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
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











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

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

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




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



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?



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?


Will planned induction support adequately
meet the needs of new teachers?
Will plan provide useful information about
important program outcomes?

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

What aspects of the administration and
management plan did the most to convince
you that the project will be well run?

Is PI persuasive that the collaborations and
partnerships are well-functioning?





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)


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?
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?



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.

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



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



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.





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?

What aspects of this capacity building
proposal convinced you this was the
appropriate category for this proposal?



What does the budget for the full proposal
include that is missing from the capacitybuilding 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?