PASSHE-Sponsored Grants Workshop

Faculty Professional Development Council (FPDC)

and

Innovation in Teaching and Improvement of Student Learning Outcomes (INNO)

Wednesday, November 19, 2014

FPDC PurposeEncourages continuous attention to the professional growth and development of system faculty as teaching scholars.Provides professional development opportunities for faculty at all levels.

INNO represents a new initiative for the Council which focuses on the scholarship of pedagogy to provide professional development that is required to gain expertise in – to learn -- innovative methods of teaching that improve student learning outcomes. ESU Campus Deadlines1.FPDC: Wednesday, January 21, 2015, 1PM2.INNO: Friday, February 20, 2015, 1 PM

Why apply? In what ways will participating in FPDC or INNO help you to be

a better teacher-scholar?

Gain grant writing skillsParticipate in the grant process –

applicable to external grantsEnhance your ability to do researchPublish your research results

Are You Eligible to Apply?

System faculty member Tenure or Tenure track only

Past recipients may apply: Proposal must include an appendix

of outcomes of past grant Final report is also needed.

On sabbatical? Can apply but can’t request

salary Additional information on pg. 2 of RFP

FPDC and INNO Broad Terms -2014-2015 May submit only one proposal per PI Identify research funding category Money available:

$250,000 FPDC $75,000 for INNO $50,000 for probationary faculty

Anticipates to receive between 100 and 140 grant proposals 16 Proposals from Each School for FPDC; 2 for INNO Expects to award 30 grants; 8 for INNO Maximum funding: $10,000 Notified April 2015 October 31, 2016 - completion of FPDC Grants May 31, 2017 – completion of Innovation Grants Reports are to be submitted to the System FPDC and the campus committee within 30 days of the

project’s completion, but no later than November 30, 2016.

Innovation in Teaching - Terms The Council has $75,000 available for FY 2014-15

This replaces Category 4

A maximum of TWO proposals may be submitted from ESU

Applicants may be individual faculty, departments, or disciplinary collaborations among PASSHE universities – must have a Project Director

Preferred proposals: Professional development that will be applied to teaching

large-enrollment, lower division classes and to developmental education.

STEM areas and teacher education.

A letter of endorsement from the appropriate dean is also required

Category 1-A Joint Faculty‑Student Basic or Applied Research - pg. 5 of Guidelines

Category 1-B Scholarly Research: Basic or Applied pg. 5

Category 2 Joint Faculty‑Student Public Service pg. 5

Category 3 Creative and Performing Art pg. 6

Category 4 ----removed and reserved--- (Has become INNO grant category)

Category 5 Individual Career Enhancement in Off-Site Settings pg. 6 – Needs Letters of endorsement from an appropriate dean or department chair

NOTE: A pre-screen criterion taken very seriously is whether the proposal is in the correct category. A “no” = 1

FPDC Categories

Inno Project Types 1. Classroom Engagement and Active Learning

Strategies 2. Critical Thinking and Inquiry Strategies Proposals 3. Professional and Experiential Learning Strategies. 4. Persistence, Retention, and Degree Completion

Strategies 5. Assessment to Improve Learning and Students’

Experience Strategies 6. Teaching and Learning with Technology Strategies 7. Adapting Teacher Education Programs 8. Conferences/webinars

Pg. 3 of Inno Guidelines

Req.Funde

d Success

RateAward

$Rankin

g

5 2 40% 14,089 9

East Stroudsburg – FPDC 2013-2014

Req.Funde

d Success

RateAward

$Rankin

g

2 1 50% 8,600 6

East Stroudsburg – INNO 2013-2014

FPDC Process Step 1: Campus deadline - January 21 Friday Step 2: FDR Committee meets to review and

make decisions on which proposals will move forward - January 29 Thursday

Step 3: Committee reviews selected proposals for quality feedback; sends feedback to Pis - February 5 Thursday

Step 4: PI incorporates feedback and submits final copy to OSPR for formatting - February 11 Wednesday

Step 5: OSPR submits to PASSHE - February 16 Monday

INNO Process Step 1: Campus deadline – February 20 Friday Step 2: FDR Committee meets to review and

make decisions on which proposals will move forward – February 26 Thursday

Step 3: Committee reviews selected proposals for quality feedback; sends feedback to Pis – March 9 Monday

Step 4: PI incorporates feedback and submits final copy to OSPR for formatting – March 17 Tuesday

Step 5: OSPR submits to PASSHE – March 20 Friday

Are You Prepared to Write a Grant?

Discuss proposal idea with department chairperson and the dean

Discuss budget requirements Establish project collaborators Discuss letters of endorsement (if needed) Review the FPDC guidelines very carefully. Get peer feedback on your written proposal.

A proposal will not be considered if it is illegible, if it fails to comply with these guidelines, or if the information provided is incomplete.

Choose your FPDC or INNO category wisely!

Read the guidelines, again and again and again.

Familiarize yourself with the selection criteria and council review form (available on the OSPR website)

A Proposal MUST score a minimum of 3 on every criterion in order to be considered.

Pay attention to content criteria and technical criteria pg. 7 of FPDC and INNO Guidelines

Use the checklist but do NOT submit with the proposal, pg. 13 of FPDC and pg. 15 of INNO

Important TIPS

Does your proposal meet the eligibility requirements on page 2 of the guidelines? Yes___ No___

Does your title page follow the required format and include: ___ tenure status, ___Abstract, ___IRB/IACUC and ___correct RFP category? Yes___ No___

Does your proposal stay within the length prescribed by the FPDC Guidelines (Narrative and Budget summary no more than 5 pages)? Are your pages numbered? Yes___ No___

Is your Budget Summary and Format (page 13) in compliance with the Budget Instructions? Yes___ No___

Does the figure listed on your title page for Total Grant Amount Requested from the FPDC correspond to the total of the first column in your Budget Summary? Yes___ No___

Do the amounts entered on your budget table add up to the total you are requesting from the FPDC? Yes___ No___

Do you fully explain and provide supporting details for each budget category in Budget Notes? Yes___ No___

Does your budget comply with specific cost item limits for release time, fringe benefits, honoraria, equipment, travel, all outlined on pages 9 & 10? Yes___ No___

Do you limit your appendices to those specifically allowed (listed as acceptable) and/or required in your category? Yes___ No___

If you have previously received an FPDC grant(s), have you listed the year, project title, and outcomes in a one-page appendix? Yes___ No___ Have you submitted your final report? Yes___ No___ (This is an eligibility requirement.)

Are the required curriculum vitae attached and within two page limit for each PI & co-PI? Yes___ No___

Is the required one-page listing of references attached as an appendix? Yes___ No___

If your proposal is submitted in Category 5, have you included the required institutional letter of endorsement? Yes___ No___

Is your proposal written in non-technical language? Yes___ No___

Are the goals or anticipated outcomes of your proposed project clearly stated? Yes___ No___

Have you spelled out the project’s anticipated professional development benefits? Yes___ No___

Have you indicated briefly what you and/or others have accomplished previously in relation to the purpose of your project (if applicable)? Yes___ No___

Does the proposal indicate what will be done, when it will be done (i.e. a timeline), and by whom? Yes___ No___

Do you discuss the status or need for IRB or IACUC approval and the timeline for such approval? Yes___ No___

Please examine your proposal carefully before sending it. Revisions will NOT be allowed.

PROPOSALS THAT DO NOT MEET THE GUIDELINES OR DO NOT INCLUDE REQUIRED DOCUMENTS

WILL NOT BE REVIEWED.

Please send me your proposals by the campus deadline in Microsoft Word only.

Any letters or forms requiring signatures should be scanned and sent to me as separate .pdf.

Only the title page and the budget template are supplied. You must follow the guidelines order for the body on pg 7

Title page: Get the Chair’s signature only. The FDR Committee Chair will obtain the Provost’s signature

Technical Matters

How do you rate? 

Review CriteriaPlease Mark (X) only one number

or score for each criterionScore Weight Weighted

Score

Poor Exemplary  

PROJECT OBJECTIVES & OUTCOMES ( Factor 1) 1 2 3 4 5   X3  

Poor Exemplary  

PROJECT SIGNIFICANCE &/or CONTRIBUTION TO THE FIELD (Factor 2)

1 2 3 4 5   X1 

Poor Exemplary  

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT (Factor 3) 1 2 3 4 5   X5  

Poor Exemplary  

EXPERTISE &/or REQUISITE SKILL OF INVESTIGATOR(S) (Factor 4)

1   3   5   X2 

Poor Exemplary  

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY/CREATIVE PROCESS (Factor 5) 1 2 3 4 5   X3  

Poor Exemplary  

BUDGET (Factor 6) 1 2 3 4 5   X1  

 

 

TOTAL SCORE (possible Maximum Weighted Score is 75) 

Additional information on pg. 3 of RFP

  Pre-screen Factor 1 Factor 2 NEW: Factor 2 for Public Service

(Category 2 only)Factor 3

RATINGFPDC

CategoryPROJECT OBJECTIVES AND

OUTCOMESPROJECT SIGNIFICANCE and/or CONTRIBUTION TO

THE FIELDPROJECT SIGNIFICANCE and/or CONTRIBUTION TO THE FIELD

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

5(Exem-plary)

Proposal is in the correct category

 Check if true

____

All the project objectives are very specific (well-defined), clearly measurable or demonstrable, and attainable within the stated timeframe.

All project outcomes relate to the project goals and objectives.

 

Literature review is very clear and comprehensive, indicative of the current state of the art.

Project contributions or significance are very clearly stated. Proposal substantiates the project contributions or

significance is very important, valuable to the discipline and/or addresses a gap in research.

Community need is very clear, well demonstrated

Project contributions or significance are very clearly stated

A lit review confirms the services reflect current best practices in the field; are very appropriate to address the need

Project will significantly enhance author’s professional development, ability to teach and/or serve the community/state/society at large.

  Pre-screenFactor 1 Factor 2 NEW: Factor 2 for Public Service (Category 2

only)Factor 3

RATINGFPDC Category PROJECT OBJECTIVES AND OUTCOMES PROJECT SIGNIFICANCE and/or CONTRIBUTION TO THE FIELD PROJECT SIGNIFICANCE and/or CONTRIBUTION TO THE

FIELDPROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

5(Exem-plary)

Proposal is in the correct category

 Check if true ____

All the project objectives are very specific (well-defined), clearly measurable or demonstrable, and attainable within the stated timeframe.

All project outcomes relate to the project goals and objectives.

 

Literature review is very clear and comprehensive, indicative of the current state of the art.

Project contributions or significance are very clearly stated. Proposal substantiates the project contributions or significance is very

important, valuable to the discipline and/or addresses a gap in research.

Community need is very clear, well demonstrated

Project contributions or significance are very clearly stated

A lit review confirms the services reflect current best practices in the field; are very appropriate to address the need

Project will significantly enhance author’s professional development, ability to teach and/or serve the community/state/society at large.

4

  Majority of the objectives are very specific, clearly measurable or demonstrable, and attainable within the stated timeframe.

Majority of the outcomes relate to the project goals and objectives.

Literature review is clear and comprehensive, indicative of the current state of the art.

Project contributions or significance are well stated. Proposal substantiates project contributions or significance is important,

valuable to the discipline and/or addresses a gap in research.

Community need is clear Project contributions or significance are well

stated A lit review confirms the services reflect

current best practices in the field; are appropriate to address the need

Project will enhance author’s professional development, ability to teach and/or serve the community/state/society at large.

3(Good)

  Some objectives are specific, measurable or demonstrable, and attainable within the stated timeframe.

Some outcomes relate to the project goals and objectives.

 

Literature review is somewhat clear, current and comprehensive, indicative of the current state of the art.

Project contributions or significance are somewhat well stated. Proposal substantiates project contributions or significance is somewhat

important, valuable to the discipline and/or addresses a gap in research.

Community need is somewhat clear Project contributions or significance are

somewhat well stated A lit review confirms the services reflect

current best practices in the field; are appropriate to address the need

Project may enhance author’s professional development, ability to teach and/or serve the community/state/society at large.

2

  Some objectives are stated but are not specific or measurable or demonstrable, or attainable within the timeframe.

Majority of outcomes do not relate to the project goals and objectives.

Literature review is vague, contains some minor omissions; not indicative of the current state of the art.

Project contributions or significance are vaguely stated. Proposal substantiates project contributions or significance may be

somewhat important, somewhat valuable to the discipline and/or might address a gap in research.

Community need is not clear Project contributions or significance are not

clear A lit review is vague and the services may not

reflect current best practices in the field

Project is not likely to enhance author’s professional development, ability to teach and/or serve the community/ state/society at large.

1(Poor)

Proposal is NOT in the correct category

Check if true_____

No project objectives are stated. No project outcomes are stated. objectives are very vague. outcomes are very vague. objectives are clearly not attainable in

the project timeframe. 

Literature review is very vague and omits key information; not indicative of the current state of the art.

Project contributions or significance are very vague or are omitted. Proposal does not substantiate project contributions or significance, value

to the discipline nor does it addresses a gap in research.

Community need is not evident Project contributions or significance are not

stated; not impactful A lit review is missing or insufficient to draw

any conclusions if the services are appropriate or will impact on the need

 

Contribution of project to author’s professional development is very vague or omitted entirely.

Checklist for an Effective Proposal

Compelling case for funding

Clear concepts/language

Concise descriptions

Descriptive title, logical flow

Reasonable budget

Follow application requirements/guidelines

Strong professional development statement

Use the existing resources Office of Sponsored Projects and

Research

http://www4.esu.edu/red/ospr/index.cfm

Faculty Professional Development Council

http://www4.esu.edu/red/ospr/internal_grants/faculty_prof_devel_council.cfm

Ask a peer to review your work before you submit