Proposal Writing Workshop
Part II: Features of Effective
Proposals

Use sample proposal to discuss ways to
put together effective proposals for
◦ Noyce Scholarship Phase 1
◦ Teaching /Master Teaching Fellowships

Highlight general tips for NSF proposal
writing
 “Working”
Workshop
Small and large group interactive discussions
Think  Share  Report  Learn (TSRL)

Breakout by specific track ( Scholarship track
or TF/MTF)
 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



Is there sufficient information about the
numbers, size of scholarship/stipend, and
activities convincing 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, one per table
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 (12:45)

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 collaboration and
partnerships are well-functioning?


Consider institutional commitment info
What other evidence could a PI use to
demonstrate that the sponsoring institution
is committed to making the program a
central institutional focus?





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)


Consider the monitoring/enforcing compliance
strategies presented in the proposal
Are these plans likely to be effective?

Does the proposal adequately address prior
support?



Consider descriptions of intellectual merit/
broader impact criteria and additional review
criteria for the Noyce Phase 1 Proposals that
align with them (see handout)
Consider how the sample proposal addresses
these criteria.
Address intellectual merit/ broader impact for
program for which you are seeking funding?