Faculty Development Grants for Enhanced Teaching and Scholarship (ETS)
2019-2020 Application Guidelines
Application deadline: Monday, June 3, 2019
Email completed applications as one PDF to facultydevelopment@findlay.edu
Faculty Development Grants for Enhanced Teaching and Scholarship (ETS) are designed to
encourage faculty to engage in professional activities that will enhance their growth as teachers
and scholars, thereby supporting exceptional student learning. ETS Grants are highly
competitive grants that award funds of up to $10,000 per project proposal (whether for
individual or collaborative projects). Applications from individual faculty and faculty groups are
invited. The Faculty Development Committee will give additional consideration to proposals
that demonstrate cross-departmental collaboration. This year, up to $35,000 will be awarded.
The first priority in awarding ETS funds is to support proposals that most successfully
demonstrate clear project viability, significance, and sustained impact beyond the grant
period.
Not all applications will be awarded funding and possibly not all funds will be disbursed. The
committee has the flexibility to determine which applications best meet the guidelines set forth
in the Application Guidelines. Unused funds will be transferred to the general Faculty
Development fund and made available to faculty applying for traditional professional
development activities.
Applications are due by Monday, June 3, 2019. Awards will be announced via email by June
28. Funds will be available for disbursement August 1, 2019. All funds must be spent during
the fiscal year in which they are awarded. (The fiscal year runs from August 1 through July 31
of the following year.)
ETS Grants will be awarded according to the following categories:
Teaching Grants are designed to enable exceptional student learning by encouraging
instructors to expand their pedagogical and/or andragogical skills. Teaching Grants support
proposals to improve pedagogical or andragogical skills through learning about, implementing
and/or assessing new teaching strategies. This may include but is not limited to course
development or redesign or application of innovative teaching practices. Interdisciplinary or
collaborative proposals are encouraged.
Research/Creative Production Grants are designed to promote faculty scholarship and
creative production that enable exceptional student learning. These grants support projects
that exceed typical faculty development activities such as conference participation or
attendance or publication fees. These projects may include but are not limited to research
2019-20 ETS Application Guidelines 2
expenses; seed money necessary to apply for external grants; costs to bring collaborators to
campus; equipment necessary for scholarly or creative production.
Emerging Faculty Grants are designed as career development grants for faculty at the
assistant rank or below within their first five years at UF. These grants support
scholarly/creative production or enhancement of teaching skills. See specific criteria on
proposal application form.
Eligibility
All full-time faculty on a continuing appointment are eligible to apply for a Faculty
Development ETS Grant.
Individual faculty may submit one ETS grant application a year. However, applications
from individual faculty members also applying as part of a group will be considered.
Proposals (whether individual or collaborative) are eligible for grants of up to $10,000.
Applications from faculty who will not be under employment contract (due to
resignation or termination) to the University of Findlay during the whole of the grant
period will not be considered. Should a faculty member’s affiliation with UF end during
the funding period, funds awarded must be repaid to the university.
Applications from faculty who have not filed complete reports and expense forms on
the use of previous grants awarded by the Faculty Development Committee will not be
considered.
Application Process
For consideration of a grant please complete the attached application and email as one PDF to
facultydevelopment@findlay.edu. Incomplete proposals or proposals that do not adhere to the
guidelines will not be considered.
Proposals should be written for the non-specialist.
Proposals that involve human subjects or the use of human tissues are subject to the
requirements of UF’s Institutional Review Board (IRB). Proposals that involve the use of
vertebrate animals are subject to the requirements of UF’s Institutional Animal Care and Use
Committee (IACUC). IRB and IACUC approvals are not a prerequisite to submitting an ETS
Faculty Development Grant application but are required prior to the commencement of the
research.
Proposals must provide an impact statement that documents the project’s effects on university
infrastructure (facilities, ITS, etc.) and existing programs, including a review of cost and resource
implications. Applications must include a completed Proposal Review Memorandum from each
of the affected departments/areas/centers on campus. See specific instructions on proposal
application form.
2019-20 ETS Application Guidelines 3
ETS Grant Review Process
ETS grants are reviewed by members of the Faculty Development Committee through a blind
peer review process that evaluates the merit of the proposed activity according to the review
criteria. Reviewers consider the clarity of the proposal (including the budget statement), paying
particular attention to the project’s potential to enhance the applicant’s teaching and/or
scholarship, and its adherence to the application guidelines and rubric.
ETS Grant Funds may be used for but are not limited to
Faculty research projects, particularly those that may lead to external funding
opportunities. Direct research activities completed during sabbatical may be eligible for
funding—all other restrictions apply.
Projects intended to advance teaching through scholarly inquiry into student learning.
Development and evaluation of instructional innovations that will increase the faculty
member’s ability to promote student learning (e.g., learning new and improved
methods of instruction, curricular development, learning the use of new instructional
equipment, software and/or materials).
Costs associated with instructional improvement or for faculty professional
development, impacting student learning directly or indirectly.
Instructional materials including specialized software (but not able to be purchased by
ITS); must include assessment of the impact of the materials on student learning.
Fees for access to facilities and services for the development of instructional and/or
creative production/research materials.
Travel for necessary research at most economical rates (the Faculty Development
Committee has the right to deny reimbursement for any expenses deemed to be
excessive [travel upgrades, luxury car rentals, etc.]).
Essential research materials (books, journals, digital resources) not easily available
through campus sources.
Laboratory research materials (supplies, instruments, consumables, analytical services).
Essential supplies and materials for artistic work (visual and performing arts).
Performance costs (fees for professional actors or musicians; instruments; staging;
space rental).
ETS Grant Funds may not be used for
Travel to present research at or attend professional meetings. (Funding will be
considered for attendance at special workshops/seminars when the applicant provides
sufficient information to relate the value of the workshop/seminar to his or her research
and/or teaching. In the event the workshop/seminar is being held in conjunction with a
regular professional meeting, funding will be considered only for fees associated with
the workshop/seminar portion of the meeting but may not be used for travel, housing,
or meeting registration. Traditional Faculty Development funding may be applied for.)
Projects that contribute directly to the earning of degrees or other professional terminal
credentials required for employment.
2019-20 ETS Application Guidelines 4
Costs associated with professional licensing and/or memberships in professional
organizations.
Reimbursement for expenditures made prior to the ETS Grant award.
Payment of faculty salaries to provide leave or release time.
Projects where alternative activities and/or resources are available on campus.
Reporting requirements
Faculty who receive an ETS Grant must file a report detailing project activity and outcomes by
September 9, 2020. The report should include documentation of what the project accomplished,
an explanation of the project’s benefit to all impacted, and a final budget. Grant recipients are also
expected to present their project progress and/or results to the UF community at the Faculty
Awards Gala the fall following their funding year (Fall 2020). Presentations will be coordinated
with the chair of the Faculty Development Committee and the Center for Teaching Excellence.
Failure to provide a project report and/or present to campus will preclude subsequent Faculty
Development Committee funding.
Deadline
Applications are due by June 3, 2019. Awards will be announced via email by June 28, 2019.
Important dates
Application
Deadline
Awards
Announced
(via email)
Funds Available Funds Must be
Spent
Final Report
Due
Poster
Presentation
June 3, 2019
June 28, 2019
(Last Friday in
June)
August 1, 2019
(
Start of fiscal year)
by July 31, 2020
(
End of fiscal year)
September 9, 2020
Faculty Awards
Gala
Fall 2020
Faculty Development ETS Grants 2019-2020 Application Form
Application deadline: Monday, June 3, 2019
Email completed applications as one PDF to facultydevelopment@findlay.edu
Following is the ETS Grant application form. To be considered, the cover page must be
completed and each of the items on the application form must be addressed. Be sure to write
your proposal in clear language that can be understood by reviewers outside of your discipline.
Application includes minimum requirements; applicants are encouraged to add supporting
materials or any relevant documents that would strengthen their proposal.
ETS Grant Application Cover Page
Name(s) and College(s) of all applicants:
Title of Project:
For which grant you are applying?
Teaching Grant Research/Creative Production Grant Emerging Faculty Grant
Amount of Funds Requested:
Project Title:
I. Statement of Problem or Need
What is the problem or need to be addressed? What is the basic idea, problem, or
rationale for the research question that is the focus of the proposal? Support your
statement with citations from research and reliable sources.
II. Significance (to your field and to your work at UF)
What is the significance of this problem or need to your field? What is the significance
of this project to your teaching philosophy and/or creative production/research agenda
as a faculty member at the University of Findlay?
III. Connection to the Big 8 and Sustained Significance
How specifically does the project align with the University’s strategic goals (Big 8)?
What sustained significance will the project have for the University beyond the
initial funding period?
Equip students for meaningful lives and productive careers
Improve academic programs continuously through rigorous assessment
Grow targeted enrollment
Enable exceptional student learning
Develop the whole person through individual attention
Embrace professional, cultural and intellectual diversity
Provide experiential learning in every program
Build best-in-class strategic resources
IV. Activities and Methods
What activities will you implement to achieve your outcomes? What is the research
methodology you are going to use? Explain why these are the most effective methodologies or
best practices, using outside evidence to support as appropriate. What, if any, preliminary work
has been done for the project by applicant(s) and/or by other individuals?
V. Outcomes
What are the specific, measurable, and observable outcomes you hope to achieve?
What scholarly product(s) do you anticipate would come from this project? What is the
likelihood of a substantial result from the grant (usable product, public attention that
can impact public policy, external funding, etc.)?
VI. Timeline
Provide a realistic and comprehensive timeline of major project activities.
VII. Evaluation
How will you measure whether or not you have achieved the outcomes described above?
VIII. Impact Statement
How will this project affect existing University infrastructure? Impacts to address
include, but are not limited to, the following. If there is no impact, explain.
a. What physical spaces are needed for this project? Will facilities need to
make changes to existing campus spaces?
b. Will equipment purchased need to be maintained by someone other than the
grant recipient(s)?
c. What kinds of ITS support or resources would be required?
d. Would licenses or subscriptions need to be sustained beyond the grant
period?
e. Will Shafer Library need to purchase additional resources?
f. How might the proposed project affect support staff?
g. Would resources or support be required from programs or departments not
writing the grant proposal?
h. What are the implications of these requirements?
A Completed Proposal Review Memorandum must be submitted from each
department/area/center affected by the proposal. Note: Approval from affected
areas does not guarantee funding. However, funding cannot be awarded without
approval.
IX. Budget Justification
Your budget should support with numbers the methods and activities you describe
above. The budget should be reasonable for both the effort and the anticipated results.
Explain how and why specific expenditures are necessary for the proposed activity.
Explain how you are arriving at your costs. A specific breakdown of expenses
associated with the project must be included with supporting documentation of
costs. Appropriate documentation may include: screen shots with vendor and price
information, vendor quotes, PDF of catalog pages, screen shots of travel cost estimates
(e.g. flight cost, car rental, hotel rates, food per diem, Google map to show mileage),
screen shots documenting costs associated with research (e.g. library or transcription
fees) or creative production (e.g. stage rental or production costs).
Provide a detailed explanation of other sources of funding. If requesting seed money
for an external grant, identify the source of the external funding. If your total estimated
project expenditures exceed $10,000, document additional sources of funding.
X. For Emerging Faculty Grant Applicants only
How specifically does the proposed project contribute to your long-term
professional trajectory? How does it advance your professional growth and/or
impact your professional identity?
2019-2020 ETS Grant Proposal Review MEMORANDUM
FROM:
SUBJECT: Review of ETS grant proposal by affected Department/Area/Center
PROPOSAL TITLE:
Directions: All proposals must include a completed Proposal Review Memorandum. Select
one of the following.
N/A Briefly explain.
OR
The affected Department/Area/Center
has reviewed proposal
and (at least one of the following must be checked)
Department/center/area has no concerns.
Issues of concern have been resolved satisfactorily. List below all areas of concern addressed
and resolution.
Issues of concern have been raised but not resolved. Briefly describe below concern(s).
All relevant signatures and dates required:
Proposal Sponsors Date
Chair/Director of Affected Department/Area/Center Date
Adapted from UF Curriculum Review Memorandum
click to sign
signature
click to edit
click to sign
signature
click to edit
2019-2020 ETS Grant Evaluation Rubric
Criterion Description
Excellent
(3 points)
Good
(2 points)
Fair
(1 points)
Poor
(0 points)
Statement
of Problem
or Need
Applicant explained
the problem and/or
need being
addressed.
Specific and
comprehensive. Complete,
detailed, and clearly
articulated information as
to how the criteria are met.
Proposal presents well-
conceived and thoroughly
developed ideas.
General, but sufficient
detail. Adequate
information as to how
the criteria are met,
but some areas are
not fully explained
and/or questions
remain. Some minor
inconsistencies and
weaknesses.
Vague and non-
specific. Criteria
minimally met,
but limited
information is
provided about
approach and
strategies. Lacks
focus and detail.
Does not meet the criteria,
fails to provide
information, provides
inaccurate information, or
provides information that
requires substantial
clarification as to how the
criteria are met; or simply
restates the criteria.
Applicant explained
the basic idea or
rational for the
project’s central
research question,
providing citations
from research and
reliable sources.
Specific and
comprehensive. Complete,
detailed, and clearly
articulated information as
to how the criteria are met.
Proposal presents well-
conceived and thoroughly
developed ideas.
General, but sufficient
detail. Adequate
information as to how
the criteria are met,
but some areas are
not fully explained
and/or questions
remain. Some minor
inconsistencies and
weaknesses.
Vague and non-
specific. Criteria
minimally met,
but limited
information is
provided about
approach and
strategies. Lacks
focus and detail.
Does not meet the criteria,
fails to provide
information, provides
inaccurate information, or
provides information that
requires substantial
clarification as to how the
criteria are met; or simply
restates the criteria.
Significance
Applicant explained
the project’s
Specific and
comprehensive. Complete,
General, but sufficient
detail. Adequate
Vague and non-
specific. Criteria
Does not meet the criteria,
fails to provide
significance to
applicant’s field.
detailed, and clearly
articulated information as
to how the criteria are met.
Proposal presents well-
conceived and thoroughly
developed ideas.
information as to how
the criteria are met,
but some areas are
not fully explained
and/or questions
remain. Some minor
inconsistencies and
weaknesses.
minimally met,
but limited
information is
provided about
approach and
strategies. Lacks
focus and detail.
information, provides
inaccurate information, or
provides information that
requires substantial
clarification as to how the
criteria are met; or simply
restates the criteria.
Applicant explained
the project’s
significance to
applicant’s teaching
philosophy and/or
creative
production/research
agenda as a faculty
member at the
University of
Findlay.
Specific and
comprehensive. Complete,
detailed, and clearly
articulated information as
to how the criteria are met.
Proposal presents well-
conceived and thoroughly
developed ideas.
Specific and
comprehensive. Complete,
detailed, and clearly
articulated information as
to how the criteria are met.
Proposal presents well-
conceived and thoroughly
developed ideas.
General, but sufficient
detail. Adequate
information as to how
the criteria are met,
but some areas are
not fully explained
and/or questions
remain. Some minor
inconsistencies and
weaknesses.
Vague and non-
specific. Criteria
minimally met,
but limited
information is
provided about
approach and
strategies. Lacks
focus and detail.
Does not meet the criteria,
fails to provide
information, provides
inaccurate information, or
provides information that
requires substantial
clarification as to how the
criteria are met; or simply
restates the criteria.
Connection
to the Big 8
and
Sustained
Significance
Applicant explained
the project’s
alignment to the
University’s
strategic goals (Big
8).
General, but sufficient
detail. Adequate
information as to how
the criteria are met,
but some areas are
not fully explained
and/or questions
remain. Some minor
inconsistencies and
Vague and non-
specific. Criteria
minimally met,
but limited
information is
provided about
approach and
strategies. Lacks
focus and detail.
Does not meet the criteria,
fails to provide
information, provides
inaccurate information, or
provides information that
requires substantial
clarification as to how the
criteria are met; or simply
restates the criteria.
weaknesses.
Applicant explained
the project’s
sustained impact to
the UF community
beyond the initial
funding period.
Specific and
comprehensive. Complete,
detailed, and clearly
articulated information as
to how the criteria are met.
Proposal presents well-
conceived and thoroughly
developed ideas.
General, but sufficient
detail. Adequate
information as to how
the criteria are met,
but some areas are
not fully explained
and/or questions
remain. Some minor
inconsistencies and
weaknesses.
Vague and non-
specific. Criteria
minimally met,
but limited
information is
provided about
approach and
strategies. Lacks
focus and detail.
Does not meet the criteria,
fails to provide
information, provides
inaccurate information, or
provides information that
requires substantial
clarification as to how the
criteria are met; or simply
restates the criteria.
Activities
and
Methods
Applicant described
research
methodology,
indicating
appropriateness of
methodology to
achieving desired
outcomes.
Specific and
comprehensive. Complete,
detailed, and clearly
articulated information as
to how the criteria are met.
Proposal presents well-
conceived and thoroughly
developed ideas.
General, but sufficient
detail. Adequate
information as to how
the criteria are met,
but some areas are
not fully explained
and/or questions
remain. Some minor
inconsistencies and
weaknesses.
Vague and non-
specific. Criteria
minimally met,
but limited
information is
provided about
approach and
strategies. Lacks
focus and detail.
Does not meet the criteria,
fails to provide
information, provides
inaccurate information, or
provides information that
requires substantial
clarification as to how the
criteria are met; or simply
restates the criteria.
Applicant described
activities to be
implemented,
indicating
appropriateness of
those activities to
achieving desired
Specific and
comprehensive. Complete,
detailed, and clearly
articulated information as
to how the criteria are met.
Proposal presents well-
conceived and thoroughly
General, but sufficient
detail. Adequate
information as to how
the criteria are met,
but some areas are
not fully explained
and/or questions
Vague and non-
specific. Criteria
minimally met,
but limited
information is
provided about
approach and
Does not meet the criteria,
fails to provide
information, provides
inaccurate information, or
provides information that
requires substantial
clarification as to how the
outcomes and
describing any
relevant preliminary
work.
developed ideas.
remain. Some minor
inconsistencies and
weaknesses.
strategies. Lacks
focus and detail.
criteria are met; or simply
restates the criteria.
Outcomes
Applicant provided
measurable and
observable
outcomes to be
achieved.
Specific and
comprehensive. Complete,
detailed, and clearly
articulated information as
to how the criteria are met.
Proposal presents well-
conceived and thoroughly
developed ideas.
General, but sufficient
detail. Adequate
information as to how
the criteria are met,
but some areas are
not fully explained
and/or questions
remain. Some minor
inconsistencies and
weaknesses.
Vague and non-
specific. Criteria
minimally met,
but limited
information is
provided about
approach and
strategies. Lacks
focus and detail.
Does not meet the criteria,
fails to provide
information, provides
inaccurate information, or
provides information that
requires substantial
clarification as to how the
criteria are met; or simply
restates the criteria.
Applicant identified
scholarly products
that would result
from project,
including likely
substantial results
(peer-reviewed
publication, creative
work, usable
product, public
attention that can
impact public policy,
external funding,
Specific and
comprehensive. Complete,
detailed, and clearly
articulated information as
to how the criteria are met.
Proposal presents well-
conceived and thoroughly
developed ideas.
General, but sufficient
detail. Adequate
information as to how
the criteria are met,
but some areas are
not fully explained
and/or questions
remain. Some minor
inconsistencies and
weaknesses.
Vague and non-
specific. Criteria
minimally met,
but limited
information is
provided about
approach and
strategies. Lacks
focus and detail.
Does not meet the criteria,
fails to provide
information, provides
inaccurate information, or
provides information that
requires substantial
clarification as to how the
criteria are met; or simply
restates the criteria.
etc.)
Timeline
Applicant provided a
realistic and
comprehensive
timeline of major
project activities.
Specific and
comprehensive. Complete,
detailed, and clearly
articulated information as
to how the criteria are met.
Proposal presents well-
conceived and thoroughly
developed ideas.
General, but sufficient
detail. Adequate
information as to how
the criteria are met,
but some areas are
not fully explained
and/or questions
remain. Some minor
inconsistencies and
weaknesses.
Vague and non-
specific. Criteria
minimally met,
but limited
information is
provided about
approach and
strategies. Lacks
focus and detail.
Does not meet the criteria,
fails to provide
information, provides
inaccurate information, or
provides information that
requires substantial
clarification as to how the
criteria are met; or simply
restates the criteria.
Evaluation
Applicant explained
how achievement of
outcomes will be
measured.
Specific and
comprehensive. Complete,
detailed, and clearly
articulated information as
to how the criteria are met.
Proposal presents well-
conceived and thoroughly
developed ideas.
General, but sufficient
detail. Adequate
information as to how
the criteria are met,
but some areas are
not fully explained
and/or questions
remain. Some minor
inconsistencies and
weaknesses.
General, but sufficient
detail. Adequate
information as to how
the criteria are met,
but some areas are
not fully explained
and/or questions
Vague and non-
specific. Criteria
minimally met,
but limited
information is
provided about
approach and
strategies. Lacks
focus and detail.
Does not meet the criteria,
fails to provide
information, provides
inaccurate information, or
provides information that
requires substantial
clarification as to how the
criteria are met; or simply
restates the criteria.
Impact
Statement
Applicant explained
how the project will
affect existing
University
infrastructure,
including but not
limited to physical
Specific and
comprehensive. Complete,
detailed, and clearly
articulated information as
to how the criteria are met.
Proposal presents well-
conceived and thoroughly
Vague and non-
specific. Criteria
minimally met,
but limited
information is
provided about
approach and
Does not meet the criteria,
fails to provide
information, provides
inaccurate information, or
provides information that
requires substantial
clarification as to how the
spaces and IT
resources and/or
how the project
would affect other
UF programs or
departments and
implications of
impact. Appropriate
Proposal Review
Memorandum
included.
developed ideas.
Appropriate Proposal
Review Memorandum
included.
remain. Some minor
inconsistencies and
weaknesses.
Appropriate Proposal
Review Memorandum
included.
strategies. Lacks
focus and detail.
Appropriate
Proposal Review
Memorandum
not included or
incomplete.
criteria are met; or simply
restates the criteria.
Appropriate Proposal
Review Memorandum
not included or
incomplete.
Budget
Justification
Applicant provided
breakdown of
project expenses
with supporting
documentation.
Specific and
comprehensive. Complete,
detailed, and clearly
articulated information as
to how the criteria are met.
Proposal presents well-
conceived and thoroughly
developed ideas.
General, but sufficient
detail. Adequate
information as to how
the criteria are met,
but some areas are
not fully explained
and/or questions
remain. Some minor
inconsistencies and
weaknesses.
Vague and non-
specific. Criteria
minimally met,
but limited
information is
provided about
approach and
strategies. Lacks
focus and detail.
Does not meet the criteria,
fails to provide
information, provides
inaccurate information, or
provides information that
requires substantial
clarification as to how the
criteria are met; or simply
restates the criteria.
Applicant explained
why expenditures
are necessary for
proposed activity.
Specific and
comprehensive. Complete,
detailed, and clearly
articulated information as
to how the criteria are met.
Proposal presents well-
conceived and thoroughly
General, but sufficient
detail. Adequate
information as to how
the criteria are met,
but some areas are
not fully explained
and/or questions
Vague and non-
specific. Criteria
minimally met,
but limited
information is
provided about
approach and
Does not meet the criteria,
fails to provide
information, provides
inaccurate information, or
provides information that
requires substantial
clarification as to how the
developed ideas.
remain. Some minor
inconsistencies and
weaknesses.
strategies. Lacks
focus and detail.
criteria are met; or simply
restates the criteria.
Applicant identified
and explained
additional sources
of funding (internal
and external).
Specific and
comprehensive. Complete,
detailed, and clearly
articulated information as
to how the criteria are met.
Proposal presents well-
conceived and thoroughly
developed ideas.
General, but sufficient
detail. Adequate
information as to how
the criteria are met,
but some areas are
not fully explained
and/or questions
remain. Some minor
inconsistencies and
weaknesses.
Vague and non-
specific. Criteria
minimally met,
but limited
information is
provided about
approach and
strategies. Lacks
focus and detail.
Does not meet the criteria,
fails to provide
information, provides
inaccurate information, or
provides information that
requires substantial
clarification as to how the
criteria are met; or simply
restates the criteria.
Total points:
Comments:
Chrome Web Store
It looks like you haven't installed the Fill Chrome Extension Add to Chrome