Faculty Instructional Development Funds

Faculty Instructional Development Funds are specifically targeted toward interested faculty seeking funding for the following:

• General and specific training in pedagogical techniques;
• Individual training/development with provisions for sharing experiences and insight with other faculty.

1. Proposal is discussed with the Area Coordinator,
   Department Chair, and Dean.  This may be informal and prior to written development.
2. The formal written proposal is submitted through the Department Chair and Dean (College) or Dean (School) who should consider consistency with College/School development plans.
3. Written recommendation from the Department Chair and Dean to the authors should accompany proposal.
4. Proposal is forwarded to the Chair – Faculty/Instructional Development Committee.  This action should be taken when requested by the authors regardless of the College or School recommendation, but not without the written recommendation of the Department Chair and Area Coordinator.
5. Proposal is considered by the Faculty/Instructional Development Committee.  It should be expected that the committee will work on a rotating review period adjusted to provide timely response even if funding is delayed by resource constraints.  Whenever new funds become available, the faculty will be notified of new deadlines for consideration for grants.
6. Committee will check with the Institutional Advancement Office, Student Affairs, and other offices as may be appropriate to identify funding sources and avoid duplication.
7. Committee will provide a written recommendation to the Academic Vice President, with copies to the Department Chair, Dean, and proposal authors.  The objective is to assure an open process which allows for modification, negotiations, and shared funding possibilities.
8. Decision by the Academic Vice President is communicated with comments to the committee.  Department Chairs, Deans, and authors/sponsors of the proposal will be notified by the Committee Chair.

At all stages the emphasis should be on encouraging as many good proposals as possible and seeking alternate/subsequent funding options where possible.        It must be expected that the process will take some time and could be expedited only in limited ways with the cooperation of individuals.  Rarely would an individual sense of urgency justify circumventing the process and compromising the collective respect for an effort to be open and fair to all faculty.

Criteria for Proposal Evaluation

• Should contain complete proposal information. Additional information may be requested at any stage to improve the evaluation process. Should fit with Department/College or School and University planning for development.
• Should be broad based to benefit multiple constituencies such as students, faculty, and community.
• Should be highly likely that the proposed activities can and will be completed as described and in a timely fashion.
• Should have the potential for extension of the activities to other individuals, programs, and proposals.  Systematic rather than haphazard development is more desirable.

Alternate Recommendations Out of Committee

Fully fund as quickly as possible.  Identified as a top priority activity.

Seek alternate or supplemental funding.  Worthy proposal, but second tier priority.

Proposal should be revised and potentially resubmitted.  Recommendation and comments to be forwarded to authors.

Activity proposed should be directed to another committee or funding source.  Specific appropriate group should be named if possible.

Post-Approval Activities

• Complete activities as proposed.
• File report including proposed evaluation measures with committee.