With tightening university budgets, never before has the activity level of research grant proposal writing been more intense. With increased proposal numbers, including for the National Science Foundation's (NSF) prestigious CAREER award, has also come increased competition and decreased funding rates. This dissertation has searched for successful and unsuccessful characteristics from funded and unfunded CAREER proposals. The research focused on a study of two key subjects: 1) a corpus of 20 texts that included 12 funded proposals and 8 unfunded proposals from across NSF programs, and 2) an ethnographic analysis comprised from interviews with 14 NSF program officers (PO) from varying programs. Coding elements with the texts to uncover topical chains of content, rhetorical, and document design strategies revealed sound rhetorical moves and rhetorical mistakes. The study also illustrated evidence of adherence to or neglect of NSF-mandated writing/formatting conventions as connected to the likelihood of receiving funding. Moreover, the study revealed conventions that have developed for the genre that are not prescribed by NSF but that, nevertheless, seem to be expected. Through genre field analysis, the study's interviews with program officers (PO) revealed a system of genre-agents and player-agents that interact together in a highly rhetorical and social system. This system, comprised of locales in which a multitude of play scenarios can be enacted to exert influence, operates within fairly exact rules of play. Such rules may be published by NSF or simply be "understood," yet principal investigators (PI) are held accountable for them regardless. The ethnography created from interviews with POs revealed multiple genre field elements (e.g., genre- and player-agents, transformative locales, play scenarios, penalty conditions) as well as common mistakes and best practices. A complete mapping of the CAREER award proposal preparation, submission, and review process resulted from the study, which mapping has offered insightful strategies to expand PI (and other agents') influence on the funding process. The dissertation concluded by offering investigators a step-by-step process to identify and map the elements of the proposal genre field in which they operate.

The purpose of this qualitative case study was to examine the perceptions of partner teachers and graduate fellows in 1 school regarding the barriers and successes made during their participation in a National Science Foundation Grant. This study included 9 partner teachers and 7 graduate fellows who participated in the Science First! NSF GK-12 Grant. There were 16 participants in this study. This study was conducted at North Side Elementary and East Tennessee State University. Partner teachers and graduate fellows were interviewed to gain perceptions of the barriers and successes of their participation in the implementation of the Science First! grant at North Side and East Tennessee State University from 2008-2013. A list of possible participants in the study was provided from the grant leadership team. The 16 participants in the study were chosen through purposeful sampling. During data analysis, 4 themes arose as successes and 4 themes arose as barriers. The success themes were (a) relationships, (b) mutual appreciation, (c) increased academic depth, and (d) professional growth. The barriers were (a) communication, (b) time, (c) expectations, and (d) preparation. Based on the research, the following conclusions were presented. The coordination of a major NSF-GK12 grant can provide STEM support and academic rigor for a high poverty school with leadership. Positive relationships between the graduate fellows and partner teachers as well as the 2 participating institutions are critical in fostering successful grant implementation. Professional growth through the grant partnerships was obtained. The participants gained a mutual appreciation for the roles and responsibilities of each other. There are ups and downs in implementing a large grant at 1 elementary school with a university, but the rewards of the potential to influence teacher practices in STEM and student learning are great. Recommendations from the study findings may assist future grant award winners or partnerships of any kind in building productive relationships between schools and other institutions.

The purpose of this study was to determine the effectiveness of East Tennessee State University's summer science institute training through the effect on mean Normal Curve Equivalent science test scores of students in a Northeast Tennessee school system whose teachers participated in the ETSU summer science institute training. Data analysis were compiled using students' science NCE scores to determine if there were significant differences in scores for those students whose teachers participated in the summer science institutes and those who did not participate. Students' NCE scores were compiled from the middle school setting over a 3-year academic period: 2004-2005, 2005-2006, and 2006-2007. Paired-samples t tests were used to analyze the effectiveness of teacher participation by comparing preparticipation and postparticipation students' science NCE scores for years 3 years. Independent-samples t tests were used to compare students' gender, socioeconomic status (free- and reduced-price meals), and NCE science scores (using 5th grade only) for 2 consecutive years of the study (2005-2006 through 2006-2007). Two analyses were used to determine teachers' participation and the effect on students' NCE science scores among two subgroups: gender and socioeconomic status. For research questions 4 and 5, a mean net gain and NCE raw scores average was performed. The findings from this study indicated significant differences in years 2004-2005 and 2006-2007 favoring students of teachers who participated in the summer science institutes However, the results from year 2005-2006 showed no significant differences in students' science NCE scores of teachers who participated or did not participate in summer science institutes. In the consecutive year (2005-2006 through 2006-2007) using 5th grade only comparisons, data analyses showed significant differences in students' science NCE scores when performing NCE raw scores comparisons for gender and socioeconomic status. The comparisons for gender showed male students' science NCE scores were higher than were females' science scores. The NCE raw scores comparisons for socioeconomic status showed those students on the meals program had higher science NCE scores than did those students not on the program. There was no significance in students' science NCE scores when using mean net gain scores comparison for gender and socioeconomic status.

With funding from the National Science Foundation (NSF), the Ira A. Fulton College of Engineering and Technology at BYU has been furthering their research on Global Virtual Teams. After Cultural Competence lessons were implemented into the classroom setting in 2010, it was decided that teaching the lessons online asynchronously could have advantages in decreasing the time professors needed to cover the content in class. In 2011, Jennifer Alexander teamed with faculty involved with the NSF grant to design and develop online Cultural Competence lessons. Beginning in August 2011 students at BYU and other cooperating campuses participated in the online Cultural Competence lessons. The online lessons were complete and ready for implementation on time; changes were made after implementation based on feedback given in student interviews; and the lessons are now ready for further development and implementation. The lessons will be shared openly with a global audience through Global Hub beginning in summer 2012.

This research provides performance metrics for cooperative research centers that enhance translational research formed by the partnership of government, industry and academia. Centers are part of complex ecosystems that vary greatly in the type of science conducted, organizational structures and expected outcomes. The ability to realize their objectives depends on transparent measurement systems to assist in decision making in research translation. A generalizable, hierarchical decision model that uses both quantitative and qualitative metrics is developed based upon program goals. Mission-oriented metrics are used to compare the effectiveness of the cooperative research centers through case studies. The US National Science Foundation (NSF) industry university cooperative research center (IUCRC) program is the domain of organizational effectiveness because of its longevity, clear organizational structure, repeated use and availability of data. Not unlike a franchise business model, the program has been replicated numerous times gaining recognition as one of the most successful federally funded collaborative research center (CRC) programs. Understanding IUCRCs is important because they are a key US policy lever for enhancing translational research. While the program model is somewhat unique, the research project begins to close the gap for comparing CRCs by introducing a generalizable model and method into the literature stream. Through a literature review, program objectives, goals, and outputs are linked together to construct a four-level hierarchical decision model (HDM). A structured model development process shows how experts validate the content and construct of the model using these linked concepts. A subjective data collection approach is discussed showing how collection, analysis and quantification of expert pair-wise-comparison data is used to establish weights for each of the decision criteria. Several methods are discussed showing how inconsistency and disagreement are measured and analyzed until acceptable levels are reached. Six case studies are used to compare results, evaluate the impact of expert disagreement and conduct criterion-related validity. Comparative analysis demonstrates the ability of the model to efficiently ascertain criteria that are relatively more important towards each center's performance score. Applying this information, specific performance improvement recommendations for each center are presented. Upon review, experts generally agreed with the results. Criterion-related validity discusses how the performance measurement scoring system can be used for comparative analysis among science and engineering focused research centers. Dendrograms highlight where experts disagree and provide a method for further disagreement analysis. Judgment quantification values for different expert clusters are substituted into the model one-at-a-time (OAT) providing a method to analyze how changes in decisions based on these disagreements impact the results of the model's output. This research project contributes to the field by introducing a generalizable model and measurement system that compares performance of NSF supported science and engineering focused research centers.

Not available

This study explored the importance attached to and the degree of satisfaction with 53 job aspects in the work environment of cooperative research center directors. A survey instrument was mailed to the 105 individuals identified as directors of research units that are (a) committed to multidisciplinary or engineering research, (b) organized as integral units of a university, and (c) supported and funded by industry and other sources. Responses were categorized into two groups: directors involved in NSF (National Science Foundation) Industry/University Cooperative Research Centers (I/UCRC), and directors involved in other types of cooperative research endeavors. A 69% response rate was obtained. One purpose of this study was to measure: (a) factors that influence job satisfaction; (b) factors likely to influence center performance; and (c) success factors in industry/university cooperative research. This study was also designed to: (a) compare job attitudes between the two groups of directors; (c) determine the relationship between measures of importance and satisfaction for each group; and (d) develop predictive models of centers' performance using collected data; Directors assign a high degree of importance and a low degree of satisfaction to the majority of the job aspects; and they tend to be somewhat dissatisfied with those factors they consider most important in their work environment. Directors in the NSF I/UCRC group rated factors related to professional activities and industry/university interactions as significantly more important. In developing models to predict the total operating budget and the number of industrial members at a center, combinations of importance and satisfaction ratings were found to be significant factors.

Includes Van Allen thesis (M.S.)--University of Iowa, 1936, and thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Iowa, 1939.