NSF 24-551: 2024 Hispanic-Serving Institutions: Enriching Learning, Programs, and Student Experiences Implementation and Evaluation Projects (IEP) Track - Level 1 and Level 2

Institutionally Coordinated  // Limit: 3

Please contact RDS for more information. 

CJ Knox (Arizona Astrobiology Center)
EJ Lee (Electrical and Computer Engineering) 
U. Ricoy (Neuroscience)

*Limit on Number of Proposals per Organization: Implementation and Evaluation Proposals: Eligible institutions may submit up to a total of three IEP proposals per solicitation deadline, regardless of level. UArizona is not eligible for the  Educational Instrumentation (EI) Track.

The Hispanic Serving Institution (HSI) Program is supported by the National Science Foundation (NSF) as a cross-divisional effort with multiple funding opportunities that support the nation's colleges that have been designated as Hispanic Serving Institutions. This program is part of a Foundation-wide effort to accelerate improvements in the quality and effectiveness of undergraduate education in all STEM fields including the learning, social, behavioral, and economic sciences. With Congressional support, the NSF uses this program to build capacity at institutions of higher education that typically do not receive high levels of NSF grant funding.

Implementation and Evaluation Projects (IEP) Track

The track welcomes projects looking to implement, adapt, or study promising practices and also invites theoretically grounded, methodologically rigorous research projects on undergraduate experiences in STEM at HSIs. IEP projects include activities that are anticipated to support research and efforts to improve the HSI undergraduate experience for STEM majors and for non-majors enrolled in STEM courses.

Examples include, but are not limited to, the following types of activities:

• redesigning STEM courses, degree programs, student support systems, or practices;
• developing new STEM courses, certificates, minors and degree programs;
• enacting professional development for faculty, staff, and administrators to implement student-centered pedagogy, advising, leadership or other practices;
• conducting research studies to better understand aspects of undergraduates' STEM experiences in the focal areas of the HSI:ELPSE solicitation (courses, programs, departments, and schools/colleges);
• developing institutions' understanding of their students, practices, and HSI designation, particularly institutions that have been recently classified as HSIs; and
• building out the data infrastructure and methodologies that would allow an institution to collect and conduct thorough analyses of student data.

Proposals can focus on improving student learning and outcomes, broadening participation of historically underrepresented student groups in STEM at HSIs, or other efforts aligned with the HSI:ELPSE solicitation's areas of focus. The IEP track is intended to be a broad opportunity, and encourages the submission of high-risk, high reward approaches with transformative potential.

Common Expectations for Level 1 and Level 2 IEP Projects: There are two funding levels that determine the maximum budget, timeline, and scope for the proposed projects. The following elements are expected within all IEP proposals, regardless of funding level:

• Proposals are expected to address at least one of the goals of the HSI program and be aligned with one or more of the areas described above: Courses, Curricula, and Pedagogy; or Institutional Structures and Pathways.
• Proposals should be evidence-based, which could include indigenous knowledge and other traditions that may be transmitted outside of the traditional scholarly literature. Project components should be supported as appropriate by a review of the relevant literature.
• Proposals should be situated in the context of the institution and must include an Institutional Data Narrative as part of the proposal's 15-page Project Description that uses data, disaggregated to the extent that is feasible for proposers,to provide insights into the institution and its students.
• Activities, supports, evaluation and, if required, research plans must be designed using an intersectional lens. Specifically, proposers are encouraged to discuss how the project components account for students' intersecting membership in populations described by demographic characteristics and/or lived experiences (e.g., low-income, commuter, parenting, first-generation, or veteran status).
• Collaborative proposals from either single or multiple institutions must use a portion of the Management Plan to describe the roles of all senior personnel as well as the nature of the collaboration between institutions. It is imperative that all collaborating institutions have a clear and appropriate voice in the leadership and execution of the project as it applies to their students.
• All IEP proposals must include a detailed evaluation plan, executed by an experienced and independent evaluator, that will provide both formative and summative feedback on the project's progress towards its stated goals. Each evaluation plan should include clear evaluation questions, quantitative and/or qualitative data streams beyond baseline institutional research data, specified methods for data analysis, and a mechanism for providing a written evaluation report to the project team at least annually. Please see "Proposal Preparation and Submission Instructions" below for additional information about the expectations for project evaluation.
• All IEP proposals that plan to financially support undergraduate or graduate students, for instance as tutors, peer mentors, research assistants, or other trainees must include a student mentoring plan of maximum 1 page as a supplemental document. This document should discuss specific strategies that will be utilized to provide academic, professional, and other valuable types of mentoring to these students. A student mentoring plan is not required if a project solely intends to provide incentives to students serving as research subjects without additional training requirements or duties.

Proposals may involve single operational units or departments of a college or multiple disciplines within a single division, school, or college at the institution. Collaborative proposals from multiple institutions or organizations are also welcome. Please see the Proposal Preparation Section below for additional guidelines regarding the submission of a complete proposal.

IEP Level 1: Up to 3 Years with a maximum budget of $500,000.

Awards at this level will support early-stage or exploratory projects that look to enrich the student experience, improve teaching and learning, broaden participation in undergraduate STEM, or improve student outcomes at HSIs. While IEP Level 1 proposals should be evidence-based as discussed above, they may be more exploratory and would generally be of a smaller scale than IEP Level 2 proposals.

The core activities of Level 1 projects may be wholly novel or may center on the replication and validation of promising approaches or high impact practices that may be novel at the institution. While STEM education or broadening participation research plans are welcome in Level 1 IEP proposals, they are not required. However, in the absence of a research plan, proposals must describe a plan to generate knowledge through the analysis and broad dissemination of data and outcomes obtained through project evaluation.

Level 1 IEP proposals are welcome to submit letters of collaboration from internal or external partners including faculty, administrators, corporations, non-profits or other entities as appropriate. These letters should adhere to the guidelines outlined in Chapter II.D.2.i.(iv) of the NSF PAPPG and should not be letters of support as described in that section.

IEP Level 2: Up to 5 Years with a maximum budget of $1,000,000

IEP Level 2 projects are supported for up to five years and should include efforts that are beyond the proof-of-concept stage and have potential to result in sustainable positive outcomes that align with the goals of the HSI program. Level 2 projects have a scale and scope beyond what would typically be expected for IEP Level 1 projects.

Level 2 projects must include substantial educational research plans intended to generate new knowledge that may improve our understanding of how to build institutional capacity at HSIs, to meet the goals of enhancing the quality of undergraduate student experiences in STEM, and/or improving the recruitment, retention, and graduation rates of students pursuing STEM degrees at HSIs. Research plans should include specific and actionable research questions, be theoretically grounded, and draw from data streams that look beyond those traditional institutional research measures. The HSI program has no methodological preference and welcomes qualitative, quantitative and mixed-methods studies as appropriate given the foci of each proposed study.

Specific plans to sustain and institutionalize successful project components should be included as part of the Project Description. All IEP Level 2 proposals must include letters of support from upper-level institutional administrators, at the Dean level or higher, with responsibility for faculty affairs and/or undergraduate STEM education in the proposal's focal unit(s). These letters should outline concrete mechanisms and institutional commitments for institutionalization and sustainability of the project activities and should be uploaded as supplemental documents.

Level 2 IEP proposals are welcome to submit additional letters of collaboration from internal or external partners including faculty, administrators, corporations, non-profits or other entities as appropriate. These letters should adhere to the guidelines outlined in Chapter II.D.2.i.(iv) of the NSF PAPPG and should not be letters of support as described in that section.