1 / 40

Robert Noyce Teacher Scholarship Program

Robert Noyce Teacher Scholarship Program. Proposal Writing Workshop Features of Effective Proposals. Features of Effective Proposals. Use a sample proposal to launch discussion of ways to put together an effective Noyce Scholarship Phase 1 poposal

jovan
Download Presentation

Robert Noyce Teacher Scholarship Program

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Robert Noyce Teacher Scholarship Program Proposal Writing Workshop Features of Effective Proposals

  2. Features of Effective Proposals • Use a sample proposal to launch discussion of ways to put together an effective Noyce Scholarship Phase 1 poposal • Highlight general tips for NSF proposal writing

  3. Scholarship Track (Phase I)

  4. Brief Review of the Phase 1 Scholarship Track Goal is to recruit STEM majors and career changers who might not otherwise have considered a career in K-12 teaching • Scholarships for undergraduate STEM majors preparing to become K-12 teachers • Internships for freshman and sophomores • Stipends for STEM professionals seeking to become K-12 teachers

  5. Key Features of the Project Description • Results from prior NSF support • Proposed scholarship program • Description of teacher preparation program • Recruitment activities • Selection process • Management and administration • Support for new teachers • Collaboration and partnerships • Monitoring and enforcing compliance • Evidence for institutional commitment • Evaluation plan

  6. Key Features of the Project Description: Proposed Scholarship or Stipend Program & Description of Teacher Preparation Program • Is there sufficient information about the numbers, size of scholarship/stipend, and activities to convince you that this would be a strong scholarship program? • In what ways has the PI most effectively documented the quality of the teacher preparation program? • Is the proposed program likely to enable scholarship recipients to become successful teachers?

  7. Key Features of the Project Description:Recruitment Activities & Selection Process • What aspects of the recruitment plan do you think are the most likely to be effective? (and why?) • Will this plan be effective in recruiting STEM majors who might not otherwise consider a career in teaching? • Will this selection process effectively identify the ‘best’ candidates for the scholarships?

  8. Key Features of the Project Description:Support for New Teachers • Will the planned induction support adequately meet the needs of new teachers?

  9. Key Features of the Project Description:Evaluation Plan • Will this plan provide useful information about important program outcomes?

  10. Jigsaw Activity • Four features, one per table • Management & administration • Collaboration & partnerships • Evidence of institutional commitment • Monitoring & enforcing compliance • In your Jigsaw Groups • Discuss the questions • Decide on main points to report to group All Tables: Results from prior NSF support

  11. Key Features of the Project Description:Management & Administration • What aspects of the administration and management plan did the most to convince you that the project will be well run?

  12. Key Features of the Project Description:Collaboration and Partnerships • Has the PI persuaded you that the collaboration and partnerships are well-functioning?

  13. How to Demonstrate 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 from non-lead partners (consult the solicitation for which letters are required, and which are optional)

  14. Key Features of the Project Description:Evidence for Institutional Commitment • Consider the information about institutional commitment • What other lines of evidence could a PI use to demonstrate that the sponsoring institution is committed to making the program a central institutional focus?

  15. Key Features of the Project Description:Monitoring & Enforcing Compliance • Consider the monitoring and enforcing compliance strategies presented in the proposal • Are these plans likely to be effective?

  16. Key Features of the Project Description:Results from Prior NSF Support • Does the proposal adequately address prior support?

  17. Robert Noyce Teacher Scholarship Program:Strengths and Weaknesses of Submitted Proposals

  18. NSF Review Criteria • NSF Merit Review Criteria • Intellectual Merit • Broader Impacts • Additional Considerations • Integration of Research & Education • Integrating Diversity into NSF Programs • Additional Noyce Program specific review criteria, dependent on proposal type

  19. 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

  20. 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

  21. Review Criteria: Phase I Scholarship Proposals • Quality of the preservice educational program Strong: • Provides detailsabout program • Provides evidence that graduates are successful • Research based Weak: Little information provided

  22. Review Criteria: Phase I Proposals • Extent to which STEM & education faculty are collaborating in developing & implementing the program Strong: Good representation of STEM and education faculty; defined roles in management plan; shared responsibility Weak: No evidence of collaboration (“in name only”)

  23. Review Criteria: Phase I Proposals • Quality of the preservice student support and new teacher support infrastructure • 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

  24. Review Criteria: Phase I Proposals • Extent to which the proposed strategies reflect effective practices based on research • Strong: based on literature; research findings • Weak: no references or not clear how the project is based on research

  25. Review Criteria: Phase I Proposals • Degree to which the proposed programming will enable scholarship or stipend recipients to become successful mathematics & 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

  26. Review Criteria: Phase I Proposals • Feasibility & 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 • Weak: No objective evaluator; evaluation not aligned with project objectives

  27. Review Criteria: Phase I 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

  28. 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 lacks objective evaluator • Does not address Prior Results or Lessons Learned • Lacks details

  29. Review Criteria: TF/MTF Proposals • Capacity & ability of institution to effectively conduct the program • Number & quality of Fellows that will be served by the program • Justification for number of Fellows served & amount of stipend & salary supplements • Quality & feasibility of recruitment & marketing strategies

  30. 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 & education faculty are collaborating in developing & implementing a program with curriculum based on the specialized pedagogy needed to enable teachers to effectively teach math & science & to assume leadership roles in their schools.

  31. 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

  32. Review Criteria: TF/MTF Proposals NSF Teaching Fellows only: • Ability of the program to recruit individuals who would not otherwise pursue a career in teaching & to recruit underrepresented groups • Quality of the Master’s degree program leading to teacher certification • Quality of the preservice student support and new teacher support infrastructure NSF Master Teaching Fellows only: • Quality of the professional development that will be provided

  33. Strong TF/MTF Proposals include: • Strong partnership with school district • Matching funds identified • Clear description of preservice 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 preservice • Attention to content and pedagogy • Detailed evaluation plans

  34. Weaknesses of TF/MTF Proposals • Insufficient details for preservice and induction program for Teaching Fellows and 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

  35. 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

  36. Tips for Success • Consult the program solicitation and NSF Proposal & Award Policies & Procedures Guide (NSF 11-1) • Test drive FastLane • Alert the Sponsored Research Office • Follow page and font size limits • Be aware of other projects and advances in the field • Cite the literature • Provide details • Discuss prior results • Include evaluation plan with timelines and benchmarks

  37. Tips for Success • Put yourself in the reviewers’ place • Consider reviewers’ comments if resubmitting 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

  38. Return Without Review • Submitted after deadline • Fail to separately and explicitly addressintellectual merit and broader impacts in the Project Summary • Fail to follow formatting(e. g. page limitation, font size, and margin limits) requirements 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

  39. Not ready to submit a proposal this year?Consider serving as a reviewerSend a letter of interest and a CV to one of the program officers

  40. Questions? Contact us: Joan Prival jprival@nsf.gov Richard Alo ralo@nsf.gov Mary Lee Ledbetter msledbet@nsf.gov • Other resources: linneaf@austincc.edu www.nsf.gov www.nsfnoyce.org

More Related