Download - Robert Noyce Teacher Scholarship Program: Strengths and Weaknesses of Submitted Proposals
Robert Noyce Teacher Scholarship Program: Strengths and Weaknesses of
Submitted Proposals
AAAS Noyce WorkshopWashington, DC January 9, 2014
Nicole Bennett, Ph.D. ChemistryGregory Goins, Ph.D. Biology
Division of Undergraduate EducationNational Science Foundation
NSF Review Criteria•NSF Merit Review Criteria Intellectual Merit: encompasses the potential to
advance knowledge Broader Impacts: encompasses the potential to
benefit society and contribute to the achievement of specific, desired societal outcomes
•Additional Noyce Program-specific review criteria, dependent on proposal type
Review Criteria: Phase I Scholarship Proposals• Capacity and ability of institution to effectively conduct
the program• Number and quality of students that will be served by
the program• Justification for number of students and amount of
stipend & scholarship support• Quality and feasibility of recruitment & marketing
strategies
Strong: Provides data to justify need and realistic expectations; indicates number of participants
Weak: Projections not supported by data
Review Criteria: Phase I Scholarship Proposals• Ability of the program to recruit STEM majors who
would not otherwise pursue a teaching career
Strong: Indicates they will recruit beyond those who are already in the program
Weak: Not expanding beyond current pool
Review Criteria: Phase I Scholarship Proposals• Quality of the pre-service educational program
Strong: ▫Provides details about program▫Provides evidence that graduates are
successful▫Research based
Weak: Little information provided
Review Criteria: Phase I Scholarship Proposals
• Extent to which STEM & Education faculty are collaborating in developing and implementing the program
Strong: Good representation of STEM and education faculty; defined roles in management plan; shared responsibility. Clearly identified as Co-PIs, senior personnel, or other with biosketch provided.
Weak: No evidence of collaboration (“in name only”)
Review Criteria: Phase I Scholarship Proposals• Quality of the infrastructure to support pre-service
students and new teachers
Strong: A clear plan for supporting students and new teachers to ensure success; strong partnership with school district
Weak: No support beyond the financial support
• Extent to which the proposed strategies reflect effective practices based on research
Strong: based on literature and research findings
Weak: no references or not clear how the project is based on research
Review Criteria: Phase I Scholarship Proposals• Degree to which the proposed programming will enable
scholarship or stipend recipients to become successful mathematics and/or science teachers
Strong: Program designed to address specific needs of Noyce Scholars, in particular the high-need school setting
Weak: Program does not appear to be designed to support needs of Noyce Scholars
Review Criteria: Phase I Scholarship Proposals• Feasibility and completeness of an evaluation plan that
will measure the effectiveness of the proposed strategies
Strong: an independent evaluator; clear objectives and measures; describes data collection and analysis aligned with evaluation questions and project goals
Weak: No objective evaluator; evaluation not aligned with project objectives
Review Criteria: Phase I Scholarship Proposals• Institutional support for the program and the extent to
which the institution is committed to making the program a central organizational focus
Strong: Evidence of support from departments and administrators; likely to be sustained; integrated with other STEM initiatives
Weak: Lack of supporting letters from Administrators; little involvement beyond the PI
Summary of Common Weaknesses
• Proposal does not follow guidelines for Noyce Program
Students must complete STEM major (not change to Science Education or Math Education major)
Little information about teacher preparation program Unrealistic projections Recruitment and selection strategies not well described Lack of support for new teachers Lack of involvement of STEM faculty (or Education faculty) Lacks plans for monitoring compliance with teaching requirement Weak evaluation or lack of objective evaluator Does not address Prior Results; Lessons Learned Lacks details
Review Criteria: TF/MTF Proposals• Capacity and ability of institution to effectively conduct
the program
• Number and quality of Fellows that will be served by the program
• Justification for number of Fellows served and amount of stipend and salary supplements
• Quality & feasibility of recruitment and marketing strategies
Review Criteria: TF/MTF Proposals
• Extent to which the proposed strategies reflect effective practices based on research
• Degree to which the proposed programming will enable the participants to become successful mathematics and science teachers or Master Teachers
• Extent to which STEM and education faculty are collaborating in developing and implementing a program with curriculum based on the specialized pedagogy needed to enable teachers to effectively teach math and science and to assume leadership roles in their schools.
Review Criteria: TF/MTF Proposals• Feasibility & completeness of an objective evaluation
plan that will measure the effectiveness of the proposed strategies
• Institutional support for the program & the extent to which the institution is committed to making the program a central organizational focus
• Evidence of cost sharing commitments
• Plans for sustainability beyond the period of NSF funding
Review Criteria: TF/MTF ProposalsNSF Teaching Fellows only:• Ability of the program to recruit individuals who would
not otherwise pursue a career in teaching and to recruit underrepresented groups
• Quality of the Master’s degree program leading to teacher certification
• Quality of the infrastructure to support pre-service students and new teachers
NSF Master Teaching Fellows only:• Quality of the professional development that will be
provided
Strong TF/MTF Proposals include • Strong partnership with school district
• Matching funds identified
• Clear description of pre-service program for Teaching Fellows and professional development program for Master Teaching Fellows
• Detailed recruitment and selection plans
• Clear vision of Master Teacher roles and responsibilities, including involvement in pre-service programs
• Attention to content and pedagogy
• Detailed evaluation plans
Weak TF/MTF Proposals may show• Insufficient detail for pre-service and induction programs for
Teaching Fellows and professional development program for Master Teaching Fellows
• Vague recruitment plans
• Selection plans not according to guidelines
• Master Teacher roles and responsibilities not discussed
• Matching funds not identified
• Role of non-profit organization not clear
• School district partnership not strong
• Evaluation weak or lacking independence
In a Strong Partnership• Individuals from all institutions have clear roles and
communication structures
• Management plan includes a description of how communication, meetings, roles, division of responsibilities, and reporting will occur
• Distribution of resources is appropriate to the scope of the work
• All partners contribute to the work and benefit from it
• Letters of commitment are provided
The Process• Proposals may be submitted to FastLane or grants.gov
(Use FastLane for TF/MTF proposals)
• All proposals are peer-reviewed according to standard NSF merit review criteria (Intellectual Merit and Broader Impacts)
• Notification of results within six months of receipt • Reviewers’ comments may be accessed through
FastLane after final decision is made
What Makes a Proposal Competitive?• Original ideas• Succinct, focused project plan• Realistic amount of work• Provision of sufficient detail• Cost effectiveness• High impact• Knowledge and experience of PIs• Contributions to the field• Rationale and evidence of potential effectiveness• Likelihood the project will be sustained • Solid evaluation plan
Tips for Success• Consult the program solicitation and NSF Proposal and
Award Policies and Procedures Guide (NSF 14-1)• Test drive FastLane• Alert your institution’s Sponsored Research Office• Follow limits on page margins and font size• Be aware of other projects and advances in the field• Cite the literature as appropriate• Provide details• Discuss prior results• Include evaluation plan with timelines and benchmarks
Tips for Success• Put yourself in the reviewers’ place
• Consider reviewers’ comments if resubmitting (keeping in mind that they will be different people)
• Have others read the proposal
• Spell check; grammar check; attend to details
• Meet deadlines
• Follow NSF requirements for proposals involving Human Subjects
• Call or email NSF Program Officers as needed
FastLane will not accept if:•Fail to describe mentoring activities for
postdoctoral researchers if any included in proposed budget
•Fail to include data management plan•Fail to include complete Project Summary (3
text boxes: Overview, Intellectual Merit and Broader Impacts statements)
Return Without Review
•Submitted after deadline
•Fails to follow formatting (e. g. page limitation, font size, and margin limits) requirements
Not ready to submit a proposal this year?
Consider serving as a reviewer.
Send a letter of interest and a CV to one of the program officers or fill out the online form at https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/NSF_DUE_Reviewer_Info
For more information:
www.nsf.gov(go to Division of Undergraduate Education)
www.nsfnoyce.org
Or contact us: Joan Prival
Nicole [email protected]
Gregory [email protected]