Robert Noyce Teacher Scholarship

Program

Proposal Writing WorkshopFeatures 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

Features of Effective Proposals

Scholarship Track (Phase I)

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

Brief Review of the Phase 1 Scholarship Track

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

Key Features of the Project Description

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?

Key Features of the Project Description: Proposed Scholarship or Stipend Program & Description of Teacher Preparation Program

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?

Key Features of the Project Description:Recruitment Activities & Selection Process

Will the planned induction support adequately meet the needs of new teachers?

Key Features of the Project Description:Support for New Teachers

Will this plan provide useful information about important program outcomes?

Key Features of the Project Description:Evaluation Plan

Four features, one per tableManagement & administrationCollaboration & partnerships Evidence of institutional commitmentMonitoring & enforcing compliance

In your Jigsaw GroupsDiscuss the questionsDecide on main points to report to group

All Tables: Results from prior NSF support

Jigsaw Activity

What aspects of the administration and management plan did the most to convince you that the project will be well run?

Key Features of the Project Description:Management & Administration

Has the PI persuaded you that the collaboration and partnerships are well-functioning?

Key Features of the Project Description:Collaboration and Partnerships

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)

How to Demonstrate a Strong Partnership

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?

Key Features of the Project Description:Evidence for Institutional Commitment

Consider the monitoring and enforcing compliance strategies presented in the proposal

Are these plans likely to be effective?

Key Features of the Project Description:Monitoring & Enforcing Compliance

Does the proposal adequately address prior support?

Key Features of the Project Description:Results from Prior NSF Support

Robert Noyce Teacher Scholarship Program:

Strengths and Weaknesses of Submitted Proposals

NSF Review Criteria NSF Merit Review Criteria

Intellectual MeritBroader Impacts

Additional ConsiderationsIntegration of Research & EducationIntegrating Diversity into NSF Programs

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 preservice educational program

Strong: Provides details about program Provides evidence that graduates are

successful Research based

Weak: Little information provided

Review Criteria: Phase I Proposals Extent to which STEM & education faculty are collaborating in developing & implementing the programStrong: Good representation of STEM and

education faculty; defined roles in management plan; shared responsibility

Weak: No evidence of collaboration (“in name only”)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Summary of Common Weaknesses

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

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.

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 & 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

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

Strong TF/MTF Proposals include:

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

Weaknesses of TF/MTF Proposals

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 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

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

Return Without Review Submitted after deadline Fail to separately and explicitly address

intellectual 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

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 Privaljprival@nsf.gov

Richard Aloralo@nsf.gov

Mary Lee Ledbettermsledbet@nsf.gov

Other resources: linneaf@austincc.edu www.nsf.gov

www.nsfnoyce.org

Questions?