingency plans that will allow achievement of the vision in the face of these barriers.

Current or Former RED Recipient Advisor: Planning grants are expected to include at least one current or former RED grant leadership team member (PI, co-PI, or Senior/Key Personnel) in an advisory board, mentorship, or project leadership position as appropriate for your project needs.

Briefly summarize the RED grant they were part of, their contribution to their project, and how they will help you in the development of your own RED grant. RED Adaptation & Implementation (Track 2), RED Innovation (Track 3), and RED Innovation Partnership (Track 4): (Track 2 only) The title of the proposal must begin with: IUSE/PFE:RED A&I