Presentation on theme: "Proposal Writing Workshop Features of Effective Proposals: Fellowship Track Washington, DC January 9, 2014."— Presentation transcript:
Proposal Writing Workshop Features of Effective Proposals: Fellowship Track Washington, DC January 9, 2014
Use 2 sample proposals to discuss ways to put together effective proposals for: NSF Teaching Fellowship/Master Teaching Fellowship proposal (1339601) Capacity Building Proposal (1240009)
Active “Working” Workshop Small and large group interactive discussions (Read ) Think Share Report Learn (TSRL) Consider two types of Noyce proposals (Full and Capacity Building) Focus on guidelines for Project Description provided in program solicitation
Results from prior NSF support Proposed Fellowship program: ◦ Description of teacher preparation and/or master teacher development program Recruitment activities Selection process Management and administration Support for new teachers Collaboration and partnerships Monitoring and enforcing compliance Evidence for institutional commitment Evaluation plan
Extent to which the proposed strategies reflect effective practices based on research Extent to which STEM & education faculty are collaborating in developing & implementing a program with curriculum based on the specialized pedagogy needed to enable teachers to effectively teach math & science & to assume leadership roles in their schools. Degree to which the proposed programming will enable the participants to become successful mathematics and science teachers or Master Teachers
Capacity & ability of institution to effectively conduct the program Number & quality of Fellows that will be served by the program Justification for number of Fellows served & amount of stipend & salary supplements Quality & feasibility of recruitment & marketing strategies
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
NSF Teaching Fellows only: Ability of the program to recruit individuals who would not otherwise pursue a career in teaching & to recruit underrepresented groups Quality of the Master’s degree program leading to teacher certification Quality of the preservice student support and new teacher support infrastructure NSF Master Teaching Fellows only: Quality of the professional development that will be provided
Is there sufficient information about the activities to convince you that this would be a strong project? In what ways has the PI most effectively documented the quality of the teacher preparation and professional development program? Is the proposed project likely to enable the Fellowship recipients to become successful teachers or Master Teachers?
What aspects of the recruitment plan do you think are the most likely to be effective? (and why?) For TF: Will this plan be effective in recruiting STEM professionals who might not otherwise consider a career in teaching? For MTF: Will this plan be effective in recruiting teachers who have the potential to become master teachers? Will the selection process effectively identify the ‘best’ candidates for the fellowships?
Will the planned induction support adequately meet the needs of new teachers?
Will this plan provide useful information about important program outcomes?
Four features, divided among the tables: Management & administration Collaboration & partnerships and evidence of institutional commitment Monitoring & enforcing compliance Results from prior NSF support In your Jigsaw Groups Discuss the questions Decide on main points to report to group Report out
What aspects of the administration and management plan did the most to convince you that the project will be well run?
Has the PI persuaded you that the collaboration and partnerships are well- functioning?
I ndividuals 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
Consider the information about institutional commitment What other lines of evidence could a PI use to demonstrate that the sponsoring institution is committed to making the program a central institutional focus?
Consider the monitoring and enforcing compliance strategies outlined in the proposal Are these plans likely to be effective?
Does the proposal adequately address prior support? Does the new project use infrastructure developed with other support? Do the various projects synergize to amplify the individual impact of each?
Consider the descriptions of intellectual merit and broader impact criteria, as well as additional review criteria for the TF/MTF track proposals that align with them (see solicitation), and consider how the sample proposal addresses these criteria. What could you say about intellectual merit and broader impact for the program for which you are seeking funding?
Strong partnership with school district Clear description of preservice 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 preservice programs Attention to content and pedagogy Detailed evaluation plans Matching funds identified
Insufficient detail for preservice 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
Is there sufficient information about the proposed activities to convince you that this would lead to a well- designed project consistent with the requirements of the Noyce Scholarship program? Are the appropriate players involved? Is there a clear statement of objectives to be completed and expected outcomes of the project? Will the evaluation plans measure the stated objectives and outcomes?
Does the proposal adequately address prior support?
What aspects of this capacity building proposal convinced you this was the appropriate category for this proposal? What differences in emphasis do you see between the two proposals? At what point would you say a team was prepared to submit a full proposal?