Robert Noyce Teacher Scholarship Program: Strengths and Weaknesses of

Submitted Proposals

AAAS Noyce WorkshopWashington, DC January 9, 2014

Nicole Bennett, Ph.D. ChemistryGregory Goins, Ph.D. Biology

Division of Undergraduate EducationNational Science Foundation

NSF Review Criteria•NSF Merit Review Criteria Intellectual Merit: encompasses the potential to

advance knowledge Broader Impacts: encompasses the potential to

benefit society and contribute to the achievement of specific, desired societal outcomes

•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 pre-service educational program

Strong: ▫Provides details about program▫Provides evidence that graduates are

successful▫Research based

Weak: Little information provided

Review Criteria: Phase I Scholarship Proposals

• Extent to which STEM & Education faculty are collaborating in developing and implementing the program

Strong: Good representation of STEM and education faculty; defined roles in management plan; shared responsibility. Clearly identified as Co-PIs, senior personnel, or other with biosketch provided.

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

Review Criteria: Phase I Scholarship Proposals• Quality of the infrastructure to support pre-service

students and new teachers

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

• Extent to which the proposed strategies reflect effective practices based on research

Strong: based on literature and research findings

Weak: no references or not clear how the project is based on research

Review Criteria: Phase I Scholarship Proposals• Degree to which the proposed programming will enable

scholarship or stipend recipients to become successful mathematics and/or science teachers

Strong: Program designed to address specific needs of Noyce Scholars, in particular the high-need school setting

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

Review Criteria: Phase I Scholarship Proposals• Feasibility and 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 and project goals

Weak: No objective evaluator; evaluation not aligned with project objectives

Review Criteria: Phase I Scholarship 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

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 lack of objective evaluator Does not address Prior Results; Lessons Learned Lacks details

Review Criteria: TF/MTF Proposals• Capacity and ability of institution to effectively conduct

the program

• Number and quality of Fellows that will be served by the program

• Justification for number of Fellows served and amount of stipend and salary supplements

• Quality & feasibility of recruitment and 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 and education faculty are collaborating in developing and implementing a program with curriculum based on the specialized pedagogy needed to enable teachers to effectively teach math and science and 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 and to recruit underrepresented groups

• Quality of the Master’s degree program leading to teacher certification

• Quality of the infrastructure to support pre-service students and new teachers

NSF Master Teaching Fellows only:• Quality of the professional development that will be

provided

Strong TF/MTF Proposals include • Strong partnership with school district

• Matching funds identified

• Clear description of pre-service 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 pre-service programs

• Attention to content and pedagogy

• Detailed evaluation plans

Weak TF/MTF Proposals may show• Insufficient detail for pre-service and induction programs for

Teaching Fellows and professional development program for Master Teaching Fellows

• Vague recruitment plans

• Selection plans not according to 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 or lacking independence

In 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

The Process• Proposals may be submitted to FastLane or grants.gov

(Use FastLane for TF/MTF proposals)

• All proposals are peer-reviewed according to standard NSF merit review criteria (Intellectual Merit and Broader Impacts)

• Notification of results within six months of receipt • Reviewers’ comments may be accessed through

FastLane after final decision is made

What Makes a Proposal Competitive?• Original ideas• Succinct, focused project plan• Realistic amount of work• Provision of sufficient detail• Cost effectiveness• High impact• Knowledge and experience of PIs• Contributions 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 and

Award Policies and Procedures Guide (NSF 14-1)• Test drive FastLane• Alert your institution’s Sponsored Research Office• Follow limits on page margins and font size• Be aware of other projects and advances in the field• Cite the literature as appropriate• 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 (keeping in mind that they will be different people)

• Have others read the proposal

• Spell check; grammar check; attend to details

• Meet deadlines

• Follow NSF requirements for proposals involving Human Subjects

• Call or email NSF Program Officers as needed

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•Fail to include complete Project Summary (3

text boxes: Overview, Intellectual Merit and Broader Impacts statements)

Return Without Review

•Submitted after deadline

•Fails to follow formatting (e. g. page limitation, font size, and margin limits) requirements

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 or fill out the online form at https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/NSF_DUE_Reviewer_Info

For more information:

www.nsf.gov(go to Division of Undergraduate Education)

www.nsfnoyce.org

Or contact us: Joan Prival

jprival@nsf.gov

Nicole Bennettnbennett@nsf.gov

Gregory Goinsggoins@nsf.gov