1. Proposal Writing Workshop Features of Effective Proposals: Fellowship Track Washington, DC January 9, 2014

2.  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)

3.  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

4.  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

5.  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

6.  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

7.  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

8. 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

9.  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?

10.  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?

11.  Will the planned induction support adequately meet the needs of new teachers?

12.  Will this plan provide useful information about important program outcomes?

13.  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

14.  What aspects of the administration and management plan did the most to convince you that the project will be well run?

15.  Has the PI persuaded you that the collaboration and partnerships are well- functioning?

16.  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

17.  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?

18.  Consider the monitoring and enforcing compliance strategies outlined in the proposal  Are these plans likely to be effective?

19.  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?

20.  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?

21.  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

22.  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

24.  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?

25.  Does the proposal adequately address prior support?

26.  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?