2.  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.  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.  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.  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.  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.  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.  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.  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.  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.  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. 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

13.  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.  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.  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. 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 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.  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.  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.  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.  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.  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.  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

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