Robert Noyce Teacher Scholarship Program

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

2. Features of Effective Proposals • 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)

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 Noyce proposals (Full and Capacity Building) • Focus on guidelines for Project Description provided in program solicitation

4. Key Features of the Project Description • 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

5. Review Criteria: TF/MTF Proposals • 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

6. Review Criteria: TF/MTF Proposals • 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

7. Review Criteria: TF/MTF Proposals • 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

8. Review Criteria: TF/MTF Proposals 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

9. Key Features of the Project Description: Description of Proposed Project • 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?

10. Key Features of the Project Description:Recruitment Activities & Selection Process • 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?

11. Key Features of the Project Description:Support for New Teachers • Will the planned induction support adequately meet the needs of new teachers?

12. Key Features of the Project Description:Evaluation Plan • Will this plan provide useful information about important program outcomes?

13. 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 • Discuss the questions • Decide on main points to report to group • Report out

14. 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?

15. Key Features of the Project Description:Collaboration and Partnerships • Has the PI persuaded you that the collaboration and partnerships are well-functioning?

16. In a Strong Partnership • 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

17. Key Features of the Project Description:Evidence for Institutional Commitment • 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?

18. Key Features of the Project Description:Monitoring & Enforcing Compliance • Consider the monitoring and enforcing compliance strategies outlined in the proposal • Are these plans likely to be effective?

19. Key Features of the Project Description:Results from Prior NSF 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?

20. Intellectual Merit and Broader Impact • 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?

21. Strong TF/MTF Proposals include: • 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

22. Weak TF/MTF Proposals may show: • 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

23. Features of Effective Proposals:Capacity Building Proposals

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

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

26. Capacity Building or Full Implementation Proposal? • 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?