Math and Science Partnership (MSP) Program Innovation through Institutional Integration (I 3 )

1. Math and Science Partnership (MSP) Program Innovation through Institutional Integration (I3) Kathleen Bergin Program Director Division of Undergraduate Education Directorate for Education and Human Resources

2. Math and Science Partnership (MSP) Program

3. Math & Science Partnership Program • Supports Innovative Partnerships between Higher Education and K-12 schools • Seeks to improve student mathematics and science achievement for all students • Is a research and development effort • Contributes to the knowledge of math and science learning

4. Goals of NSF MSP • Ensure that all students have access to, are prepared for and are encouraged to participate and succeed in challenging and advanced mathematics and science courses • Enhance the quality, quantity and diversity of the K-12 mathematics and science teacher workforce • Develop evidence-based outcomes that contribute to our understanding of how students effectively learn mathematics and science

5. Partnerships: Targeted Institute MSP-Start Phase II Research, Evaluation and Technical Assistance (RETA) MSP Solicitation (NSF 09-507)

6. Common Partnership Requirements • Lead Partner must be an institution of higher education • The PI must be a faculty member in a mathematics, science or engineering department in higher education • One or more co-PIs must be from K-12 • Should strongly incorporate the STEM Education literature • Other partners may be involved • All are encouraged to include Community Colleges and minority serving institutions

7. MSP awards competitive, merit-based grants to teams of institutions of higher education, K-12 school systems and supporting partners.

8. Core partners: • Share responsibility and accountability for the MSP project • Are required to provide evidence of commitment to institutional change necessary for partnership sustainability Supporting partners: • Important contributors • Not required to commit to institutional change

9. NSF MSP Key Features • Partnership-driven, with significant engagement of mathematics, the sciences and engineering faculty • Teacher quality, quantity and diversity • Challenging courses and curricula • Evidence-based design and outcomes • Institutional change and sustainability

10. Have clear research question(s) Have an appropriate research design Contribute evidenced-based findings to the knowledge base about K-16 teaching and learning Include a comprehensive evaluation plan, to be conducted by an independent external evaluator Common Partnership Features

11. Develop master/lead teachers through multi-year programs of coherent study in a discipline and including a strong leadership component Contribute evidenced-based findings to the knowledge base about teacher leadership and its impact on student learning Institute Partnerships

12. NSF seeks to diversify the types of institutions engaged in the national MSP effort Minority-serving institutions (Tribal Colleges, Historically Black Colleges and Universities, Hispanic Serving Institutions), community colleges and primarily undergraduate institutions are encouraged to apply MSP-Start Partnerships

13. Research, Evaluation and Technical Assistance (RETA) RETA directly supports the work of the Partnerships through: • Research on teacher leadership and the factors that contribute to its development • Development of tools to assess teacher knowledge in math and science, particular for grades 9 - 12 • Longitudinal studies of teachers and students who participate in MSP • Work of national disciplinary or professional societies

14. Focus on improving student achievement Choose a grade range, critical juncture, or a specific discipline where analysis indicates effort would result in great improvement Involve teachers in multi-year, content and pedagogical learning experiences Define goals and benchmarks for all students Articulate institutional changes for all core partners Targeted Partnerships

15. MSP Targeted Partnerships • Proposal Deadline: August 20, 2009, 5:00 P.M. Proposer’s local time • Submitted via Fastlane

16. Resources: NSF MSP Web Page* • The announcement (NSF 09-507) • NSF’s MSP at a Glance • Evidence: an Essential Tool • NSF MSP Impact Report • Go to NSF.gov; from pull down menu select Education, select Undergraduate Education and then MSP

17. Other MSP Resources • MSPnet.org: A comprehensive site with information about MSP, awardees, related articles etc. • Horizon-research.com: Findings from a Knowledge and dissemination project on MSP

18. REVIEW CRITERIA

19. Review Criteria • NSF Merit Review Criteria: • Intellectual Merit • Broader Impacts • Additional Considerations: • Integration of Research and Education • Integrating Diversity into NSF Programs

20. Intellectual Merit • How important is the proposed activity to advancing knowledge and understanding within its own field or across different fields? • How well qualified is the proposer (individual or team) to conduct the project? (If appropriate, the reviewer will comment on the quality of prior work.) • To what extent does the proposed activity suggest and explore creative, original, or potentially transformative concepts? • How well conceived and organized is the proposed activity? • Is there sufficient access to resources?

21. Broader Impacts • How well does the activity advance discovery and understanding while promoting teaching, training, and learning? • How well does the proposed activity broaden the participation of underrepresented groups (e.g., gender, ethnicity, disability, geographic, etc.)? • To what extent will it enhance the infrastructure for research and education, such as facilities, instrumentation, networks, and partnerships? • Will the results be disseminated broadly to enhance scientific and technological understanding? • What may be the benefits of the proposed activity to society?

22. Additional Review Criteria for Partnership Proposals • How well does the proposal address the MSP Key Features? • Is the proposed work strategic and innovative, and informed by the current research literature on teaching and learning?

23. Additional Review Criteria for Partnership Proposals • Is the evaluation plan comprehensive, including formative and summative components, conducted by objective experts external to the project? • Does the proposal present the research question(s) to be studied and show how the design of the project of the project will allow claims that the activities conducted by the Partnership contribute to the measured outcomes?

24. STRENGTHS&WEAKNESSES

25. What Makes a Proposal Competitive? • Original ideas that go beyond the commonplace • Succinct, focused project plan • Realistic amount of work • Sufficient detail provided • Strength of the Partnership team • Solid evaluation plan • Rationale and evidence of potential effectiveness • Potential contribution to knowledge • Likelihood of sustainability

26. NSF MSP Key Features • Partnership-driven, with significant engagement of mathematics, the sciences and engineering faculty • Teacher quality, quantity and diversity • Challenging courses and curricula • Evidence-based design and outcomes • Institutional change and sustainability

27. Partnership-Driven Unsuccessful Targeted Partnership proposals did not… • present sufficient evidence of a project including the five MSP key features and designed by a credible partnership between higher education and K-12. • sufficiently describe the proposed contributions and the degree to which disciplinary faculty, from departments of mathematics, the sciences and/or engineering would be engaged in the programmatic work of the Partnership, • document sufficient commitments or present recruitment strategies to demonstrate that the Partnership had a cadre of disciplinary faculty adequate to support the proposed work. • address a requirement of the solicitation to specifically identify members of the Partnership Leadership Team and the scientists, mathematicians and/or engineers to be engaged in the work of the project.

28. Teacher Quality, Quantity & Diversity Unsuccessful Targeted Partnership proposals did not… • provide persuasive approaches related to the recruitment and retention of a qualified and diverse teacher workforce. • sufficiently describe the professional development and pre-service curricula to inspire confidence that they would lead to enhanced quality (i.e., with depth of content and pedagogical proficiency) of the instructional workforce. • provide evidence of commitments and incentives to ensure the participation and engagement of teachers in experiences of sufficient depth and duration to instill the mathematical and scientific competence and confidence needed to engage all students in challenging curricula. • use relevant teacher workforce data to support or motivate project goals.

29. Challenging Courses & Curricula Unsuccessful Targeted Partnership proposals did not… • adequately describe the current availability of and status of participation in challenging curricula and advanced courses needed to serve all students well and increase their levels of achievement in mathematics and the sciences. • present sufficient detail describing the curricular/course improvements expected from the Partnership effort, • with linkages to quantitative outcomes to show increased participation and success in challenging curricula and advanced coursework… • by all students -- those traditionally underserved, as well as those with demonstrated talent in mathematics and the sciences.

30. Evidence-based Design & Outcomes Unsuccessful Targeted Partnership proposals did not… • articulate project designs that could reasonably be expected to yield evidence-based contributions to the learning and teaching knowledge base. • adequately describe the research base which would serve as the foundation for the project design. • in cases where there was relevant prior work, sufficiently describe the lessons learned from that work and how those lessons are incorporated in the current plan.

31. Evidence-based Design & Outcomes Unsuccessful Targeted Partnership proposals did not… • offer sufficiently ambitious -- yet reasonable -- quantitative outcomes / annual benchmarks that, when compared with baseline data, would be expected to demonstrate • improved student achievement, • progress in closing the achievement gap, • increased numbers of students participating and succeeding in challenging curricula and/or advanced courses, • increased numbers of pre-service students, • enhanced quality of the instructional workforce, • increased diversity in the teaching force, and • impacts on the practices of the higher education faculty engaged in the project.

32. Project Evaluation Unsuccessful Targeted Partnership proposals did not… • articulate strong evaluation plans to document and measure ALL critical aspects of the proposed project. • sufficiently describe how teacher quality -- especially growth in teachers' content knowledge and classroom practice -- would be assessed. • describe strategies for assessing annual progress in institutional change for BOTH higher education and K-12 within the Partnership. • indicate the kinds of data that the Partnership would need to collect to inform mid-course correction and/or modification, and the plans for the use of these data in formative evaluation.

33. Innovation & Creativity Unsuccessful Targeted Partnership proposals did not… • articulate innovative approaches of sufficient degree beyond the commonplace to effect student achievement through one or more key features of the MSP.

34. Tips for Success • Read the program solicitation and GPG • Test drive FastLane • Alert the Sponsored Research Office • Follow page and font size limits • Discuss other projects, advances in the field and related literature • Provide details • Discuss relevant priorresults from work funded by NSF • Have a strong evaluation plan with timelines and benchmarks

35. Tips for Success • Put yourself in the reviewers’ place • 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

36. Return Without Review • Submitted after deadline • Failure in separately and explicitly addressingintellectual merit and broader impactsin the Project Summary • Failure in following formatting(e. g. page limitation, font size and margin limits) requirements • Failure to include mentoring component for postdoctoral fellows if they are part of project • Failure to respond to solicitation requirements (e.g., PI and institutional eligibility)

37. Innovation through Institutional Integration (I3)

38. Innovation through Institutional Integration • Challenges faculty, administrators, and others in institutions of higher education to think strategically about the creative integration of NSF-funded awards towards a whole that exceeds the sum of its parts.

39. GLOBALLY ENGAGED WORKFORCE CRITICALEDUCATIONAL JUNCTURES BROADENINGPARTICIPATION Cyber-enabled International RESEARCH & EVALUATION INTEGRATIONOF RESEARCH& EDUCATION

40. Keys to Innovation CREATIVITY CONNECTIVITY INTEGRATION SYNERGY

41. Goals of I3 • Increase synergy and collaboration across NSF-funded projects and within/between institutions • Expand and deepen impact, and enhance sustainability • Broaden participation, attend to transitions across critical educational junctures, and/or provide for more globally engaged workforce • Promote innovative programming, policies and practices to encourage integration of STEM research and education • Encourage research on intra- or inter-institutional integration & broader impacts

42. Innovation through Institutional Integration • Proposals are expected to incorporate a depth and quality of creative, coherent, and strategic actions that extend beyond commonplace approaches to normal institutional operations.

43. I3 Proposals • Proposed projects can have a focus that is: • Intra-institutional • Inter-institutional • Proposed projects may be: • Implementation only • Research only • A blend of the two

44. Cross-Divisional Effort In EHR For 2009, proposals are solicited in nine programs: • Centers of Research Excellence in Science and Technology (CREST) • Research on Gender in Science and Engineering (GSE) • Historically Black Colleges and Universities Undergraduate Program (HBCU-UP) • Alliances for Broadening Participation in STEM: Louis Stokes Alliances for Minority Participation (LSAMP) • Math and Science Partnerships (MSP) • Innovative Technology Experiences for Students and Teachers (ITEST) • Robert Noyce Teacher Scholarship Program (NOYCE) • Research in Disabilities Education (RDE) • Tribal Colleges and Universities Program (TCUP)

45. Eligibility And Limit On Number Of Proposals • I3 is limited to institutions of higher education (including two – and four- year colleges) accredited in, or having a campus located in the US, unless the proposal is exclusively for I3 STEM educational or related research. • If the proposal is exclusively for research, then all categories of proposers identified in the NSF Grant Proposal Guide are eligible. • Principal Investigator must be the University Provost or equivalent chief academic officer, unless the proposal is exclusively for I3 STEM educational or related research.

46. Eligibility And Limit On Number Of Proposals • Only one proposal from an institution may be submitted for each deadline. All proposals, without regard to which program submitted, will be reviewed in competition with one another. • No more than one award will be made to an institution.

47. Proposals For Implementation Expected To Articulate • Project’s vision, goals, and anticipated outcomes • Plan for achieving them, based on relevant literature • Results from prior, relevant NSF investments, especially those projects on which proposed institutional integration is based • Management/governance plan and timeline • Evaluation plan to assess progress and success in meeting project goals and objectives

48. Proposals For Research Expected To Provide • Brief review of literature that informs proposed research • Discussion of methodology and its alignment with strategic research questions • Clear articulation of logic among research question, method, analysis, inference, and evidence

49. Project Evaluation Information about the project evaluation component of the proposal can be found in the solicitation: • Section V: PROPOSAL PREPARATION AND SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS • A. Proposal Preparation Instructions

50. Special Review Criteria • Extent to which project addresses goals for institutional integration and adds value to existing awards • Demonstrated track record of success with existing NSF awards as base for project • Degree of innovation • Extent to which project addresses programming, policies, and practices that sustain institutional changes needed for ongoing synergy