1 / 25

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. NSF Merit Review Criteria Intellectual Merit Broader Impacts Additional Considerations Integration of Research & Education Integrating Diversity into NSF Programs

sunila
Download Presentation

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

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:Strengths and Weaknesses of Submitted Proposals

  2. 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

  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 • Research based Weak: Little information provided

  6. 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 faculty Defined roles in management plan Shared responsibility Weak: No evidence of collaboration (“in name only”)

  7. 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 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 Weak: Program does not appear to be designed to support needs of Noyce Scholars

  10. 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

  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 • Likely to be sustained • Integrated with other STEM initiatives Weak: • Lack of supporting letters from administrators • Little involvement beyond the PI

  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 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

  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 effectively teach math/science • 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 preservice student support and new teacher support infrastructure 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 • Required matching funds identified • Clear description of program elements for • preservicefor 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

  18. Weaknesses of TF/MTF Proposals • 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

  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 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

  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 to separately and explicitly 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 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 Richard Aló ralo@nsf.gov Mary Lee Ledbetter msledbet@nsf.gov • Other resources:www.nsf.gov www.nsfnoyce.org

More Related