Proposal Writing Workshop Features of Effective Proposals.
-
Upload
reginald-barrett -
Category
Documents
-
view
225 -
download
4
Transcript of Proposal Writing Workshop Features of Effective Proposals.
Use a sample proposal to launch discussion of ways to put together an effective Noyce Scholarship Phase 1 poposal
Highlight general tips for NSF proposal writing
Features of Effective Proposals
Goal is to recruit STEM majors and career changers who might not otherwise have considered a career in K-12 teaching Scholarships for undergraduate STEM
majors preparing to become K-12 teachers
Internships for freshman and sophomores Stipends for STEM professionals seeking
to become K-12 teachers
Brief Review of the Phase 1 Scholarship Track
Results from prior NSF support Proposed scholarship program Description of teacher preparation
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
Key Features of the Project Description
Is there sufficient information about the numbers, size of scholarship/stipend, and activities to convince you that this would be a strong scholarship program?
In what ways has the PI most effectively documented the quality of the teacher preparation program?
Is the proposed program likely to enable scholarship recipients to become successful teachers?
Key Features of the Project Description: Proposed Scholarship or Stipend Program & Description of Teacher Preparation Program
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 majors who might not otherwise consider a career in teaching?
Will this selection process effectively identify the ‘best’ candidates for the scholarships?
Key Features of the Project Description:Recruitment Activities & Selection Process
Will the planned induction support adequately meet the needs of new teachers?
Key Features of the Project Description:Support for New Teachers
Will this plan provide useful information about important program outcomes?
Key Features of the Project Description:Evaluation Plan
Four features, one per tableManagement & administrationCollaboration & partnerships Evidence of institutional commitmentMonitoring & enforcing compliance
In your Jigsaw GroupsDiscuss the questionsDecide on main points to report to group
All Tables: Results from prior NSF support
Jigsaw Activity
What aspects of the administration and management plan did the most to convince you that the project will be well run?
Key Features of the Project Description:Management & Administration
Has the PI persuaded you that the collaboration and partnerships are well-functioning?
Key Features of the Project Description:Collaboration and Partnerships
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)
How to Demonstrate a Strong Partnership
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?
Key Features of the Project Description:Evidence for Institutional Commitment
Consider the monitoring and enforcing compliance strategies presented in the proposal
Are these plans likely to be effective?
Key Features of the Project Description:Monitoring & Enforcing Compliance
Does the proposal adequately address prior support?
Key Features of the Project Description:Results from Prior NSF Support
NSF Review Criteria NSF Merit Review Criteria
Intellectual MeritBroader Impacts
Additional ConsiderationsIntegration of Research & EducationIntegrating Diversity into NSF Programs
Additional Noyce Program specific review criteria, dependent on proposal type
Review Criteria: Phase I Scholarship Proposals
Capacity and ability of institution to effectively conduct the program
Number and quality of students that will be served by the program
Justification for number of students and amount of stipend & scholarship support
Quality and feasibility of recruitment & marketing strategies
Strong: Provides data to justify need and realistic expectations; indicates number of participants
Weak: Projections not supported by data
Review Criteria: Phase I Scholarship Proposals
Ability of the program to recruit STEM majors who would not otherwise pursue a teaching career
Strong: Indicates they will recruit beyond those who are already in the program
Weak: Not expanding beyond current pool
Review Criteria: Phase I Scholarship Proposals
Quality of the preservice educational program
Strong: Provides details about program Provides evidence that graduates are
successful Research based
Weak: Little information provided
Review Criteria: Phase I Proposals Extent to which STEM & education faculty are collaborating in developing & implementing the program
Strong: Good representation of STEM and education faculty; defined roles in management plan; shared responsibility
Weak: No evidence of collaboration (“in name only”)
Review Criteria: Phase I Proposals
Quality of the preservice student support and new teacher support infrastructure
◦Strong: A clear plan for supporting students and new teachers to ensure success; strong partnership with school district
◦Weak: No support beyond the financial support
Review Criteria: Phase I Proposals
Extent to which the proposed strategies reflect effective practices based on research
◦Strong: based on literature; research findings
◦Weak: no references or not clear how the project is based on research
Review Criteria: Phase I Proposals Degree to which the proposed
programming will enable scholarship or stipend recipients to become successful mathematics & science teachers
◦ Strong: Program designed to address specific needs of Noyce Scholars
◦ Weak: Program does not appear to be designed to support needs of Noyce Scholars
Review Criteria: Phase I Proposals Feasibility & completeness of an
evaluation plan that will measure the effectiveness of the proposed strategies
◦ Strong: an independent evaluator; clear objectives and measures; describes data collection and analysis aligned with evaluation questions
◦ Weak: No objective evaluator; evaluation not aligned with project objectives
Review Criteria: Phase I Proposals Institutional support for the program and
the extent to which the institution is committed to making the program a central organizational focus
◦Strong: Evidence of support from departments and administrators; likely to be sustained; integrated with other STEM initiatives
◦Weak: Lack of supporting letters from Administrators; little involvement beyond the PI
Proposal does not follow guidelines for Noyce Program
◦ Students must complete STEM major (not change to Science education or Math Education major)
◦ Little information about teacher preparation program◦ Unrealistic projections◦ Recruitment and selection strategies not well described◦ Lack of support for new teachers◦ Lack of involvement of STEM faculty (or education faculty)◦ Lacks plans for monitoring compliance with teaching
requirement◦ Weak evaluation or lacks objective evaluator◦ Does not address Prior Results or Lessons Learned◦ Lacks details
Summary of Common Weaknesses
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
Review Criteria: TF/MTF Proposals
Extent to which the proposed strategies reflect effective practices based on research
Degree to which the proposed programming will enable the participants to become successful mathematics and science teachers or Master Teachers
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.
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
Review Criteria: TF/MTF ProposalsNSF 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
Strong partnership with school district Matching funds identified 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 Attention to content and pedagogy Detailed evaluation plans
Strong TF/MTF Proposals include:
Insufficient details for preservice and induction program for Teaching Fellows and professional development program for Master Teaching Fellows
Vague recruitment plans Selection plans do not follow 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
Weaknesses of TF/MTF Proposals
What Makes a Proposal Competitive? Original ideas Succinct, focused project plan Realistic amount of work Sufficient detail provided Cost effective High impact Knowledge and experience of PIs Contribution to the field Rationale and evidence of potential
effectiveness Likelihood the project will be sustained Solid evaluation plan
Tips for Success Consult the program solicitation and NSF Proposal
& Award Policies & Procedures Guide (NSF 11-1) Test drive FastLane Alert the Sponsored Research Office Follow page and font size limits Be aware of other projects and advances in the
field Cite the literature Provide details Discuss prior results Include evaluation plan with timelines and
benchmarks
Tips for Success
Put yourself in the reviewers’ place Consider reviewers’ comments if
resubmitting proposal Have someone else read the proposal Spell check; grammar check Meet deadlines Follow NSF requirements for proposals
involving Human Subjects Call or email NSF Program Officers
Return Without Review Submitted after deadline Fail to separately and explicitly address
intellectual merit and broader impacts in the Project Summary
Fail to follow formatting (e. g. page limitation, font size, and margin limits) requirements
FastLane will not accept if:
Fail to describe mentoring activities for postdoctoral researchers if any included in proposed budget
Fail to include data management plan
Not ready to submit a proposal this year?
Consider serving as a reviewer
Send a letter of interest and a CV to one of the program officers
Contact us:
Joan [email protected]
Richard [email protected]
Mary Lee [email protected]
Other resources: [email protected] www.nsf.gov
www.nsfnoyce.org
Questions?