Proposal Writing Workshop Features of Effective Proposals

 Use sample proposal to discuss ways to put together effective proposals for ◦ Noyce Scholarship Phase 1 proposal ◦ Capacity-building  Highlight general tips for NSF proposal writing

 Active “Working” Workshop  Small and large group interactive discussions  (Read )  Think  Share  Report  Learn (TSRL)  Consider two types of Scholarship proposal (Full and Capacity-building)  Focus on guidelines for Project Description provided in program solicitation

Fellowships for STEM professionals receiving teacher certification through a one-year master’s degree program with teacher certification (Teaching Fellows) Fellowships for science and math teachers preparing to become Master Teachers (Master Teaching Fellows)

 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

 NSF Merit Review Criteria  Intellectual Merit  Broader Impacts  Additional Considerations  Integration of Research & Education  Integrating Diversity into NSF Programs  Additional Noyce Program specific review criteria, dependent on proposal type

 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

 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

 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 program?  In what ways has the PI most effectively documented the quality of the teacher preparation and professional development program?  Is the proposed program 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  Read the proposal (15 minutes)  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?

 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?

To establish the infrastructure and partnerships for implementing a future Noyce Teacher Scholarship or NSF Teaching Fellowship project Develop new teacher preparation programs for STEM majors and STEM professionals Develop new programs for STEM Master Teachers

 Clarity of proposed plans and activities that will lead to a well-designed program consistent with the requirements of the Noyce Scholarship Program.  Clear statement of objectives to be completed and expected outcomes of the project.  Evaluation plans that will measure stated objectives and outcomes.

 Results from prior NSF support  Description of the activities planned, timeline, and outcomes expected to result from the proposal  Plans for evaluating progress and outcomes of the project

 Is there sufficient information about the proposed activities to convince you that this would lead to a well- designed program 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?

 What aspects of this capacity building proposal convinced you this was the appropriate category for this proposal?