1. Proposal Writing Workshop Features of Effective Proposals

2.  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

3.  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

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

5.  Results from prior NSF support  Proposed scholarship program  Description - teacher preparation program  Recruitment activities  Selection process  Management / administration  Support for new teachers  Collaboration / partnerships  Monitoring / enforcing compliance  Evidence for institutional commitment  Evaluation plan

6.  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  Ability of the program to recruit STEM majors who would not otherwise pursue a teaching career

7.  Quality and feasibility of recruitment & marketing strategies  Quality of the pre-service educational program  Extent to which STEM & education faculty are collaborating in developing & implementing the program  Quality of the pre-service student support and new teacher support infrastructure

8.  Extent to which the proposed strategies reflect effective practices based on research  Degree to which the proposed programming will enable scholarship or stipend recipients to become successful mathematics & science teachers  Feasibility & completeness of an evaluation plan that will measure the effectiveness of the proposed strategies  Institutional support for the program and the extent to which the institution is committed to making the program a central organizational focus

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

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

11.  Will planned induction support adequately meet the needs of new teachers?  Will plan provide useful information about important program outcomes?

12.  Four features, divided among the tables:  Management & administration  Collaboration & partnerships  Evidence of institutional commitment  Monitoring & enforcing compliance and Results from prior NSF support  In your Jigsaw Groups  Discuss the questions on sheets to be handed out.  Decide on main points to report to group  Report out

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

14.  Is PI persuasive that the collaborations and partnerships are well-functioning?

15.  Individuals from all participating institutions have clear roles and structures for communication  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)

16.  Consider information provided about institutional commitment.  What other evidence could a PI use to demonstrate that the sponsoring institution is committed to making the program a central institutional focus?

17. Monitoring & Enforcing Compliance  Consider the monitoring/enforcing compliance strategies presented in the proposal. Are these plans likely to be effective? Results from Prior NSF Support  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?  Is the institution committed to sustain some aspects of the supported effort?

18.  Consider descriptions of criteria for intellectual merit / broader impact and additional review criteria for the Noyce Phase 1 Proposals  How does the proposal address these criteria?  For the program for which you are seeking funding, describe the intellectual merit and the broader impact.

20. 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

21.  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

22.  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.

23.  Does the proposal adequately address prior support?  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?

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

25.  What does the budget for the full proposal include that is missing from the capacity- building 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?