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

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

2. NSF Review Criteria - Review • NSF Merit Review Criteria • Intellectual Merit • Broader Impacts • Additional Considerations • Integration of Research & Education • Broadening Participation in NSF Programs • Additional review criteria specific to Noyce Program, dependent on proposal type

3. 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

4. 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

5. Review Criteria:Phase I Scholarship Proposals • Quality of the preservice educational program Strong: • Provides details about program • Provides evidence that graduates are successful teachers • Practices based on research evidence Weak: • Little detail offered • No evidence of roots in published literature

6. Review Criteria: Phase I Scholarship Proposals • Extent to which STEM and education faculty are collaborating in developing and implementing the program Strong: • Both STEM and education faculty represented on team • All key roles in project management assigned • Responsibility shared among team members Weak: • Collaboration weak (“in name only”)

7. Review Criteria: Phase I Scholarship Proposals • Quality of infrastructure for support of pre-service students and new teachers Strong: • Clear plan for supporting students and new teachers to ensure success • Strong partnership with school district Weak: • No support beyond the financial support

8. 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

9. 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, e.g. strategies for students in high-need districts, regional or cultural considerations Weak: Program does not appear to be designed to support specific needs of Noyce Scholars

10. Review Criteria: Phase I Scholarship Proposals • Feasibility/completeness of evaluation plan measuring effectiveness of proposed strategies Strong: • Evaluator independent of project team • Clear objectives and measures • Data collection described and analysis aligned with project objectives Weak: • No objective evaluator • Evaluation not aligned with project objectives

11. 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 • Ways in which project is likely to be sustained beyond period of NSF funding • Integration with other STEM initiatives Weak: • Lack of supporting letters from administrators • Little involvement of faculty beyond the PIs

12. Summary of Common Weaknesses Proposal does not follow Noyce guidelines • Students must complete STEM major • Little information about teacher preparation program • Unrealistic enrollment projections • Recruitment/selectionstrategies 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

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

14. 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 teach math/science effectively • assume leadership roles in their schools.

15. 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

16. Review Criteria: TF/MTF Proposals NSF 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 infrastructure to support pre-service students and new teachers NSF Master Teaching Fellows only: • Quality of professional development that will be provided

17. Strong TF/MTF Proposals include: • Strong partnership with participating school district and non-profit organization • Required matching funds identified • Clear description of program elements for • pre-service Teaching Fellows • professional development for Master Teaching Fellows • Detailed recruitment and selection plans • Clear vision of Master Teacher roles and responsibilities, including involvement with pre-service teachers • Attention to content and pedagogy • Detailed evaluation plans

18. Weaknesses of TF/MTF Proposals • Insufficient detail for • Teaching Fellows’ pre-service and induction program • Master Teaching Fellows’ professional development program • 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

19. 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

20. 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

21. Tips for Success • Consult the program solicitation (NSF 12-525) and NSF Proposal & Award Policies & Procedures Guide (NSF 11-1) • Know how to use FastLane; give it a test drive • 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

22. 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

23. Return Without Review • Submitted after deadline • Fail separately and explicitly to addressintellectual 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 are included in proposed budget • Fail to provide a data management plan

24. 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.

25. Questions? Contact us: Joan Prival jprival@nsf.gov Mary Lee Ledbetter msledbet@nsf.gov Other resources:www.nsf.gov www.nsfnoyce.org