2014-15 CELT Scholarship of Learning & Teaching Grants
Request for Proposals
The Center for Excellence in Learning and Teaching is offering faculty and staff awards of up to
$1,000 in Professional Development Funds to support: dissemination of pedagogical research at a
major academic or professional conference and/or attendance of a learning & teaching-centered
conference or workshop (for professional development). Funds awarded in spring of 2015 will be
disbursed to departments by the end of April and must be used or encumbered by the end of the
fiscal year, June 30, 2015. Proposals are due electronically to CELT by Monday December 1,
2014 at 6 PM and are available at www.csuchico.edu/CELT.
Who may apply?
All faculty, both temporary (part-time or full-time) and tenure-track, and staff may apply.
What sort of funding is available?
Professional Development Funds to defray costs related to attendance of a learning &
teaching-centered conference or workshop (for professional development) and/or
dissemination of pedagogical research at a major academic or professional conference. The
spending of these funds is limited to items listed in the CSU, Chico PROFESSIONAL
DEVELOPMENT FUNDS PROCEDURES form.
What types of proposals are funded?
This call is for proposals that will further knowledge and best practices around learning and teaching.
These small grants can be used to defray the costs of professional development in the area of
learning & teaching, or presenting results of research related to pedagogy or best practices in
learning & teaching at a professional/academic conference. NOTE: Proposals may include travel to
conferences that already are in progress or have been completed any time this fiscal year (July 1,
2014-June 30, 2015).
Successful proposals articulate the expected improvement of student learning with reference to
current/cutting edge pedagogical thought—whether via reference to scholarly pedagogical
literature or by framing within proven successful programs/initiatives, such as the AAC&U
LEAP High-Impact Practices, Universal Design for Learning, the CSU Chancellor’s Office
Scholarly Teaching ideals, the CSU Chico Rubric for Online Instruction, or the Catalyst Quality
Online Learning and Teaching program. One free source for ideas is the CSU Institute for Teaching
and Learning (ITL) Newsletter.
Please seek and document appropriate financial contributions from the department and/or
the college. IMPORTANT: The appropriate department, college, and university processes for
travel must be followed in initiating this CELT proposal—it is for this reason that we require a
copy of the travel request form to be submitted along with the application.
How does one apply?
Your electronic version must be submitted by Monday December 1, 2014 at 6 pm directly to
CELT@csuchico.edu.
The application form must be completed as indicated, and the proposal should total no more than
three additional pages, including the budget portion. Endorsement letters from the department
chair and college dean are required, and it is essential that they indicate the importance of this
research in your particular field. The proposal needs to include the following in this order:
1. Cover page application-please include principal requestor and title on this page.
2. Rationale and Objectives of professional development opportunity or of conference
presentation:
a. History and significance of problem or need (may include lit review)
b. Brief explanation of how project addresses problem, followed by specific objectives of project;
c. Overview of immediate and long-term impact of the project (may include impact on campus,
profession, and/or community, but special emphasis should be on student learning)
d. Description of how project is unique, innovative, or particularly suited to CSU Chico
e. Rationale and evidence that the methodology/project plan is pedagogically sound and will be
effective in improving student learning
3. Timeline of plan: Outline intended steps to implement and timeline of entire project, including
evaluation and reporting.
4. Evaluation & Reporting: Explain how success of the professional development opportunity or
conference presentation will be evaluated and reported to CELT and campus community.
5. Provide budget with breakdown of specific costs.
6. Copy of submitted/approved Travel Request Form.
7. Letters of endorsement from department chair and dean (these items not included in 3 page
limit)
Be sure to proofread your proposal for basic writing mechanics, comprehensibility and style. See the
Rubric for additional information on what is expected in acceptable and/or target grant proposals.
Who evaluates the proposals, and what criteria are used?
A subcommittee of the CELT Advisory Board, comprising faculty, staff, and students, use the criteria
found in the Rubric for CELT Learning Enhancement Grants to make a recommendation to the
CELT Director and Provost, who make the final decision.
When are announcements made? On or before Friday, January 30, 2015
What type of reporting is required? A brief final written report is required within 30 days of
completion or by June 30, 2015 (whichever comes first). Outcomes of the travel, especially an
assessment of the instructional/learning impact, and final budget allocations should be
included. Funded proposals and final reports from those proposals will be made publically
accessible via the CELT website. Also, you will be expected to produce a poster about your results
for CELT use—the purpose being to further disseminate either your pedagogical research, or some
main take-away from the conference you attended. You will not be permitted to apply for a future
CELT grant if your final written report is not submitted, or you do not participate in the poster
session.
How will I know CELT has received my proposal? If you do not receive an email receipt from CELT
(usually by email) within 10 working days after delivery to CELT, please contact CELT Director Kate
McCarthy kmccarthy@csuchico.edu
2013 CELT Learning & Teaching Scholarship Grants Proposal
I.
Principal requestor, contact person, and project title
Name _______________________________________________ Date ___________________
Title: Professor
Associate Professor
Assistant Professor
Lecturer
Staff
Department __________________________________________ Zip _____________________
Phone (Office) ___________________________ (Home or cell) _________________________
Signature of Applicant ___________________________________________________________
Names of co-requestors __________________________________________________________
(Provide above information for co-requestor(s) on a separate page.)
Title__________________________________________________________________________
(Provide brief title to indicate the nature of the project.)
II. Rationale and Objectives: (See instruction sheet)
III. Timeline of Plan (See instruction sheet)
IV. Evaluation and Reporting (See instruction sheet)
V. Budget Breakdown for use of Professional Development Funds
Total estimated cost of project or travel:
Specify funds requested/committed from other sources:
Total amount of funding requested from CELT:
$________________
$________________ from ________________
$________________
Check below what the funds will be used for and provide specific breakdown of costs in the proposal:
☐ Travel
Air fare
$_____________
Mileage
$_____________
Conference registration
$_____________
Accommodations
$_____________
Meals
$_____________
Incidentals
$_____________
Materials & support for poster session ($50)
$_____50________
TOTAL
$_____________
Note: It is CELT policy that all requested reimbursements be accompanied by receipts: meals, incidentals, etc.
VI.
VII.
Travel Request Form (a scanned photocopy is sufficient)
Endorsements (Attach letters of endorsement)
CELT Scholarship of Learning and Grant Proposals – Rubric for Evaluation
Unacceptable
(score: 0)
Acceptable
(score: 1-3)
Rationale and objectives
(weighted 35%)
Rationale and/or objectives
are unclear. Does not
address all elements from
instruction sheet.
Insufficient research cited.
Rationale and objectives are
clear. Addresses all elements
from instruction sheet.
Objectives based on student
outcomes.
Timeline and plan
(weighted 20%)
Plan is not clear, or
implementation is vague.
Vague, incomplete, or
unreasonable sequence; no
timeline.
Plan is identified and
implementation is outlined.
Adequate sequence and
timeline.
No instruments or methods
specified. Final report not
included in plan, and/or no
indication of accountability
for final report.
Instruments and/or
methods are identified to
assess enhancement of
student learning. Project
report & poster session are
built into evaluation plan, as
is a statement of who is
accountable for submitting
final report.
No budget or incomplete
budget.
Budget provides specific
breakdown of costs.
College or Departmental
commitment
(weighted 5%)
No letters of endorsements
or only one letter.
Endorsements from Chair
and Dean included.
Strong endorsements from
Chair and Dean included.
Mechanics within
document including
spelling, grammar,
formatting, etc.
(weighted 5%)
Grammar and/or spelling
mistakes; typos;
inconsistency in visual
presentation; poor
organization of information;
unclear.
Only few minor grammar or
spelling mistakes; follows
proposal guidelines;
comprehensible language.
Practically no grammar or
spelling mistakes; follows
proposal guidelines; easy to
read and comprehend; well
written.
Criteria
Evaluation of
success/Methods and final
report to CELT
(weighted 20%)
Budget
(weighted 15%)
Target
(score: 4-5)
Rationale is significant and
convincing. Addresses all
elements from instruction
sheet. Current research
cited. Objectives specifically
linked to enhancement of
student learning.
Detailed and reasonable
plan identified,
Implementation clearly
presented and directly
aligned with evaluation.
Well-delineated and
appropriate sequence and
timeline
Well thought-out plan of
evaluation is articulated
clearly, including
instruments and/or
methods to assess
enhancement of student
learning. Report & poster
session built into evaluation
plan and timeline. Statement
of who is accountable for
submitting final report.
Provides specific breakdown
of costs. Costs are clearly
aligned to rationale and
objectives. Effective use of
money.
Note. In constructing your narrative be aware that reviewers from many disciplines are reading your
submission.
While technical accuracy and specificity are important, it is also important that your proposal be
understandable by those not in your specific discipline.