ES) ANNUAL REPORT OF THE TEACHING GRANTS COMMITTEE

I. paeates March 16, 720S5
To: Conner Atkeson, Chair of the Faculty

From: pr. Bonnie WW. Duldt
Chair, Teaching Grants Committee

Il. Membership of the Committee
Ex -Gi tied as

Vice Chancellor of Academic Affairs or an appointed
representative, Myra Cain

Vice Chancellor for Institutional Advancement, or an
appointed representative, Emily Kane

Mike Bassman

Meta Downes

Bonnie Duldt, Chair
Don Guest

Kathleen Kennedy

Doug Kruger
Hollie Mathews, Vice Chair

Charles Schwartz

Charles Snow

Don Spence

Paul Varlashkin, Secretary
Sandra Wurth-Hough

Committee meetings:

8/19/88 Organizational meeting
Members absent: none

9714/88 Met to finalize forms and discuss policies.
Members absent: Don Guest and Don Spence

2/15/88 Met to discuss proposals and policies.
Members absent: Mike Bassman and Holly Mathews

2/22/88 Continued discussion of proposals and policies.
Members absent: Mike Bassman

2/29/88 Completed selection and other business.
Members absent: Mike Bassman, Meta Downs, and Holly
Mathews.

 
Note: Orientation meetings: 11/2/87 and 11/5/87, with
Research Grants Committee Chair, the Teaching Grants
Chair presented orientation workshops for faculty.

>) IV. Date of reports to the Faculty Senate during the year.
None.

Vw Specitic.instructions, if any, given to the committee by the
Faculty Senate, other than those found in the committee’s
Constitutional charge: None.

A brief statement of committee organization, subcommittees,
research activities, etc.: None other than outlined in the
committee’s Constitutional charge.

List of committee accomplishments including recommendations
made to agencies other than the Faculty Senate.

1. The committee reviewed and selected teaching grant
proposals to recommend to the Vice Chancellor for
academic funding.

a. Maria Malby and Myron Gluck, “Computer Aided
Instruction (CAI) Learning Modules for Russian
Language Stuay. tor’ #770. 5a,

Charles Ziehr, “Geographic Information Systems
(GIS): Geography’s Newest Technology with
MultidiecipPinary Applicabliity, " Ter. $1,326.15.

Maryellen McSweeney & Dorothy L. Merrow, “An
Instructional Package of Paper-and-Fencil &
Computer Materials on Data Processing,” for
$1,002.00.

Sylvene Spickerman & Sylvia Brown, “Use of Thomas-
Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument to Increase the
Student’s Repertoire of Conflict Management
Styles. e- for. $450.00.

Gary C. Smith, "Video Technology in Environmental
Health,” for $960.00.

And for summer stipends:

Kathleen Kennedy, “Development of a New
Biotechnology Methods Course."

Wriliam"h. “Hoots, Are," lime standaras in tnaustry*

Jeannie Golden, “Graduate Internship in Assessment
of Families Who Have Children With Mental,
Behavioral, and/or Emotional Handicaps."

Edith M. Rand, “Proposal to Develop Concept-Based
Modules in Organic Chemistry for Supplemental Use
in Introductory Chemistry Courses."

Carmine P. F. Scavo, "Incorporating Video Techniques
into Current Course Syltabi.*"

Nancy L. Spalding, “The Political Economy of
Development in the Modern World."

 
Le

ay

Q

we

Some suggestions for revision of the grant proposal
application form were noted to be considered by the
membership of this committee next year. These are as

follows:
a. Emphasize the three page limitation for narrative.

The only attachment acceptable would be a brochure

giving details of a program or presentation.

Request information about the faculty member already
having release time to develop a course. Request
a listing of the courses the applicant taught the
last three semesters.

Proposal needs to be disqualified if the project is
an administrative assignment, such as developing a
program handbook or recruitment materials.

Decide whether to continue accepting second and
third year proposals from the same faculty member
or to disqualify previous year’s recipients...for
academic year only or for summer stipends also.

Consider the element of cost effectiveness in the
evaluation criteria of proposals.

Need to add an evaluation item #5 about the “impact”
of the proposal in terms of effect upon teaching;
this is to be differentiated from “need.”

Some suggestions for revision of the proposal review
process were also noted to be considered by the
membership of this committee next year. These
suggestions would tend to provide a more equitable
distribution of the tasks, increase involvement of all
members, and facilitate the forward movement of the
review process group discussions do. These are as
tollows?

a. Before beginning the review process, the committee
needs to have information about:

1) the funds available for the teaching grant
awards so that the committee can be aware of
limitations and possibilities;

2) the status of funded proposals of previous
years; and

3) a report listing all proposals previously
funded by the committee.

b. That individual members of the committee be assigned
the role of “presenter” for a fair share of the
proposals. This role would involve the following:
1) becoming exceptionally familiar with the

assigned proposals;

2) during the committee meeting, making an
appropriate motion to open discussion of the
proposal;

3) after the second, to initiate the discussion by
briefly reviewing the proposal, amplifying
and clarifying as necessary during the
discussion; and

 
4) upon completion of the committee's work,
provide written and verbal feedback to the
faculty who submitted the assigned
proposals.

ec. That all members continue being responsible for
reviewing and scoring all proposals.

d. That the Chair continue to analyze the committee
members' scoring of all proposals and to prepare
spreadsheets for communicating this analysis at
the initial review meeting.

e. That the Chair write letters to faculty whose
proposals are recommended for funding, thanking
them for participating, reporting the committee's
recommendations, and providing feedback about the
ranking of their proposals.

VIII. Citation of the resolution numbers of Senate resolutions

that originated with the committee.
None.

XI. Proposals and/or business to be carried over to next year:
(None so far)

X. Evaluation of the Committee:
A. Structure: satisfactory.
B. Duties: satisfactory.
Cc. functions: satzrefactory.
D. Personnel: satisfactory.

Suggestions for improving the effectiveness of the
committee:

None.
Signed: LG ae
Secretary | hky VA Vix La R®