Friday, March 23, 2012
CALL FOR PROPOSALS: THE 2013 POD INSTITUTE FOR NEW FACULTY DEVELOPERS
About POD
The Professional and Organizational Development Network in Higher Education
(POD) fosters human development in higher education through faculty,
instructional, and organizational development. POD is comprised of nearly 1,800
members – faculty and teaching assistant developers, faculty, administrators,
consultants, and others who perform roles that value teaching and learning in
higher education. While POD members come primarily from the U.S. and
Canada, the membership also represents many other countries.
The Professional and Organizational Development Network in Higher Education
encourages the advocacy of the on-going enhancement of teaching and learning
through faculty and organizational development. To this end it supports the
work of educational developers and champions their importance to the academic
enterprise.
For the full mission statement, see
http://www.podnetwork.org/about.htm.
Description of the POD Institute for New Faculty Developers
The field of faculty and educational development is rapidly growing. Yet, most
people entering the field do so with little training and often face a steep learning
curve. To address this challenge, every two years the POD Network sponsors the
POD Institute for New Faculty Developers (POD Institute, the Institute or POD
INFD), formerly called the International Institute for New Faculty Developers.
The Institute is designed to address the needs of new faculty developers and to
provide resources to get them started in planning, developing, and managing
programs that will be effective in strengthening teaching and learning on their
campuses. It also provides an opportunity for networking with experienced and
new colleagues.
The POD Institute for New Faculty Developers is held every two years, typically
as a 4
½ day, late-June event. Recent institutes have served anywhere from 30 to 110
participants with approximately ten POD members who volunteer their time as
faculty members for the Institute. Staff from the sponsoring institution provide
program support.
The target audience for the POD INFD is faculty and academic administrators new
to working in the field of educational development. Participants are likely to be:
new faculty developers, individuals interested in pursuing the field of faculty
development, persons charged with the task of establishing a faculty development
center, and/or individuals responsible for organizing, directing or chairing
committees for faculty development activities. In recent years, there have been
more international participants, some from countries where the concept of
educational development is very new.
Proposal Submission Guidelines
Please find the submission guidelines below. Please email proposals as an
attachment to POD’s Executive Director Hoag Holmgren at
by 5:00 pm (Central) on April 16, 2012. The review
committee cannot consider proposals submitted in hard copy form or incomplete
proposals.
Resources
Applicants might consider reviewing materials regarding the 2011 Institute
available at
http://www.podnetwork.org/conferences/2011-IINFD/index.htm. Most
recently, in 2011, the Center for Excellence in Teaching and Learning at Kennesaw
State hosted the institute.
THE 2013 POD INSTITUTE FOR NEW FACULTY DEVELOPERS
SUBMISSION GUIDELINES
The following information must be included for the proposal to be considered
complete. Questions regarding the submission guidelines may be sent to Dr.
Virginia Lee (Chair, POD Professional Development Committee) at
vslee@virginiaslee.com
Please email proposals as an attachment to POD’s Executive Director Hoag
Holmgren at
podoffice@podnetwork.org by 5:00 pm (Central) on April 16, 2012.
The review committee cannot consider proposals submitted in hard copy form or
incomplete proposals.
Required Information:
1. Name of Sponsoring Institution.
2. Location of Sponsoring Institution.
3. Name and Information for Primary Contact/Institute Chair (or Co-Chairs).
Please include chair’s and, if applicable, co-chairs’ institutional affiliation, title,
address, phone, email, summary of experience directly related to this type of event
including event planning experience
, and description of past POD Network
involvement. Please include abbreviated CV(s).
4. Names and Contact Information of the Program Support Team.
The program support team will include current members of your staff who will be
developing and working at the Institute. Please include institutional affiliation, title,
address, phone, email, and summary of experience directly related to event
planning and/or faculty development.
Please indicate whether you intend to supplement your staff with part-time
temporary help.
5. Names and Roles of Institute Faculty Members.
Experienced POD members are typically recruited to serve as guest faculty for the
Institute. These individuals volunteer their time: they do not receive an
honorarium, although their hotel and travel expenses are paid out of the Institute
budget.
We recognize that it may be difficult to confirm the guest faculty in advance but
appreciate planning that indicates thought has been given to names of possible
presenters. The collective experience and expertise of proposed guest faculty
members should be diverse enough to meet the needs of participants from varying
institutional backgrounds and levels of experience.
Institute faculty members contacted in advance should not be requested to commit
exclusively to a single proposal.
6. Rationale for Desire to Host the Institute.
7. Schedule of the Proposed Program.
Programs should include interactive, research-based workshops as well as
experiential training on the essential skills of educational development appropriate
for new faculty developers. The program may also offer opportunities for
participants to create individualized professional development plans. Please include
information about the instructional strategies to be used in delivering these
workshops and program components as well as a rationale for the proposed
strategies and formats.
8. Information regarding Proposed Location.
Please provide a description of the proposed site for the institute including
workshop space, hotel accommodations and food arrangements. Proposals should
plan for approximately 75 attendees as well as the Institute faculty and program
support staff.
9. Proposed Timeline for the Planning of the Event.
Planning for the Institute is a substantial undertaking and requires careful advanced
planning. Please provide a proposed timeline for the planning of the event
including, but not limited to, reservation of accommodations and conference space,
confirmation of faculty, making transportation arrangements, publicity, and
development of program materials.
10. Proposed Budget for the Institute.
This information may be compiled in spreadsheet format and should include
projected revenues and expenses including, but not limited to, any salaries for parttime
assistance (if necessary), travel expenses for Institute faculty, meals and
accommodations, marketing, and program materials. The institute is expected to
pay for itself. All revenue collected that exceeds Institute costs—including
repayment of the advance (see below)—will be split between the sponsoring
institution (75%) and POD (25%).
An advance of up to $6,000 to cover start-up costs may be requested from POD as
part of this proposal. POD’s Core Committee must approve the advance. Within 60
days of the end of the Institute, the total amount of the advance will be subtracted
from the Institute revenue and returned to POD.
11. Summary of Marketing Strategy.
Please include mock-ups of promotional materials with registration prices, and
demonstration of ability to handle online registration and online marketing.
12. Description of Assessment Plan.
Please describe the plan for assessing the Institute’s effectiveness.
ASSUMPTIONS AND AGREEMENTS
The POD Network Executive Director will provide appropriate access to the POD
mailing list for marketing purposes as well as appropriate digital materials (e.g.,
jpegs of the POD logo for all electronic and print communications). The POD
Network Executive Director will also serve as a contact person for the POD website
and will assist in putting promotional materials on the POD website.
An advance of up to $6,000 to cover start-up costs may be requested from POD as
part of this proposal. POD’s Core Committee must approve the advance. Within 60
days of the end of the Institute, the total amount of the advance will be subtracted
from the Institute revenue and returned to POD.
The sponsoring institution shall warrant that on delivery, all instructional materials
for the Institute are appropriate, free of processing errors, and have copyright
permissions secured. Institute materials will be in standard American English.
The Institute will cover its own expenses. When applicable, travel and lodging will
be billed to the Institute at cost. Air travel will be by coach with a major U.S.
airline. Lodging and meals should be bid at the most economical rate possible, while
insuring a positive experience for participants. Special consideration will be given
to proposals that offer the most cost effective options for participants.
All revenue collected that exceeds Institute costs—including repayment of the
advance (see above)—will be split between the sponsoring institution (75%) and
POD (25%).
The Institute must be completed on the dates scheduled by the sponsoring
institution and POD. Evaluation materials, recommendations for future institutes,
and a final financial statement must be submitted to the POD Executive Director
(Hoag Holmgren,
podoffice@podnetwork.org) no later than 60 days following
event.
The sponsoring institution reserves the exclusive right to publish materials from the
Institute upon written notification to POD Network of said publication. Any income
(after expenses) from the publication of materials by the host institution shall be
split as follows: 75% sponsoring institution, 25% POD Network.
Dillard University 2012 Teams for Algebra Relay
Hello, Colleagues!
Don’t forget to have students sign up for teams (5 students
per team) to participate in this year’s Algebra Relay. The event presents
students with the opportunity to fully engage in the Undergraduate Research
Week (April 2-6).
In previous years, first-year students dominated this event
as they swept awards for using skills to solve higher order questions directed
at stimulating creative thinking, comprehending science and scholarship, and
interpreting and explaining situations they face in daily life. I hope you will be on hand to encourage
students of all levels in their pursuit for prizes up to $150.
Entry forms and guidelines are attached. Feel free to
contact me should you have questions.
Wednesday, April 4, 2012 *
PSB 131
Relay: 11:00 a.m. – 12:30 p.m.
Application Deadline: March 27, 2012
Other programs and activities first-year students will be
interested in are listed below. Programs scheduled to mark the week-long occasion include:
·
Tuesday, April 3: DU-LAMP Symposium
8:00 a.m., PSB 131, (Contact hdai@dillard.edu or bsingleton@dillard.edu.)
·
Wednesday, April 4: Algebra Relay
11:00 a.m. PSB 131 (Contact pfrempong@dillard.edu or hdai@dillard.edu)
·
Thursday, April 5: Undergraduate
Research and Creative Work Competition 8:00 a.m. PSB 131-
135 (Contact lstrong@dillard.edu)
The
competition highlights a series of events
that mark April 2 - 6, 2012 as 7th Annual Undergraduate Research
Week at Dillard University, although it wasn’t until 2010 that, the U.S. House
of Representatives recognized the contributions of undergraduate research when
it passed House Resolution 1654. This legislation designates setting
aside a week as an opportunity to consider and celebrate the benefits
undergraduate research brings to the students who pursue it, the faculty who
mentor them, the institutions that support it, and the research enterprise that
benefits. The celebration at Dillard allows those who participate to show
off a bit by giving them a chance to better explain their research and creative
achievements to the campus community and guests. I hope
you and your students will make a point of participating in the
activities.
CONTACT:
Lynn
Y.R. Strong, MPA, CIMDirector, Undergraduate Research
Undergraduate Enrichment Programs
Administrator, IRB/Manager, HSR
Dillard University
Professional Schools Bldg., Rm. 250
2601 Gentilly Blvd.
New Orleans, LA 70122
Tel: 504-816-4446
Fax: 504-816-4313
lstrong@dillard.edu
Dillard University Retention Documents Spring 2012
1. An Analysis of the Potential Impact of Higher Admissions Standards on Currently Admitted Students in Fall 2011
2. DU 2011-2012 First Semester Retention Monitoring Report
3. DU Report Retention: A Dillard Specific Regression Model
http://www.slideshare.net/ccharles/du-report-retention-a-dillard-specific-regression-model
4. DU Recruitment Admission Retention Report2 Faculty Assembly 21March2012 Dr.Mona Lisa Saloy http://www.slideshare.net/ccharles/du-recruitment-admission-retention-report2-faculty-assembly-21march2012-drmona-lisa-saloy
4. DU Recruitment Admission Retention Report2 Faculty Assembly 21March2012 Dr.Mona Lisa Saloy http://www.slideshare.net/ccharles/du-recruitment-admission-retention-report2-faculty-assembly-21march2012-drmona-lisa-saloy
Thursday, March 22, 2012
Tomorrow's Professor: Team Teaching and Student Learning: A Rough-and-Tumble Enterprise
Tomorrow's Teaching and Learning
Team Teaching and Student Learning: A Rough-and-Tumble
Enterprise
Bain, K. (2004). What the best college teachers do.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Bowden, J., & Marton, F. (2004). The university of
learning: Beyond quality and competence. London: Routledge.
Invigorating intellectual life: A proposal for Furman
University's academic program and calendar. (2005, September 10). Report to the
Furman Faculty from the Curriculum Review Committee.
McDaniel, E. A., & Colarulli, G. C. (1997).
Collaborative teaching in the face of productivity concerns: The dispersed team
model. Innovative Higher Education, 22(1), 19-36.
Palmer, P. J. (1998). The courage to teach: Exploring the
inner landscape of a teacher's life. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Perry, W. (1968). Forms of intellectual and ethical
development in the college years. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
Shibley, I. A. (2006). Interdisciplinary team teaching:
Negotiating pedagogical differences. College Teaching, 54(3), 271-274.
thetowntalk.com: Systems split over college formula funding
Gannett Capital Bureau
BATON ROUGE -- The unified front usually put forward by university officials in public discussions of college funding fell apart Tuesday.
Tension between the heads of the LSU, Southern and University of Louisiana systems and Commissioner of Higher Education Jim Purcell over the way state funds are divided in a formula developed by the Board of Regents spilled out into testimony over the proposed budget that's to go into effect July 1.
The funding formula was developed at a time when university funding was growing. It shifts from primarily enrollment-based budgeting to allocating 15 percent of the funds according to performance. Included are graduation rates, course offerings that are job-oriented and research offerings.
Funding has been dropping the past four years and this year just over $1 billion is being split up. Purcell said that is roughly 65 percent of what universities should be funded.
The Southern University System is the hardest hit, with the biggest cut falling on the system's flagship campus in Baton Rouge.
System President Ronald Mason said the campus has declared a financial emergency, allowing it to make severe cuts to programs, downsize operations and lay off tenured faculty, and "you only declare a financial emergency when you run out of options."
Yet the proposed budget cuts another $4 million from the campus, he said, when the university "needs a little breathing room to dig itself out.
"We just need a little help," Mason said. "We feel like Frazier in a fight with Ali. We're in the 15th round. If we don't get a little help, we have to rely on a lucky punch. But we're still standing."
LSU System President John Lombardi also complained that "we weren't part of the process (of working up the funding schedule) as we should have been." He said he knows it's difficult for the Board of Regents to fit the funding to the formula and "we know we're going to have to work with shortages."
But the requirement to keep the Pennington Biomedical Research Center and the AgCenter whole forced more cuts on other campuses.
Colleges and universities were given authority to raise tuition but in many cases, the increases were offset by reductions in state funds. All campuses combined can raise tuition a total of $87.4 million.
But the campuses that don't meet the requirements of the GRAD Act not only don't get to increase tuition up to 10 percent but lose out on a 15 percent performance bonus in the formula.
Another factor in the proposed budget is if an increase in retirement contributions imposed on university employees is not approved, campuses would be cut $110 million.
Appropriations Committee Chairman Rep. Jim Fannin, D-Jonesboro, asked "Am I hearing that the formula you helped devise isn't working? Or is it fatigue from year after year not having enough?"
Randy Moffett, president of the UL System, answered "We all know we need to support the concept of a performance formula" but it's difficult after years of an enrollment-based formula.
"We've got a declining set of revenues; therefore it's going to create tension over the distribution," Moffett said. And it's aggravated by campuses being cut more because "some things were held harmless" and not cut.
"We should have had the opportunity to sit down and discuss how we were affected," he said. "We didn't get to participate in the process."
FREE Webinar: Turnitin 30-Minute Webcast: Bridging the Gap: Coming Together Around the Common Core
|
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)