Robert Noyce Teacher Scholarship Program

1. Robert Noyce Teacher Scholarship Program Proposal Writing Workshop Features of Effective Proposals: Scholarship Track Washington, DC January 9, 2014

2. Features of Effective Proposals • Use two “sample” proposals to discuss ways to put together effective proposals • Capacity building (1240007) and • Full scholarship (1240064). • Highlight general tips for NSF proposal writing

3. Format for Discussion of Sample Proposals • Active “Working” Workshop • Small and large group interactive discussions • (Read )Think  Share  Report  Learn (TSRL) • Consider two types of Scholarship proposal (Full and Capacity-building) • Focus on guidelines for Project Description provided in program solicitation

4. Brief Review-Phase 1 Scholarship Track 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

5. Key Features of the Project Description • 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

6. Review Criteria: Phase I Scholarship Proposals (briefly) • Capacity and ability of institution • Number and quality of students in program • Justification for number & amount of stipend • Ability of the program to recruit STEM majors not otherwise pursuing a teaching career • Quality of recruitment & marketing strategies • Quality of the preservice educational program • Extent of collaboration between STEM & Ed faculty • Quality of student and new teacher support structure • Extent to which proposal is based on evidence-based pedagogies • Feasibility & completeness of an evaluation plan

7. Key Features:- Proposed Scholarship/ Stipend Program- Teacher Preparation Program • Is sufficient information providedabout the numbers, size of scholarship/stipend, and activities to convince you that 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. Key Features:Recruitment Activities & Selection Process • 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. Key Features:Support for New Teachers & Evaluation Plan • Will planned induction support adequately meet the needs of new teachers? • Will plan provide useful information about important program outcomes?

10. Jigsaw Activity • 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 • Read the proposal (15 minutes) • Discuss the questions • Decide on main points to report to group • Report out!

11. Key Features of the Project Description:Management & Administration • What aspects of the administration and management plan did the most to convince you that the project will be well run?

12. Key Features of the Project Description:Collaboration and Partnerships and evidence of institutional commitment • Has the PI persuaded you that the collaboration and partnerships will function?

13. How to Demonstrate a Strong Partnership • Individuals from all participating institutions have clear roles and structures for communication • 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)

14. Key Features:Evidence for Institutional Commitment • Consider information provided about institutional commitment. • What other evidence could a PI use to demonstrate that the sponsoring institution is committed to making the program a central institutional focus? • Is the institution committed to sustain some aspects of the supported effort?

15. Monitoring and Enforcing Compliance • Consider the monitoring/enforcingcompliance strategies presented in the proposal. Are these plans likely to be effective?

16. Results from Prior Support • 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?

17. Intellectual Merit & Broader Impact • Consider descriptions of criteria for intellectual merit / broader impact and additional review criteria for the Noyce Phase 1 Proposals • How does the proposal address these criteria? • For the program for which you are seeking funding, describe the intellectual merit and the broader impact.

18. Features of Effective Proposals:Capacity Building Proposals

19. Brief Review of the Capacity Building Track • To establish the infrastructure and partnerships for implementing a future Noyce Teacher Scholarship or NSF Teaching Fellowship project • Develop new teacher preparation programs for STEM majors and STEM professionals • Develop new programs for STEM Master Teachers

20. Key Features of the Project Description • Results from prior NSF support • Description of the activities planned, timeline, and outcomes expected to result from the proposal • Plans for evaluating progress and outcomes of the project

21. Review Criteria: Capacity Building Proposals • Clarity of proposed plans and activities that will lead to a well-designed program consistent with the requirements of the Noyce Scholarship Program. • Clear statement of objectives to be completed and expected outcomes of the project. • Evaluation plans that will measure stated objectives and outcomes.

22. Key Features of the Project Description: • Is there sufficient information about the proposed activities to convince you that this would lead to a well-designed program 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?

23. Key Features of the Project Description:Results from Prior NSF Support • Does the proposal adequately address prior support?

24. Capacity Building or Full Implementation Proposal? • What aspects of this capacity building proposal convinced you this was the appropriate category for this proposal?

25. Compare the two types of proposals • What does the budget for the full proposal include that is missing from the capacity-building 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?