This is a reminder that proposals for the 2012-13 POD Grant Fund are due soon. For those of you who are writing proposals, the reviewing process will begin on Monday, June 18th, so please insure that your proposal is submitted to the POD Grant Chair before then.
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 $9,000 available to be divided 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. Our intent is to fund one larger grant (e.g. $5,000) and two or three smaller “seed” grants (e.g. $1,000-$2,000).
Please see the attached call for proposals and proposal checklist for more information. Completed proposals should be sent to POD Grants Chair at the following email address: shaun.longstreet@marquette.edu
Thanks,
Shaun Longstreet
--
C. Shaun Longstreet, Ph.D.
Director, Center for Teaching and Learning
Marquette University,
Milwaukee, WI 53201-1881
Ph: 414-288-1777
POD Grant Proposal Checklist 2012-2013
Proposals due Friday, June 3, 2011
Each box should be checked to confirm that restrictions have been followed and requested information included. Lettered and underlined sections below correspond to section headings that should appear in the text of each proposal.
. Cover Page
A.Proposal Title
B.Researchers
Name, title, email, and institution of Principal Investigator (PI)
Name, title, email, and institution of Co-Principal Investigator(s)
C.Mailing address and telephone number for Principal Investigator
D.Indicate that you have read the purpose and eligibility statements in the request for proposals and are in compliance with them.
Include no identifiable information such as individual, center, or institutional names in sections II-IV. Identifiable proposals will not be reviewed. If you refer to your own work in the literature review, simply talk about it in the third person using the name without saying it is you.
. Proposal
Maximum 3 pages, single spaced, 1”margins; font equivalent to 12 pt. Times New Roman (additional page permitted for references)
A.Proposal Title
B.Issue/Problem Statement
Describe the central issue or problem, and its importance to POD membership and institutions. Include an explicit research question.
C. Literature review
Briefly contextualize the project and provide supporting citations from relevant research and professional literature.
D.Project Objectives, Methods, Timeline and Intended Products
List the project objectives, research methods, year-long timeline, and the intended results/products of the project. Indicate the exact role of each person involved. Where human respondents are involved, state whether you have applied or plan to apply for Internal Review Board approval from your institution for the use of human subjects.
E. Experience of researchers
Indicate PI and Co-PI expertise and prior experience relevant to conducting this project (in general, anonymous terms).
. Budget and Justification
Information should be presented in table format with supporting text.
Maximum 1 page
Request to POD (stipends per individual, equipment, supplies, consulting fees, travel for conducting research, etc.; see “Eligibility” section on call for proposals)
Institutional Support (institutional contributions, in-kind, cash, personnel time)
Budget Justification (who, what, and why)
For each item, include a sentence or two providing the rationale behind the estimated costs; include sufficient detail to permit knowledgeable reviewers to evaluate whether the request is reasonable.
. Evaluation and Dissemination Plans
Maximum 1 page
A.Evaluation Methods
What plans do you have for evaluating the success of the project?
B.Dissemination Plan
Where do you plan to submit proposals for presenting or publishing the findings beyond the required submission of a proposal to the 2013 POD Conference or a manuscript to the POD annual publication, To Improve the Academy?
Request for Proposals
2012-2013 POD Network Grant Program
Proposals due Friday, June 15, 2012
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 $9,000 available to be divided 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. Our intent is to fund one larger grant (e.g. $5,000) and two or three smaller “seed” grants (e.g. $1,000-$2,000).
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 include a range of topics and institutional types. Visit the POD website for a list of previously funded proposals: http://www.podnetwork.org/grants_awards/grantprogram.htm
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: Shaun Longstreet, Chair; Emily Donnelli, Beth Fisher, Sue Hines, Carolyn Oxenford, Suzanne Tapp; Phylis Dawkins, Liaison to Executive Committee
Reviewers will use the following criteria to evaluate grant applications:
1. Importance & scope of the project Strong proposals will successfully argue for the centrality or critical nature of the issue addressed. They have a clear problem statement that outlines what issue the proposal writer will address with the funds from the POD Grant Committee. The text should include a brief literature review and indicate how this project adds to the existing research and holds promise for 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.
2. Proposal rationale and description Each proposal should include explicit objectives for the project that are clearly tied to the problem statement, a one-year timeline, an indication of who will perform the various roles, and a description of the intended products.
3. Probability of success
• Evidence of sufficient institutional support (e.g. letter from supervisor, Dean, Provost)
• 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
4. Budget and justification
• Each item in the budget should be associated with an amount and a brief justification for its inclusion.
• The amounts should be reasonable and the outlined expenses should be directly relevant to meeting the project objectives outlined above.
5. Evaluation and dissemination
• A clear and feasible plan for evaluating the success of the project should be included. Are the identified evaluation methods likely to provide evidence that the objectives have been achieved?
• Presenters should also 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.
• Keep the Chair of the Grants Committee informed of IRB status if Internal Review Board approval is required or advised.
• Provide a brief mid-year report by February 1, 2013 .
• 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, 2013.
• Submit a POD Conference proposal or a manuscript to To Improve the Academy in 2013 or 2014 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 collecting data, and 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 2012-2013
• Proposal due date: Friday, June 15, 2012
• Proposals accepted as Word or PDF documents.
• Document naming convention: Principal Investigator’s Surname
• E-mail your proposal to Grants Committee Chair, Shaun Longstreet: shaun.longstreet@marquette.edu
• Use subject heading: 2012 POD Grant Proposal
• Applicants will be notified of the decision by Monday, August 6, 2012
No comments:
Post a Comment