2011 Proposal Writing Workshop Part II: Features of Effective Proposals

Fellowships for STEM professionals receiving teacher certification through a one-year master’s degree program with teacher certification (Teaching Fellows) Fellowships for science and math teachers preparing to become Master Teachers (Master Teaching Fellows)

 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

 Is there sufficient information about the numbers and activities to convince you that this would be a strong program?  In what ways has the PI most effectively documented the quality of the teacher preparation and professional development program?  Is the proposed program likely to enable the Fellowship 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 professionals who might not otherwise consider a career in teaching?  Will this 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, 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

 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 well- functioning?

 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 strategies outlined in the proposal for monitoring and enforcing compliance.  Are these plans likely to be effective?

 Does the proposal adequately address prior support?

 Consider the descriptions of criteria for intellectual merit and broader impact, as well as additional review criteria for the TF/MTF track proposals that align with them (see handout), 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?