NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION, ADVANCED TECHNOLOGICAL EDUCATION PROGRAM(ATE)

Proposal Panel Review Wrap Up Session: Reviewer Comments

December 2, 2005

Compiled by Gerhard Salinger, Co-Lead Program Officer

At the wrap-up session at the end of the recent panel meeting, the reviewers described some of the creative, innovative and well-written proposals reviewed in their panels. However, they also made critical observations about weaknesses in proposals, given here in their words:

• The proposal builds upon previously funded work that was described briefly; but outcomes of that work were not described and no evidence was presented on its effectiveness.
• The evaluation plan mainly determined that the project did what it said it would do. The evaluation did not follow participants in the workshop to determine how they used what they learned.
• The proposers did not demonstrate awareness of other similar projects. Standards in this area have been developed and they appear to be unaware. Instructional materials and curricula already exist. Similar professional development has been done by . . .
• The proposers are unaware of the literature on recruiting underrepresented groups or about professional development of teachers.
• There were two contrasting proposals. Both were led by four year universities: One brings together collaborators from named two year colleges all over the country. The other said they would work with unnamed community colleges in the area.
• The community college plans to interact with high schools in the area. There are no high school teachers involved in the project. The project is developing instructional materials in biotechnology for high schools and no secondary school personnel are involved.
• The proposal was based upon a local need rather than being innovative and potentially useful in
  other colleges.
• The proposal planned to develop articulation agreements, but provided no details.
• The proposal stated that the project will engage underrepresented minorities; but no specific strategies were mentioned.
• The plan for sustainability of the project after NSF funding was vague and provided no clear
  benchmarks.
• The proposal described a project to increase the use of GIS in various curricula; but none of the PIs had experience with GIS.
• The proposal discussed industry input; but there were no letters of commitment from the area industry. Or all of the letters were from the same template.
• The proposal requests funding from equipment (like computers) that should be part of the operating budget of the college.
• Half of the proposal described the national scene ad the need for the project, leaving little room to describe the project.
• The proposal was filled with undefined acronyms and jargon particular to the field.
• I know that the NSF guidelines state that proposals are to be typed single-spaced using not less
  than 10 point type; but my 55 year old eyes have difficulty reading less than 12 point type.

In contrast:

• The proposal was well-written and flowed well. A compelling case was made for the need; the goals were clearly stated; the work plan was carefully laid out; and the content and pedagogy of the workshop were described. Minorities were to be actively recruited with stated specific strategies. The PIs were experienced in the field.
• The proposal described collaboration with among ATE projects. The proposal described collaboration between a center and a project. The project partnered with government laboratories.