Faculty Development: Sources & FDC Proposals Research Orientation Series Winter 2007 University of Cincinnati Wayne Hall Vice Provost for Faculty Development & Professor of English & Comparative Literature Coffee & muffins Brief history & context for faculty-development funding
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.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.
Faculty Development:Sources & FDC Proposals
Research Orientation Series
University of Cincinnati
Vice Provost for Faculty Development
& Professor of English & Comparative Literature
Coffee & muffins
Brief history & context for faculty-development funding
Info about the Faculty Development Council (FDC)
Relationship of FDC funding to other related sources
Strategies and an example towards successful FDC proposals
All of this as a case study for other kinds of grant proposals
Chances to ask questions all along the way
In November 1997, an agreement was signed between the Administration and the AAUP designating $1.5 million per year for faculty development over the three-year period autumn 1995 – autumn 1998, with retroactive payment for 1995-1996.
With the bargaining contract of autumn 1998 – autumn 2001, the amount designated for faculty development dropped to $500,000 per year, the amount that has continued into the current contract.
Through negotiated agreements, the actual amount per year is right around $550,000.
2004-2005 (with funding decisions being made ca. March 2005):
Individual proposals: 86 submitted (totaling $263,710), 51 funded (totaling $160,435). (Not all proposals were funded at the level requested.)
Departmental/interdisciplinary proposals: 31 submitted, 12 funded (totaling $114,492).
Universal providers: The Center for the Enhancement of Teaching & Learning ($152,000 for the 2005 September Institute, which funded 75 faculty participants); University Libraries and AIT&L ($120,000 for the Early Summer Technology Institute).
Some of the unfunded collaborative proposals were referred to the CET&L September Institute as a more appropriate venue for some of the projects.
In the cases of both Univ Libraries / AIT&L and the CET&L grants, the main portion of that funding goes directly to faculty in the form of professional-development incentive awards to participate in the funded initiatives.
Individual proposals: 116 submitted (totaling $442,000), 43 funded (totaling $166,000).
Dept. & Interdisciplinary proposals: 12 funded at $142,000.
Universal providers: Univ. Libraries and AIT&L ($125,000); Center for the Enhancement of Teaching & Learning ($113,250 for the 2006 September Institute, to fund 60 faculty participants); Faculty Technology Resources Center ($15,000)
The most recent deadline for FDC proposals for individual faculty was November 15, with another round for individuals likely in the early spring.
The deadline for collaborative proposals (departmental & interdisciplinary) is Feb. 26.
But: any questions before we begin to talk strategy?
Once logged in, click the “community” tab
The next time you log on to Blackboard, you will see (under the “Community" tab) the Faculty Development Council listed as an Organization in which you are participating.
With thanks to BJ Zirger, Linda Newman, and Deborah Herman for development of this site.
CET&L September Institutes:
Proposals and applications due in April
Sponsored Research Services:
Check “internal funding opportunities”
One useful distinction (but first, imagine yourself as a student studying a syllabus):
If the University Research Council is interested in the course goals that concern the content knowledge that you will achieve in this course, then the Faculty Development Council is interested in the course goals that concern the learning skills that you will achieve.
Faculty Senate reps:
Angela Myatt (AIT&L)
Jane Thompson (AIT&L)
T. Ray Wheeler (CCM)
Robert Frank (A&S Psychology)
Michael Lieberman (CoM and UCit)
BJ Zirger (CoB and CET&L)
They’re actually disgustingly similar to the strategies that lead to success in any grant proposal.
Follow the RFP emphases upon “faculty development” at all times.
Always remember to “be specific.”
Consider offering some matching funds.
Don’t write for the reviewer in your discipline.
Offer to share the learning with others.
Don’t play the “go to a conference for free” card.