1. Proposal Writing Workshop Part II: Features of Effective Proposals

2.  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

3.  “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

5. 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

6.  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

7.  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?

8.  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?

9.  Will planned induction support adequately meet the needs of new teachers?

10.  Will plan provide useful information about important program outcomes?

11.  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)

12.  What aspects of the administration and management plan did the most to convince you that the project will be well run?

13.  Is PI persuasive that the collaboration and partnerships are well-functioning?

14.  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?

15.  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)

16.  Consider the monitoring/enforcing compliance strategies presented in the proposal  Are these plans likely to be effective?

17.  Does the proposal adequately address prior support?

18.  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?