Science Learning+ Partnership Grants | Apply Online

Science Learning+ Partnership Grants (NSF AISL) - FAQs

What is the Science Learning+ Partnership Grants opportunity?

Science Learning+ Partnership Grants was a National Science Foundation (NSF) funding opportunity offered under the Advancing Informal STEM Learning (AISL) program. It was positioned within the "Research in Service to Practice" project type and supported practice-based research that strengthens informal STEM learning.

Which NSF program and project type did this opportunity fall under?

This opportunity was offered under NSF's Advancing Informal STEM Learning (AISL) program, specifically within the "Research in Service to Practice" project type.

Who were the funding partners involved in this opportunity?

The opportunity was structured as an international partnership between NSF (United States) and two UK-based funders: the Wellcome Trust and the UK Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC).

What was the overall purpose of Science Learning+ Partnership Grants?

The overall purpose was to build stronger, usable knowledge about informal STEM learning by connecting research more directly to real-world practice and encouraging partners to share lessons learned across countries and settings.

What was the core aim of the program?

The core aim was to strengthen the research and knowledge base for informal STEM learning experiences while narrowing the long-standing gap between what research suggests and what practitioners can realistically implement in informal learning environments.

Was public engagement the main deliverable for funded projects?

No. Rather than treating public engagement as the main deliverable, the program emphasized practice-based research. Projects were expected to generate evidence and insights grounded in lived program realities that can inform future design, implementation, and evaluation.

What does "practice-based research" mean in the context of this opportunity?

In this opportunity, practice-based research refers to research that is grounded in the realities of how informal STEM programs operate and is designed to produce evidence and insights that can directly inform how programs are designed, delivered, and evaluated in real-world settings.

What types of informal STEM learning environments were relevant to this program?

The opportunity referenced a wide range of informal learning environments, including museums, science centers, community programs, media platforms, afterschool programs, and other informal STEM learning settings.

What topics or themes were proposals required to address?

Applicants were required to focus on at least one of the initiative's priority areas, which included: understanding learning and engagement in informal STEM contexts, supporting STEM skills development, improving equity and diversity, expanding access to informal learning settings, and improving how outcomes are measured.

Do proposals have to align to more than one priority area?

Proposals had to focus on at least one priority area. The information provided does not state that more than one priority area was required.

What would a competitive project be expected to include?

A competitive project would be expected to articulate a clear research agenda tied to one or more priority themes, explain why the research question matters for both researchers and practitioners, and describe how findings would translate into better informal STEM experiences for learners and communities.

Were international partners required?

Yes. Collaboration was not optional. Proposals needed to include at least one organization based in the United States and at least one organization based in the United Kingdom and/or the Republic of Ireland.

What countries were eligible to be represented in the partnership?

Teams were required to include at least one US-based organization and at least one organization based in the United Kingdom and/or the Republic of Ireland.

What did the solicitation mean by "genuine partnerships"?

"Genuine partnerships" meant the project should be jointly shaped, jointly carried out, and jointly interpreted by researchers who study informal STEM learning and practitioners who actively deliver STEM engagement work.

Did NSF express preferences about the composition of project teams?

Yes. NSF signaled a preference for teams that brought together expertise spanning more than one STEM area and that operated across more than one informal STEM learning location, platform, or environment.

Did projects have to work across multiple sites or platforms?

The solicitation indicated a preference for teams operating across more than one informal STEM learning location, platform, or environment (for example, combining physical sites with digital or broadcast settings, or working across multiple community-based venues). The provided information describes this as a preference rather than an absolute requirement.

How was the proposal submitted?

The submission process required a single, unified proposal submitted to NSF.

How did budgeting work for an international partnership proposal?

The unified proposal included two distinct budget components: one covering US-based activities and one covering UK/Republic of Ireland activities.

What type of funding mechanism was used?

The funding mechanism was a discretionary grant.

How was eligibility described?

Eligibility was listed as broadly open (unrestricted), subject to any additional eligibility clarifications in the full announcement.

What CFDA numbers were associated with this opportunity?

The opportunity was associated with CFDA numbers 47.076.

What was the application deadline?

The application deadline for this opportunity was June 14, 2016.

What was the intended impact of funded projects?

The intended impact was to produce usable, practice-relevant knowledge that helps improve the design, implementation, and evaluation of informal STEM learning experiences, while supporting cross-country learning and lesson sharing across different settings.