Grants & Awards
Purpose
The purpose of the POD grant program is to provide funding to support POD members’ efforts to contribute new knowledge that can be applied to the fields of faculty, TA, instructional, and organizational development. The Core Committee has made a total of $7,000 available for multiple awards. The number and size of awards will be determined by the Grants Committee, based on the quality and potential impact of the work on the POD community and beyond.
Eligibility
The principal investigator must have been a POD member for at least the previous 12 months.
Previous grant recipients are eligible to submit another proposal only after 3 years have passed since the submission date of the previous proposal. After that time, previous recipients who have submitted the required reports may submit a proposal for an unrelated new project or a related project that represents a considerable advancement of the previous project.
Eligible expenses (not exhaustive list):
Wages, consulting or data analysis fees, equipment, supplies, travel for conducting research.
Ineligible projects & expenses (not exhaustive list):
Dissertation research, conference/institute travel and fees, an individual’s scholarship that is not of relevance to a large proportion of the POD membership, implementation of a new program (face-to-face or online), routine operation expenses.
Previously funded projects (sample list)
Burdick, Dakin, Endicott College, Gathering POD’s Oral History
Chism, Nancy, IUPUI, Professionalizing the Entry Preparation of Educational Developers
Donnelli, Emily, Amber Dailey-Hebert, & Jean Mandernach, Park University, Creating Inclusive Professional Enhancement Programming for Geographically-Dispersed Faculty: Uncovering and Disseminating Best Practices
Fisher, Beth & Pat Brown, Washington University in St. Louis, Utilizing Pedagogy to Help Graduate Students Write Effective Teaching Philosophy Statements
Hines, Sue, St. Mary’s University of Minnesota, A Study Investigating Faculty Development Program Assessment Practices at Established Centralized Centers
Schönwetter, Dieter J., University of Manitoba, & Donna Ellis, University of Waterloo, Peeling Back the Layers: Competencies in U.S. and Canadian Graduate Student Development Programs and Developers' Preparation to Teach Them
Schroeder, Connie, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, SoTL Program, Institutional Initiatives, and Faculty Development: Researching Models, Attributes, and Practice
Proposal Review & Evaluation Criteria
All grant proposals undergo blind review. Please limit identifiable information to the Cover Page. The committee will not review proposals that include information identifiable to an individual, center or institution, except on the cover page.
POD Grants Committee: Laurel Willingham-McLain, Chair; Angela Linse, Dakin Burdick, Dieter Schönwetter, Carolyn Oxenford; Michael Theall, Liaison to Executive Committee
Reviewers will use the following criteria to evaluate grant applications:
Importance & scope of the project Strong proposals will successfully argue for the centrality or critical nature of the issue addressed. The text should include a brief literature review and indicate how this project adds to the existing research and promises to have a sustained impact on the POD community. Strong proposals will advance the mission and values of POD, and will demonstrate that other POD members and institutions are interested in and will be able to access and use the results of the project. Cross-institutional projects are encouraged but not required.
Proposal rationale and description Each proposal should include explicit objectives for the project, a one-year timeline, an indication of who will perform the various roles, and a description of the intended products.
Probability of success
Evidence of sufficient institutional support
Evidence of PI’s and CoPIs’ prior experience with a similar project or ability to undertake the project (e.g., through academic preparation or prior work experience).
Proposed year-long time line is sufficient to achieve objectives
Budget and justification Each item in the budget should be associated with an amount and a brief justification for its inclusion. The amounts seem reasonable and the outlined expenses are directly relevant to meeting the project objectives outlined above.
Evaluation and dissemination
Clear and feasible plan for evaluating the success of the project. Are the identified evaluation methods likely to provide evidence that the objectives have been achieved?
Plan for dissemination beyond the required submission of a POD conference proposal or a To Improve the Academy chapter (reminder: acceptance of proposals and manuscripts is not guaranteed).
Awardee Expectations
All recipients are expected to:
Conduct the research as proposed, to the best of their ability, and keep the POD Grants Committee Chair apprised of changes that might need to be made in their plans
If Internal Review Board approval is required or advised, keep the Chair informed of IRB status
Provide a brief mid-year report by February 1, 2011
Submit a one page final report that describes: a) project activities, b) impact on recipients’ professional development, and c) usefulness to faculty and TA development community by September 1, 2011
Submit a POD Conference proposal or a manuscript to To Improve the Academy in 2011 or 2012 based on the findings of your grant work (all conference proposals and manuscripts will undergo peer review; acceptance is not guaranteed)
Acknowledge the funding from POD when presenting and publishing the findings
Be willing to serve on POD Grants Committee in future years
Grant Submission Process
Follow the format outlined in the POD Grant Proposal Checklist 2010-2011 @:
Proposal due date: Friday, June 4, 2010
Proposals accepted only in MS Word 2003-2007 format
Document naming convention: PISurname.doc
E-mail your proposal to Grants Committee Chair, Laurel Willingham-McLain willingham@duq.edu
Use subject heading: 2010 POD Grant Proposal
Applicants will be notified of the decision by Friday, July 30, 2010
No comments:
Post a Comment