Proposal Writing Workshop
Features of Effective Proposals:
Scholarship Track
Washington, DC
January 9, 2014

Use two “sample” proposals to discuss
ways to put together effective proposals
◦ Capacity building (1240007) and
◦ Full scholarship (1240064).

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
Number and quality of students in program
Justification for number & amount of stipend
Ability of the program to recruit STEM majors not
otherwise pursuing a teaching career
Quality of recruitment & marketing strategies
Quality of the preservice educational program
Extent of collaboration between STEM & Ed faculty
Quality of student and new teacher support structure
Extent to which proposal is based on evidencebased pedagogies
Feasibility & completeness of an evaluation plan



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 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 will
function?





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?
Is the institution committed to sustain some
aspects of the supported effort?

Consider the monitoring/enforcing
compliance strategies presented in the
proposal. Are these plans likely to be
effective?



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?



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.




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?

Does the proposal adequately address prior
support?

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?