Proposal Writing Workshop
Features of Effective Proposals


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
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











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



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?



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?

Will the planned induction support adequately
meet the needs of new teachers?

Will this plan provide useful information
about important program outcomes?

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

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 are wellfunctioning?





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 nonlead partners (consult the solicitation for which
letters are required, and which are optional)


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?


Consider the monitoring and enforcing
compliance strategies presented in the
proposal
Are these plans likely to be effective?

Does the proposal adequately address prior
support?

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




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

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

Quality of the preservice educational program
Strong:
 Provides details about program
 Provides evidence that graduates are
successful
 Research based
Weak: Little information provided

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”)

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

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

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

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

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

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




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



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.




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
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







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








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











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









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







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



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
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