Recent Trends in Instrumentation Requeststo NSF's CCLI Chemistry ProgramSusan HixsonDivision of Undergraduate Education, National Science Foundation, Arlington, Virginia 22230

Eun-Woo ChangDivision of Undergraduate Education, National Science Foundation, Arlington, Virginia 22230, andDepartment of Chemistry, Truckee Meadows Community College, Reno, Nevada 89512

Bert E. Holmes*Division of Undergraduate Education, National Science Foundation, Arlington, Virginia 22230, andDepartment of Chemistry, University of North Carolina-Asheville, Asheville, North Carolina 28804*bholmes@unca.edu; bholmes@nsf.gov

Program Officers at the National Science Foundation(NSF) often hear that the greatest need in departments ofchemistry is instrumentation for the teaching laboratories andthat austere academic budgets for the foreseeable future are likelyto exacerbate this need. It also appears that the chemistrycommunity has a perception that the Division of UndergraduateEducation (DUE) no longer supports instrument requests forundergraduate instruction. In this paper, we will examine someof these claims by first providing a historical overview illustratingthe evolution of NSF's philosophy regarding support for under-graduate education. We will then compare the number ofproposals submitted by chemistry departments and the fundingrate for fiscal years (FY) 1996-1998 versus 2006-2008. Finally,data covering the past 5 years for the Course, Curriculum andLaboratory Improvement (CCLI) Program will be analyzed toexplore whether:

• The percentage of awards with an instrument tracked thepercentage of proposals requesting an instrument

• Changes occurred in the number or type of instrumentsrequested by departments of chemistry

• We might observe any unexpected trends

Historical Overview of the NSF's Support for Under-graduate Education

Support of science education has been amandate of theNSFbeginning with its inception in 1950. At that time Public Law81-507 was passed directing the NSF to initiate and support“science and engineering education programs at all levels and inall the various fields of science and engineering” (1).

College Science Improvement Program

One of the first NSF programs to provide the opportunity topurchase instrumentation was the College Science ImprovementProgram (CoSIP). Operating from 1967 to 1973, CoSIP providedmore than $31 million to 160 four-year colleges to “enhance thescience capabilities... and increase the capacity of these institutionsfor continuing self-renewal” (2). The average award was $225,000with a required institutional match of $100,000.

College Science Instrumentation Program

The first NSF program explicitly targeted at enhancingthe instrumentation infrastructure of teaching laboratories wasthe College Science Instrumentation Program (CSIP). Launchedin 1985, CSIP was intended to correct a perceived decline in thescientific workforce by attracting more students to majors inscience, technology, engineering, andmathematics (STEM). CSIPwas also a response to the findings of the 1985 Oberlin report (3),which surveyed the top 50 liberal arts colleges and highlighted theirimportance as incubators for the nation's Ph.D. scientists. CSIPoriginally targeted four-year undergraduate institutions, providingthem with funds to buy instrumentation to support laboratoryinstruction. CSIP required each institution to meet a one-to-onematch of NSF funds, and prohibited institutional overhead.

Instrumentation and Laboratory Improvement Program

In 1988, as a response to the Neal Report (4), the range ofCSIP-eligible institutions was expanded to include both two-yearand doctoral-granting institutions, and the name of the programwas changed to the Instrumentation and Laboratory Improve-ment (ILI) Program. The objectives of the ILI Program weresimilar to those of CSIP, but they also emphasized the need toeducate nonscience majors and preservice teachers. The ILIProgram solicitation asked for projects that developed andimplemented laboratories that went beyond the traditional“cookbook” approach. Instead, the ILI Program encouragedprojects that required students to design experiments, collectdata, interpret results, and communicate their findings in variousways. The ILI Program received 1200-2000 proposals from alldisciplines each year and funded about 28% of them. Evaluationof the ILI Program by Westat (5) found that about 50% of ILIprincipal investigators initiated some course reform as a result oftheir improved laboratory capabilities.

Course, Curriculum, and Laboratory Improvement Program

In 1999, the ILI Program was folded into a new, three-trackCourse, Curriculum, and Laboratory Improvement (CCLI)Program. The CCLI Program included the option to submit

edited byMichelle M. Bushey

Trinity UniversitySan Antonio, TX 78212

Chemical Education Today

This article not subject to U.S. Copyright. Published 2010 by the American Chemical Society and Division of Chemical Education, Inc.

_pubs.acs.org/jchemeduc

_Vol. 87 No. 3 March 2010

_Journal of Chemical Education 10.1021/ed800100a Published onWeb 02/09/2010 247

instrumentation or equipment proposals, but it gave increasedpriority to testing the effectiveness of materials and practices interms of gains in student learning. The option to adapt andimplement proven materials and classroom practices was incor-porated into CCLI as the Adaptation and ImplementationTrack (CCLI-A&I). Most proposals requesting instrumentationused this track. CCLI budgets also allowed for indirect costs,although the A&I Track still required that awardees providematching funds to purchase instrumentation.

The 2006 CCLI Program solicitation presented a redesignthat incorporated components for knowledge production andpractice improvement in STEM education1 as described in the2003 Rand Report (6). NSF's DUE reviewed the program andconcluded that CCLI projects differed along three dimensions:scope, size, and maturity. As a result, the three “tracks” introducedin the 1999 CCLI Program were replaced by three “phases”. In2009, the CCLI Program replaced the three phases with threetypes, and only in Type 1 is an instrumentation request appro-priate. Type 2 and 3 projects in the 2009 solicitation requiredeither regional or national dissemination of proven “best prac-tices”. As with Phase 1 projects, Type 1 proposals are designed tosupport small-scale and exploratory efforts that address at least onecomponent of the knowledge production model1 and involve alimited number of students and faculty at one institution. Type 1proposals are limited to a maximum of $200,000 or to $250,000if a two-year college partner is included. Indirect costs are allowed,but an institutional match is no longer required.

Comparing Proposals and Funding in 1996-1998 withThose in 2006-2008

The previous paragraphs illustrate that from the 1960s upthrough the 1990s, NSF focused on building the infrastructureof institutions or replacing their antiquated instruments. Con-sequently, NSF funds for undergraduate education were directedtoward building infrastructure without explicit requirements forimprovements in teaching and learning in the classroom orlaboratory.

To provide a comparison to the current situation, data forFYs 1996-1998 are presented for the ILI Program.

• In FY 1996 ILI received 1664 proposals from all disciplines(332 proposals from chemistry departments and 95 chemistryproposals funded for a 28% success rate).

• In FY 1997 ILI received 1499 total proposals (313 proposalsfrom chemistry departments and 111 chemistry funded for a35% success rate).

• In FY 1998 ILI received 1335 total proposals (306 proposalsfrom chemistry departments and 94 chemistry proposals fundedfor a 31% success rate).

During FYs 2006-2008, between 81 and 110 chemistryproposals were submitted to the CCLI Program per year, and thesuccess rate ranged from 11 to 32%. Removing the requirementfor an institutional match for FYs 2006-2008 compared withFYs 1996-1998 forced the funding rate to decline because thetotal CCLI budget did not significantly increase.

The data presented in the previous paragraph clearly show thatthe number of chemistry departments submitting to DUE aproposal requesting an instrument for the teaching enterprise hasfallen by a factor of at least 3 in the past 10 years. In other STEMdisciplines, the decrease in the number of submitted proposals hasnot been as dramatic. For example, in FY1998 therewere 1335 total

proposals from all disciplines, with 306 of these being fromchemistry departments. Compare this to FY 2010, when therewere 1363 total proposals, with only 159 of these being fromchemistry departments. Further, during FYs 1996-1998 between20 and 23% of all ILI proposals were from chemistry departments,but 10 years later that number had fallen to between 10 and 12%.The important message from these data is that chemistry depart-ments have greatly reduced the number of proposals requesting aninstrument from DUE, which reminds us that proposals notsubmitted are not funded. We also note that NSF instituted theMajor Research Instrumentation (MRI) Program in the 1990s andthat many undergraduate colleges that engage students in researchsecure instruments from the MRI Program that serve in both theresearch and traditional teaching laboratories.

CCLI Data for Chemistry Proposals, FYs 2006-2010

One reason for the decline in the number of proposalssubmitted may be that some chemistry faculty question whetherDUE funds teaching instruments; thus, we analyzed the CCLIdata for chemistry proposals submitted during the past five fiscalyears (Tables 1 and 2). Note that proposals were submitted theyear prior to the fiscal year in which an award was made; i.e.,proposals submitted in the 2009 CCLI competition will befunded in FY 2010.Data for FY 2010 awards will not be finalizeduntil September 2010. Data are included only if a particular typeof instrument was requested in more than one proposal.

The number of CCLI chemistry proposals was fairly con-stant (between 81 and 110) between FYs 2006 and 2009, but theproposals received increased significantly to 159 for FY 2010.This increase may have many causes:

• Submitters may have an expectation that American Recoveryand Reinvestment Act funds (commonly known as stimulusmonies) are available for CCLI awards, but no stimulus fundswere allocated for the CCLI Program.

• Cuts in most higher education budgets have placed a premiumon external funding sources, including CCLI awards.

• Many departments have aging instruments in need of replacement.• The maximum budget request grew by $50,000 for Type 1proposals.

However, the percentage of proposals requesting an instru-ment in FY 2010 (63%) was very close to themean (60%) for FYs2006-2009. Future submissions should be analyzed to deter-mine whether the increase in the total number of proposals issustained.

The most frequently requested instruments were NMR,GC-MS, LC (both HPLC and IC), and spectrophotometers(FT-IR, UV-vis, fluorescence, and so on). NMR requests withan electromagnet exceeded superconductors by a factor of 4 to 5during FYs 2006-2009, but the number of proposals requestingan electromagnet dropped by a factor of 2 in FY 2009. By FY2010, nearly an equal number of each type of NMR wasrequested. However, the number of proposals requesting aninstrument was the lowest in FY 2009. Requests for spectro-photometers (both UV-vis and IR) and for GCs steadilydeclined during FYs 2006-2009. Requests for basic instruments(spectrophotometers and LCs) increased in FY 2010; thus, it istempting to speculate that this reflects an attempt by institutionsto replace aging instruments that are normally purchased frominternal capital equipment budgets that have been reduced oreliminated.

Vol. 87No. 3 March 2010

_pubs.acs.org/jchemeduc

_This article not subject toU.S.Copyright. Published2010by theAmericanChemical Society andDivision ofChemical Education, Inc.

248 Journal of Chemical Education

Chemical Education Today

Conclusion

The data show that, on average, the number of proposalsrequesting an instrument each year (60%) matches the number ofawards with an instrument (63%). The number of proposals notrequesting an instrument steadily increased from 27 in FY 2006 to63 inFY2010.While some variation from year to year is typical, thefunding percentage for all proposals during FYs 2006-2009 was20%. In FY 2010, the number of proposals requesting an instru-ment was more than double that requested in the previous year.

An interesting future trend to explore will be whether theincrease in 2009 from $150,000 to $200,000 in the allowed requestforType 1 proposals will be reflected in an increase in the request forinstruments (for example, LC-MSor high-fieldNMR) with a costtypically above $150,000. Another useful trend to explore in thefuture is the type of institutions (two-year, liberal arts, doctoralgranting, and so on) both submitting proposals and receivingawards. For more information about DUE, visit http://www.nsf.gov/div/index.jsp?div=DUE (accessed Jan 2010). Informationabout the more than 1000 CCLI awards can be found by followinglinks to CCLI and finding the Abstracts of Recent Awards. The2010 solicitation should be available in early 2010, but be aware thatthe name of the CCLI Program might have changed by that time.

Note1. Five components for knowledge production and practice

improvement in STEM education were identified: (i) Creatinglearning materials and strategies; (ii) Implementing new instruc-tional strategies; (iii) Developing faculty expertise; (iv) Assessing

and evaluating student achievement; and (v) Conducting re-search on undergraduate STEM education.

Literature Cited

1. A Timeline of NSF History. http://www.nsf.gov/about/history/overview-50.jsp (accessed Jan 2010).

2. Drew, D. E. A Study of the NSF College Science ImprovementProgram; American Council on Education Research Reports,Vol. 6 (4), Washington, D.C. 1971.

3. Davis-Van Atta, D.; Carrier, S. C.; Frankfort, F. EducatingAmerica's Scientists: The Role of the Research Colleges; A Reportfor theConference on the Future of Science at LiberalArtsCollegesheld at Oberlin College; Oberlin College: Oberlin, OH, 1985.

4. Task Committee on Undergraduate Science and Engineering Edu-cation, Homer A. Neal, Chairman, Undergraduate Science, Mathe-matics, and Engineering Education. Role for the National ScienceFoundation and Recommendations for Action by Other Sectors ToStrengthen Collegiate Education and Pursue Excellence in the NextGeneration of U.S. Leadership in Science and Technology; NationalScience Board: Washington, DC, 1986; http://www.pkal.org/documents/TheNealReport1986Page3.cfm (accessed Jan 2010).

5. Westat, A. Short-Term Impact Study of the NSF ILI Program(NSF97-6); http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/1996/nsf976/nsf976.htm(accessed Jan 2010).

6. Mathematical Proficiency for All Students: Towards a StrategicResearch and Development Program in Mathematics Education;Ball, D. L., Chair, Rand Mathematics Study Panel; Rand Corp.:Santa Monica, CA, 2003.

Table 2. Distribution of Instruments Requested and Awarded in CCLI Proposals

Requested:Awardeda Data by Fiscal Year

Instrument Types 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010b

NMR (superconducting) 2:0 3:1 4:0 4:1 8

NMR (electromagnet) 9:2 16:3 13:3 6:2 10

GC-MS (LC-MS) 12(1):0 11(1):3(1) 9(1):6(1) 7(1):1(0) 17(2)

GC 8:0 5:0 1:0 0:0 6

LC 4:0 9:0 8:3 4:3 15

Spectrophotometersc 24:0 10:4 8:5 6:2 20

FT-IR and Raman 7:2 4:1 4:1 2:0 13a Some proposals requested more than one type of instrument; thus, the sum of the number of instruments requested may exceed the number of proposals

requesting an instrument. b Data for proposal requests only; award data not yet available. c UV-vis, NIR, fluorescence, etc.

Table 1. Comparison of CCLI Proposals Requested and Awarded

Fiscal Years for Which the Data Pertain

Proposal Informationa 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Total number of proposals 81 110 99 100 159

Proposals requesting instruments 54 80 54 47 96

Proposals with no instrument 27 30 45 53 63

Total awards 9 22 32 17 NA

Total awards with instrument 5 17 21 9 NA

All proposals funded, % 11 20 32 17 NA

Proposals requesting instruments, % 67 73 56 47 63

Awards with an instrument, % 56 77 66 53 NAaSome proposals requested more than one type of instrument; thus, the sum of the number of instruments requested may exceed the number of proposals

requesting an instrument.

This article not subject to U.S. Copyright. Published 2010 by the American Chemical Society and Division of Chemical Education, Inc.

_pubs.acs.org/jchemeduc

_Vol. 87 No. 3 March 2010

_Journal of Chemical Education 249

Chemical Education Today