1 / 26

Robert Noyce Teacher Scholarship Program

Robert Noyce Teacher Scholarship Program. Proposal Writing Workshop Features of Effective Proposals: Fellowship Track. Washington, DC January 9, 2014. Features of Effective Proposals. Use 2 sample proposals to discuss ways to put together effective proposals for:

elias
Download Presentation

Robert Noyce Teacher Scholarship Program

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  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?

More Related