robert noyce teacher scholarship program: strengths and weaknesses of submitted proposals
DESCRIPTION
Robert Noyce Teacher Scholarship Program: Strengths and Weaknesses of Submitted Proposals. NSF Review Criteria. NSF Merit Review Criteria Intellectual Merit Broader Impacts Additional Considerations Integration of Research & Education Integrating Diversity into NSF Programs - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
Robert Noyce Teacher Scholarship Program:
Strengths and Weaknesses of
Submitted Proposals
NSF Review Criteria NSF Merit Review Criteria• Intellectual Merit• Broader Impacts
Additional Considerations• Integration of Research & Education• Integrating Diversity into NSF Programs
Additional review criteria specific to Noyce Program, dependent on proposal type
Review Criteria: Phase I Scholarship Proposals Capacity /ability of institution to effectively conduct
program Number /quality of students to be served by program Justification for
◦ number of students◦ amount of stipend ◦ scholarship support
Quality/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 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 preservice 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/ implementing the program
Strong: Good representation of STEM and
education facultyDefined roles in management planShared responsibility
Weak: No evidence of collaboration (“in name
only”)
Review Criteria: Phase I Scholarship Proposals Quality of preservice student support and new
teacher support infrastructure
Strong: Clear plan for supporting students and
new teachers to ensure successStrong partnership with school district
Weak: No support beyond the financial support
Review Criteria: Phase I Scholarship Proposals Extent to which proposed strategies reflect
effective practices based on research
Strong: Based on educational literature and
evidence from research findings
Weak: No references or not clear how the project
is based on research
Review Criteria: Phase I Scholarship Proposals Degree to which proposed programming will
enable scholarship/ stipend recipients to become successful math/ science teachers
Strong: Program designed to address specific
needs of Noyce Scholars
Weak: Program does not appear to be designed
to support needs of Noyce Scholars
Review Criteria: Phase I Scholarship Proposals Feasibility/ completeness of evaluation plan
measuring effectiveness of proposed strategies
Strong: Independent evaluator Clear objectives and measures Describes data collection and analysis
aligned with evaluation questions
Weak: No objective evaluator Evaluation not aligned with project objectives
Review Criteria: Phase I Scholarship Proposals Institutional support for program and extent to
which institution commits to making 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
Proposal does not follow Noyce guidelines ◦ Students must complete STEM major◦ Little information about teacher preparation
program◦ Unrealistic enrollment projections◦ Recruitment/selection strategies not well described◦ Lack of
support for new teachers involvement of STEM faculty (or education
faculty) plans for monitoring compliance with teaching
requirement◦ Weak evaluation or lack of objective evaluator◦ Lessons learned from prior work lacks details
Summary of Common Weaknesses
Review Criteria: TF/MTF Proposals Capacity/ ability of institution to effectively
conduct program Number/ quality of Fellows the program will serve Justification for
◦ number of Fellows served ◦ amount of stipend ◦ salary supplements
Quality/ feasibility of recruitment/ marketing strategies
Review Criteria: TF/MTF Proposals Extent to which proposed strategies reflect
effective practices based on evidence from research
Degree to which proposed programming enables participants to become successful math/ science teachers or Master Teachers
Extent to which STEM/ education faculty collaborate in developing/ implementing a program with the specialized pedagogy needed to ◦enable teachers to effectively teach
math/science◦assume leadership roles in their schools.
Review Criteria: TF/MTF Proposals Feasibility/ completeness of an objective
evaluation plan measuring effectiveness of proposed strategies
Institutional support for program and the extent to which it is committed to making the program a central organizational focus
Evidence of cost sharing commitments
Plans for sustainability beyond NSF funding
Review Criteria: TF/MTF ProposalsNSF Teaching Fellows only: Ability of program to recruit
◦ Individuals not otherwise pursing teaching career
◦ Members of underrepresented groups Quality of Master’s degree program leading to
teacher certification Quality of preservice student support and new
teacher support infrastructure
NSF Master Teaching Fellows only: Quality of professional development that will be
provided
Strong partnership with participating school district
Required matching funds identified Clear description of program elements for• preservice for Teaching Fellows • professional development for Master Teaching
Fellows Detailed recruitment and selection plans Clear vision of Master Teacher roles/
responsibilities, including preservice involvement Attention to content and pedagogy Detailed evaluation plans
Strong TF/MTF Proposals include:
Insufficient details for • preservice and induction program for Teaching
Fellows• professional development program for Master
Teaching Fellows Vague recruitment plans Selection plans do not follow 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
Weaknesses of TF/MTF Proposals
Demonstrating a Strong Partnership
Individuals from all participating institutions have clear roles and communication structures
Management plan includes a description of communication, meetings, roles, division of responsibilities, and reporting
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
What Makes a Proposal Competitive? Original ideas Succinct, focused project plan Realistic amount of work Sufficient detail provided Cost effective High impact Knowledge and experience of PIs Contribution 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 (NSF 11-517) and
NSF Proposal & Award Policies & Procedures Guide (NSF 11-1)
Test drive FastLane Alert your Sponsored Research Office and observe
internal deadlines for signatures Follow page and font size limits Be aware of current literature in the field and cite
it Provide details for key areas of your project Discuss prior results Include evaluation plan with timelines and
benchmarks
Tips for Success (cont.) Put yourself in the reviewers’ place Consider previous reviewers’ comments if
resubmitting a proposal Have someone else read the proposal Spell check; grammar check Meet deadlines Follow NSF requirements for proposals
involving Human Subjects Call or email NSF Program Officers
Return Without Review Submitted after deadline Fail to separately and explicitly address
intellectual merit and broader impacts in the Project Summary
Fail to follow requirements for formatting (e. g. page limitation, font size, and margin limits)
Fail to describe mentoring activities for postdoctoral researchers, if any included in proposed budget
Fail to provide a data management plan
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.
Contact us:
Joan [email protected]
Richard Aló[email protected]
Mary Lee [email protected]
Other resources: www.nsf.govwww.nsfnoyce.org
Questions?