Proposal Writing Workshop
Features of Effective Proposals:
Fellowship Track
Washington, DC
January 9, 2014

Use 2 sample proposals to discuss ways
to put together effective proposals for:
 NSF Teaching Fellowship/Master Teaching
Fellowship proposal (1339601)
 Capacity Building Proposal (1240009)
 Active
“Working” Workshop
Small and large group interactive discussions
(Read )Think  Share  Report  Learn (TSRL)

Consider two types of Noyce proposals (Full
and Capacity Building)
 Focus
on guidelines for Project Description
provided in program solicitation










Results from prior NSF support
Proposed Fellowship program:
◦ Description of teacher preparation and/or
master teacher development 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



Extent to which the proposed strategies reflect
effective practices based on research
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.
Degree to which the proposed programming will
enable the participants to become successful
mathematics and science teachers or Master
Teachers




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




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



Is there sufficient information about the activities to
convince you that this would be a strong project?
In what ways has the PI most effectively documented
the quality of the teacher preparation and
professional development program?
Is the proposed project likely to enable the
Fellowship recipients to become successful teachers
or Master Teachers?




What aspects of the recruitment plan do you think
are the most likely to be effective? (and why?)
For TF: Will this plan be effective in recruiting STEM
professionals who might not otherwise consider a
career in teaching?
For MTF: Will this plan be effective in recruiting
teachers who have the potential to become master
teachers?
Will the selection process effectively identify the
‘best’ candidates for the fellowships?

Will the planned induction support adequately
meet the needs of new teachers?

Will this 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
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 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


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 outlined 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 the descriptions of intellectual merit
and broader impact criteria, as well as
additional review criteria for the TF/MTF track
proposals that align with them (see
solicitation), and consider how the sample
proposal addresses these criteria.
What could you say about intellectual merit
and broader impact for the program for which
you are seeking funding?

Strong partnership with school district

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 programs

Attention to content and pedagogy

Detailed evaluation plans

Matching funds identified

Insufficient detail for preservice and induction programs for
Teaching Fellows and professional development program for
Master Teaching Fellows

Vague recruitment plans

Selection plans not according to 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 or lacking independence




Is there sufficient information about the proposed
activities to convince you that this would lead to a welldesigned project 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 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?