Robert Noyce Teacher Scholarship Program: Strengths and Weaknesses of Submitted Proposals
-
Upload
montague-santos -
Category
Documents
-
view
23 -
download
0
description
Transcript of Robert Noyce Teacher Scholarship Program: Strengths and Weaknesses of Submitted Proposals
Robert Noyce Teacher Scholarship Program:
Strengths and Weaknesses of
Submitted Proposals
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
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
teachers Practices based on research evidence
Weak: Little detail offered No evidence of roots in published literature
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”)
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
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, 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
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
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
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 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
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.
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 infrastructure to support pre-service
students and new teachers
NSF Master Teaching Fellows only: Quality of professional development that will be
provided
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
Strong TF/MTF Proposals include:
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
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 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
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 separately and explicitly to 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 are 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]
Mary Lee [email protected]
Other resources: www.nsf.govwww.nsfnoyce.org
Questions?