IEDC FAQ Decision Guide
Name of the Grant: Instruction Evaluation and Development Committee (IEDC) Grant
- Funding Allowances/Restrictions Does this grant provide funding for:
- Academic year faculty course release/reassign time? No
- Academic year faculty stipends (i.e., extra pay)? No
- Summer faculty stipends (i.e., extra pay)? No
- Full-time Temporary (non-tenure-track) faculty? No
- Adjunct (non-tenure-track) faculty? No
- Academic year graduate or undergraduate student support? No
- Summer graduate or undergraduate student support? No
- Equipment and Travel
- Equipment/supplies/materials? Yes
- Travel to a workshop or training program? Yes
- Travel to attend a conference? Yes
- Does this grant provide funds for projects longer than one year? No
- Does this grant have restrictions on or preferences for when faculty may reapply after
having received an award? Yes: Preference is given to applicants who have not received funding from this grant
in the past 1-2 years.
- Does the grant committee prioritize or restrict proposals according to faculty status (e.g., rank, tenured, tenure-track)? Yes, only tenured/tenure-track faculty are eligible.
- Major Positive and Negative Aspects of Proposals for this Grant
- What have been the most common or frequent “gray” areas where submitters have been
confused or inaccurate about the grant funding criteria?
- Whether the proposal should be submitted as a FRCAC or Faculty Development grant instead.
- Large-scale ($) proposals that are more appropriate for the Technology Access Fee (TAF) program.
- Failure to specifically describe how the proposal addressed the funding priorities of this grant.
- If attending a workshop, program, or conference, failure to indicate how that knowledge
or experience will be incorporated into one’s courses and instruction.
- What are the most important attributes of successful proposals?
- Approved matching or partner funds (e.g., from department or college).
- Total amount requested is under $2000.
- Each grant funding criterion is specifically addressed.
- A large number of students are impacted by the proposal.
- There is detailed information on how students will be impacted by the proposal.
- An itemized listing and appropriate justification for each budget item are provided. [Note: if sufficient detail is preferred here, the committee can make a smaller award (if necessary) and will know better what it can fund.]
- Submitter has consulted with or discussed the proposal with the committee chair or
the Director of Faculty Development in the LT&ITC.
- What are the most important attributes of unsuccessful proposals?
- More than 10 pages.
- Provide too much detail that is not relevant or important to the main grant criteria.
- Provide too little detail about and justification for the budget items. Does your
committee allow revisions or resubmissions of rejected proposals? Yes
- What have been the most common or frequent “gray” areas where submitters have been confused or inaccurate about the grant funding criteria?
- Details of Awards for this Grant
- Total funds available in past year: $18,750
- Mean grant size funded in past year: ~$1,300
- Number of awards funded in past year: 18
- Does your committee use proportionate awarding of funds (e.g., a certain % allocated for each funding deadline)? No, funds are allocated on a “first-come, first-served” basis