1. Proposal Writing Workshop Features of Effective Proposals

2.  Use a sample proposal to launch discussion of ways to put together an effective Noyce Scholarship Phase 1 poposal  Highlight general tips for NSF proposal writing

4. Goal is to recruit STEM majors and career changers who might not otherwise have considered a career in K-12 teaching  Scholarships for undergraduate STEM majors preparing to become K-12 teachers  Internships for freshman and sophomores  Stipends for STEM professionals seeking to become K-12 teachers

5.  Results from prior NSF support  Proposed scholarship program  Description of teacher preparation 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

6.  Is there sufficient information about the numbers, size of scholarship/stipend, and activities to convince you that this would be a strong scholarship program?  In what ways has the PI most effectively documented the quality of the teacher preparation program?  Is the proposed program likely to enable scholarship recipients to become successful teachers?

7.  What aspects of the recruitment plan do you think are the most likely to be effective? (and why?)  Will this plan be effective in recruiting STEM majors who might not otherwise consider a career in teaching?  Will this selection process effectively identify the ‘best’ candidates for the scholarships?

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

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

10.  Four features, one per table  Management & administration  Collaboration & partnerships  Evidence of institutional commitment  Monitoring & enforcing compliance  In your Jigsaw Groups  Discuss the questions  Decide on main points to report to group All Tables: Results from prior NSF support

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

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

13.  Individuals 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 from non- lead partners (consult the solicitation for which letters are required, and which are optional)

14.  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?

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

16.  Does the proposal adequately address prior support?

18.  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

19.  Capacity and ability of institution to effectively conduct the program  Number and quality of students that will be served by the program  Justification for number of students and amount of stipend & scholarship support  Quality and feasibility of recruitment & marketing strategies Strong: Provides data to justify need and realistic expectations; indicates number of participants Weak: Projections not supported by data

20.  Ability of the program to recruit STEM majors who would not otherwise pursue a teaching career Strong: Indicates they will recruit beyond those who are already in the program Weak: Not expanding beyond current pool

21.  Quality of the preservice educational program Strong:  Provides details about program  Provides evidence that graduates are successful  Research based Weak: Little information provided

22.  Extent to which STEM & education faculty are collaborating in developing & implementing the program Strong: Good representation of STEM and education faculty; defined roles in management plan; shared responsibility Weak: No evidence of collaboration (“in name only”)

23.  Quality of the preservice student support and new teacher support infrastructure ◦ Strong: A clear plan for supporting students and new teachers to ensure success; strong partnership with school district ◦ Weak: No support beyond the financial support

24.  Extent to which the proposed strategies reflect effective practices based on research ◦ Strong: based on literature; research findings ◦ Weak: no references or not clear how the project is based on research

25.  Degree to which the proposed programming will enable scholarship or stipend recipients to become successful mathematics & science teachers ◦ Strong: Program designed to address specific needs of Noyce Scholars ◦ Weak: Program does not appear to be designed to support needs of Noyce Scholars

26.  Feasibility & completeness of an evaluation plan that will measure the effectiveness of the proposed strategies ◦ Strong: an independent evaluator; clear objectives and measures; describes data collection and analysis aligned with evaluation questions ◦ Weak: No objective evaluator; evaluation not aligned with project objectives

27.  Institutional support for the program and the extent to which the institution is committed to making the program a central organizational focus ◦ Strong: Evidence of support from departments and administrators; likely to be sustained; integrated with other STEM initiatives ◦ Weak: Lack of supporting letters from Administrators; little involvement beyond the PI

28.  Proposal does not follow guidelines for Noyce Program ◦ Students must complete STEM major (not change to Science education or Math Education major) ◦ Little information about teacher preparation program ◦ Unrealistic projections ◦ Recruitment and selection strategies not well described ◦ Lack of support for new teachers ◦ Lack of involvement of STEM faculty (or education faculty) ◦ Lacks plans for monitoring compliance with teaching requirement ◦ Weak evaluation or lacks objective evaluator ◦ Does not address Prior Results or Lessons Learned ◦ Lacks details

29.  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

30.  Extent to which the proposed strategies reflect effective practices based on research  Degree to which the proposed programming will enable the participants to become successful mathematics and science teachers or Master Teachers  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.

31.  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

32. 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

33.  Strong partnership with school district  Matching funds identified  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  Attention to content and pedagogy  Detailed evaluation plans

34.  Insufficient details for preservice and induction program for Teaching Fellows and professional development program for Master Teaching Fellows  Vague recruitment plans  Selection plans do not follow 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

35.  Original ideas  Succinct, focused project plan  Realistic amount of work  Sufficient detail provided  Cost effective  High impact  Knowledge and experience of PIs  Contribution to the field  Rationale and evidence of potential effectiveness  Likelihood the project will be sustained  Solid evaluation plan

36.  Consult the program solicitation and NSF Proposal & Award Policies & Procedures Guide (NSF 11-1)  Test drive FastLane  Alert the Sponsored Research Office  Follow page and font size limits  Be aware of other projects and advances in the field  Cite the literature  Provide details  Discuss prior results  Include evaluation plan with timelines and benchmarks

37.  Put yourself in the reviewers’ place  Consider reviewers’ comments if resubmitting proposal  Have someone else read the proposal  Spell check; grammar check  Meet deadlines  Follow NSF requirements for proposals involving Human Subjects  Call or email NSF Program Officers

38.  Submitted after deadline  Fail to separately and explicitly address intellectual merit and broader impacts in the Project Summary  Fail to follow formatting (e. g. page limitation, font size, and margin limits) requirements FastLane will not accept if:  Fail to describe mentoring activities for postdoctoral researchers if any included in proposed budget  Fail to include data management plan

40. Contact us: Joan Prival jprival@nsf.gov Richard Alo ralo@nsf.gov Mary Lee Ledbetter msledbet@nsf.gov  Other resources: linneaf@austincc.edu www.nsf.gov www.nsfnoyce.org