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 Purpose
Encourages 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 Deadlines
1. FPDC: Wednesday, January 21, 2015, 1PM
2. 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 skills
Participate
in the grant process –
applicable to external grants
Enhance
Publish
your ability to do research
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
FPDC Categories

Category 1-A
Joint Faculty-Student Basic or
Applied Research - pg. 5 of Guidelines

Category 1-B
Applied pg. 5
Scholarly Research: Basic or

Category 2
Service pg. 5
Joint Faculty-Student Public

Category 3

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
Creative and Performing Art pg. 6
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
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
East Stroudsburg – FPDC 2013-2014
Success
Rate
Funded
Req.
2
5
40%
Award
$
Rankin
g
14,089
9
East Stroudsburg – INNO 2013-2014
Req.
2
Success
Rate
Funded
1
50%
Award
$
Ranking
8,600
6
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.
Important TIPS

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

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 onepage 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
Technical Matters

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
How do you rate?
Please Mark (X) only one number
or score for each criterion
Review Criteria
Poor
PROJECT OBJECTIVES & OUTCOMES ( Factor 1)
1
1
1
4
5
X3
3
4
5
X1
2
3
4
5
X5
5
X2
X3
Exemplary
Poor
3
Exemplary
1
Poor
BUDGET (Factor 6)
2
1
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY/CREATIVE PROCESS (Factor 5)
3
Exemplary
Poor
EXPERTISE &/or REQUISITE SKILL
OF INVESTIGATOR(S) (Factor 4)
2
Exemplary
Poor
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT (Factor 3)
Weight
Exemplary
Poor
PROJECT SIGNIFICANCE &/or
CONTRIBUTION TO THE FIELD (Factor 2)
Score
2
3
4
5
3
4
5
Exemplary
1
2
TOTAL SCORE (possible Maximum Weighted Score is 75)
Additional information on pg. 3 of RFP
X1
Weighted
Score
Pre-screen
RATING
FPDC
Category

Prop
osal
is in
the
corre
ct
cate
gory
Check if true
____
5
(Exemplary)


Factor 1
Factor 2
NEW: Factor 2 for Public Service
Factor 3
PROJECT OBJECTIVES AND
OUTCOMES
PROJECT SIGNIFICANCE and/or CONTRIBUTION TO
THE FIELD
PROJECT SIGNIFICANCE and/or
CONTRIBUTION TO THE FIELD
PROFESSIONAL
DEVELOPMENT
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.
(Category 2 only)



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-screen
RATING
Factor 1
FPDC Category

Proposal
is in the
correct
category
Check if true ____
PROJECT OBJECTIVES AND OUTCOMES


NEW: Factor 2 for Public Service
Factor 2
PROJECT SIGNIFICANCE and/or CONTRIBUTION TO THE FIELD
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.

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.

Some objectives are specific, measurable
or demonstrable, and attainable within
the stated timeframe.
Some outcomes relate to the project
goals and objectives.

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.

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.



(Category 2 only)
PROJECT SIGNIFICANCE and/or CONTRIBUTION TO THE FIELD
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.


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.


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.


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.
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.
Factor 3
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT
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.
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.
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.



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.


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.

5
(Exem-plary)


4


3
(Good)


2
Proposal
is NOT in
the
correct
category
Check if true_____

1
(Poor)
















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_gra
nts/faculty_prof_devel_council.cfm

Ask a peer to review your work before you
submit