- Year 2024
- NSF Noyce Award # N/A
- First Name Molly
- Last Name Matthews-Ewald
- Registration Faculty/Administrator/Other
- Discipline Other:External Evaluator
- Role Other: External Evaluator
- Presenters
Molly Matthews-Ewald
Need
Dr. Jennifer Ellis asked WhitworthKee Consulting (WKC) to submit a poster to inform the community about the Noyce program evaluation.
Research Questions
The following evaluation and sub-questions guide the evaluation we will discuss during our presentation. What does the STEM teacher preparation field perceive could be funded by the Robert Noyce Teacher Scholarship program? 1a. Which specific areas of the STEM field do stakeholders believe should be emphasized overall? 1b. What are the facilitators that impact how likely it is that applying for Noyce Program funding is considered? 1c. How accessible is the Robert Noyce Teacher Scholarship Program? Are there possible barriers that impact how likely it is that applying for Noyce Program funding is considered? 1d. Is there something that could be learned and applied to other programs? What are the perceptions from the field/stakeholders regarding the Noyce Award, Noyce recipients, and the impact of the award? 2a. What are the perceptions from the field/stakeholders regarding the Noyce Award overall? 2b. What are the perceptions from the field/stakeholders regarding the Noyce recipients? 2c. What are the perceptions from the field/stakeholders regarding the Noyce project participants alumni? 2d. What are the perceptions from the field/stakeholders regarding the impact of the award (i.e., after implementation)? What are the perceived gaps in the Noyce Program’s reach and impact? How have substantial changes to the solicitation over the past 10 years impacted the perception of the program by the field? 3a. In what ways has the recruitment and application process changed? 3b. In what ways did these changes impact the likelihood of representatives from eligible institutions applying for Noyce funding? How does this vary by (a) Track and (b) institution type, if at all? 3c. What are potential barriers to applying to the solicitations? Do these barriers vary by institution characteristics (e.g., Region, size, public, private, HBCU, [Historically Black Colleges and Universities] MSI [Minority Serving Institution])? By individual characteristics? By Track? If so, in what ways? 3d. What are the reasons why institutions apply for a Noyce award? Do these vary by institution type? By individual characteristics? If so, in what ways? 4. How does the merit review process of Noyce impact outcomes of funded projects?4a. What has been communicated to applicants about the merit review process? 4b. What are applicants’ perceptions of the feedback received during the negotiation process? How, if at all, did this impact their final project? 5. What are the lessons learned? Growth opportunities?
Approach
The WKC Evaluation Team selected two theoretical frameworks to formulate a conceptual framework to guide the evaluation: The Theory of Acceptability (Sekhon et al., 2017) and the Socioecological model (CDC, 2022). The framework undergirding this evaluation also includes the impact of NSF policies and practices, and larger societal policies and practices related to equity. The focus area of the framework is on PIs or potential PIs¾that is, those faculty from eligible, non-Noyce awarded institutions. This includes constructs such as affective attitude and burden (from the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability), which were modified to align with the Noyce Program. Similar to the Socioecological Model, in addition to an individual’s perspectives/perceptions, other external forces (e.g., institution, etc.) will have an impact on an individual’s perceptions of the Noyce Program overall and the decision to apply for a Noyce award. Likewise, NSF policies and practices along with equitable policies, procedures, and processes are depicted, understanding that these, too, can either facilitate or hinder the decision to apply for a Noyce award. The final part of the theoretical framework centers collaboration. Relationships and collaboration unique to each Noyce award which can vary greatly and are essential to the application process and the execution of the program. In addition to showing collaboration, there is a feedback loop to K-12 schools as Noyce teachers are integrated back into the STEM teacher workforce
Outcomes
To support the NSF’s ongoing efforts, WhitworthKee will evaluate components of the Noyce Program to (a) understand overall perceptions of the Program from both Noyce and non-Noyce recipients, and (b) identify what is working well and opportunities for growth. This information will help support the overall goal of increasing the number and diversity of qualified teachers within the STEM education field. Further, the need is grounded in the importance and value of producing a diverse pool of STEM professionals who choose to pursue a career as a K-12 STEM teacher in a high-need school/school district. Upon additional conversations with the NSF, an emphasis was placed on the need for the NSF to understand reasons for¾or not¾applying for Noyce grants. Due to this context, the primary focus of the current evaluation is on the individuals who are/may be involved in the Noyce Program application process, such as (potential) Principal Investigators (PIs). Upon additional conversations with the NSF, an emphasis was placed on the need for the NSF to understand reasons for or not applying for Noyce grants. Due to this context, the primary focus of the current evaluation is on the individuals who are/may be involved in the Noyce Program application process, such as (potential) Principal Investigators (PIs).
Broader Impacts
This evaluation will facilitate the exploration of the Noyce Program’s within the larger STEM field, uncover commonalities and nuances across tracks and potential impacts of characteristics on experiences, and provide an understanding of how applicants perceive the merit review process. This information will provide NSF with support for understanding what is working well and identify opportunities for growth.
