• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Teaching Development Grants: Reviewer briefing
 

Teaching Development Grants: Reviewer briefing

on

  • 261 views

Teaching Development Grants: Reviewer briefing

Teaching Development Grants: Reviewer briefing

Statistics

Views

Total Views
261
Views on SlideShare
242
Embed Views
19

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
2
Comments
0

2 Embeds 19

https://heareviewers.pbworks.com 15
https://asynchro.pbworks.com 4

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Teaching Development Grants: Reviewer briefing Teaching Development Grants: Reviewer briefing Presentation Transcript

    • Teaching Development GrantsReviewer briefing1
    • The Higher Education Academys Teaching Development Grantscheme is a core part of our work to create innovative evidence-informed practice in learning and teaching. The projects we fundhave built upon and extended existing pedagogy, and havegenerated impact across disciplines, institutions and the sectorbeyond. In each academic year there are opportunities forindividuals, academic departments and collaborative teams withinand across subscribing institutions to apply for funds.Teaching Development Grants2
    • To develop evidence informedpractice:• to instigate innovative anddiscipline-led responses;• to raise the profile ofteaching;• to recognise and supportpedagogic research.Purpose of TDG funding3
    • Individual• Twelve-month projects.• May be disciplinary or generic.• Some ring-fenced funding.• Proposals submitted underthe Individual scheme mayrequest up to £7,000.• Applications are invited fromany member of staff engaged inthe student learning experiencein HEA-subscribing institutionsin England, Northern Ireland,Scotland and Wales.Process4
    • Departmental• Fifteen-month projects.• Faculty team engagement.• Led by an academic discipline.• Maximum amount awarded£30,000.• The Departmental grantscheme invites proposals fromsingle departments in HEIs thatencourage co-operationbetween colleagues to supportthe enhancement of learningand teaching.Process5
    • Collaborative• Eighteen-month projects.• Collaborative engagement.• Longitudinal impact andevaluation.• Maximum amount awarded£60,000.• Collaborative projects mustbe led by a fellow of theAcademy, and must involve aminimum of two UKinstitutional partners.Process6
    • DefinitionStudent engagement (SE) has been defined in many ways byvarious people in differing contexts. For the review process andthe purpose of assessing if SE has been suitably addressed inTeaching Development Grant applications, we refer to thedefinition used by the Higher Education Funding Council forEducation (2009) ‘deliberate attempts to involve and empowerstudents in the process of shaping the learning experience’.Principles: Student engagement7
    • We are looking for quality of engagement rather than quantity.Applicants should encompasses some of the following:• the applicant must demonstrate how the project will directlyengage with students (UG or PG) as active participants in theexecution of the project;• students actively involved as peer researchers, studentambassadors or ‘champions’, members of projectsteering/advisory groups or as evaluators;• students as co-creators of knowledge in the design, deliveryand assessment of learning resources/learning experience.Student engagement: good practice8
    • We are looking for quality of engagement rather than quantity.Applicants should encompasses some of the following:• potential for personal and professional development forstudents through tangible and active engagement;• clear identification of the benefits of engagement for allparticipants;• well considered and achievable timeframe for engagement.Student engagement: good practice9
    • What constitutes insufficient levels of studentengagement?• Students as passive recipients of learning and teachingdevelopment.• Student evaluation that does not go beyond the standardmonitoring and evaluation strategy, eg student satisfactionsurvey of module delivery.Student engagement10
    • • Projects must demonstrate that the whole sector can share theadvantages of evidence based teaching practice.• Resources created during the course of the project must beaccessible, open–access or available outside the hostinstitution.Principles: Benefit beyond the HEI11
    • • Feedback from reviewers is used by the Teaching DevelopmentGrant panel to inform decision making on successful bids at theselection panel.• In addition constructive feedback from reviewers is providedanonymously and may be passed to applicants or bidders toenable them to inform and develop future applications.• This feedback is highly regarded by applicants and biddingteams.How is review used?12
    • • Where possible, reviewers are allocated applications and bidsbased upon subject or thematic areas, identified in theexpression of interest form for reviewers.• Although we endeavour to match bids to reviewers as closelyas possible, reviewers may receive an application that does notmatch their areas of subject expertise but aligns with theirparticular focus on teaching and learning pedagogy and practice.• We endeavour to inform reviewers of forthcoming rounds ofapplications well in advance, to facilitate planning and establishavailability during the academic year.How are applications allocated?13
    • • Refer to applicants in the third person, do not use thename.• Use clear and concise language.• Try to identify positive as well as negative comments toachieve a balance and inform the applicant’s futureproposals.• Assess the application against the pre-set criteria.• If areas of the application lack clarity or evidence thenstate this and explain why it is not clear or what is notwell evidenced.Good practice in reviewing14
    • • Whenever possible we aim to provide at least one-month’snotice for the review period. In exceptional circumstances wemay ask for assistance at short notice, when applications areunexpectedly high.• Reviewers need to commit to returning reviews on time withinthe pre-agreed reviewing period, so we can service theselection panel in a timely and well informed manner.• We expect reviewers to be mindful that their comments maybe used in the feedback process to applicants, and provide abalanced assessment of the application using the reviewcriteria.Responsibilities of reviewers15
    • • The review and assessment of Teaching Development Grantapplications is an unpaid activity that relies upon a team ofcommitted external and internal reviewers, all of whom havebroad expertise in learning and teaching in higher education.• This team of expert reviewers makes it possible to maintain arobust, open, fair and transparent process for allocating grantfunding.• We are committed to providing constructive feedback toapplicants and to ensure this we monitor the quality of thereview process.The importance of reviewing16
    • Process:• completion of a registration of interest form, to identifyyour areas of discipline expertise, learning and teachinginterests and conflicts of interest;• notification from the TDG team of forthcoming reviewperiods;• allocation of bids for review (based on your preferences)and offering a structured critical appraisal and assessmentof the quality of the application via an online portal.Becoming a reviewer17
    • • Reviewing is a rewarding process which is used to benefitteaching and learning pedagogy, either through theassessment and identification of suitable projects or viaconstructive feedback to unsuccessful applicants.• For reviewers it provides insight into emerging andpotential developments in teaching and learning pedagogywithin the disciplines.• The process of reviewing itself develops the reviewer’scritical appraisal skills, and so builds on their own abilityto write quality applications.Benefits of reviewing18
    • • All bids are reviewed by two independent peer reviewers andgraded against the underlying principles and criteria.• Where there is a lack of parity between reviewers, a thirdreviewer will be involved.• Feedback from reviewers is used by the Teaching DevelopmentGrant panel to inform decision making on successful bids at theselection panel.Selection process19
    • The Selection Panel is:• made up of Heads of Cluster, External representation,Academic Leads, and an Executive representative;• serviced by the Administrator and the Academic DevelopmentOfficers.The panel will:• use the referees’ comments to guide selection;• ensure innovation and developmental project selection;• consider the Academy’s goals and strategic plan.Selection process20
    • We will endeavour to:• communicate key dates as early as possible;• provide appropriate guidance in the online review process;• respond promptly to contact from reviewers via the TDGReviewers mailbox: TDGreviewers@heacademy.ac.ukOur commitment to reviewers21
    • Academic Lead – Helen HowardAdministration – Fran EggingtonAcademic Development Officers:• Sam Ellis• Jane Priestley• Andrew FlemingEmail: first-name.surname@heacademy.ac.ukTDG team22
    • http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/funding#tdghttp://www.heacademy.ac.uk/resourceshttp://www.heacademy.ac.uk/disciplineshttp://www.heacademy.ac.uk/waleshttp://www.heacademy.ac.uk/scotland/homeFor any enquiries contact:tdgenquiries@heacademy.ac.ukAdditional resources23