teaching development grants: reviewer briefing

Teaching Development Grants Reviewer briefing

1

The Higher Education Academy's Teaching Development Grant

scheme is a core part of our work to create innovative evidence-

informed practice in learning and teaching. The projects we fund

have built upon and extended existing pedagogy, and have

generated impact across disciplines, institutions and the sector

beyond. In each academic year there are opportunities for

individuals, academic departments and collaborative teams within

and across subscribing institutions to apply for funds.

Teaching Development Grants

2

To develop evidence informed

practice:

• to instigate innovative and

discipline-led responses;

• to raise the profile of

teaching;

• to recognise and support

pedagogic research.

Purpose of TDG funding

3

Individual

• Twelve-month projects.

• May be disciplinary or generic.

• Some ring-fenced funding.

• Proposals submitted under

the Individual scheme may

request up to £7,000.

• Applications are invited from

any member of staff engaged in

the student learning experience

in HEA-subscribing institutions

in England, Northern Ireland,

Scotland and Wales.

Process

4

Departmental

• Fifteen-month projects.

• Faculty team engagement.

• Led by an academic discipline.

• Maximum amount awarded

£30,000.

• The Departmental grant

scheme invites proposals from

single departments in HEIs that

encourage co-operation

between colleagues to support

the enhancement of learning

and teaching.

Process

5

Collaborative

• Eighteen-month projects.

• Collaborative engagement.

• Longitudinal impact and

evaluation.

• Maximum amount awarded

£60,000.

• Collaborative projects must

be led by a fellow of the

Academy, and must involve a

minimum of two UK

institutional partners.

Process

6

Definition

Student engagement (SE) has been defined in many ways by

various people in differing contexts. For the review process and

the purpose of assessing if SE has been suitably addressed in

Teaching Development Grant applications, we refer to the

definition used by the Higher Education Funding Council for

Education (2009) ‘deliberate attempts to involve and empower

students in the process of shaping the learning experience’.

Principles: Student engagement

7

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 directly

engage with students (UG or PG) as active participants in the

execution of the project;

• students actively involved as peer researchers, student

ambassadors or ‘champions’, members of project

steering/advisory groups or as evaluators;

• students as co-creators of knowledge in the design, delivery

and assessment of learning resources/learning experience.

Student engagement: good practice

8

We are looking for quality of engagement rather than quantity.

Applicants should encompasses some of the following:

• potential for personal and professional development for

students through tangible and active engagement;

• clear identification of the benefits of engagement for all

participants;

• well considered and achievable timeframe for engagement.

Student engagement: good practice

9

What constitutes insufficient levels of student

engagement?

• Students as passive recipients of learning and teaching

development.

• Student evaluation that does not go beyond the standard

monitoring and evaluation strategy, eg student satisfaction

survey of module delivery.

Student engagement

10

• Projects must demonstrate that the whole sector can share the

advantages of evidence based teaching practice.

• Resources created during the course of the project must be

accessible, open–access or available outside the host

institution.

Principles: Benefit beyond the HEI

11

• Feedback from reviewers is used by the Teaching Development

Grant panel to inform decision making on successful bids at the

selection panel.

• In addition constructive feedback from reviewers is provided

anonymously and may be passed to applicants or bidders to

enable them to inform and develop future applications.

• This feedback is highly regarded by applicants and bidding

teams.

How is review used?

12

• Where possible, reviewers are allocated applications and bids

based upon subject or thematic areas, identified in the

expression of interest form for reviewers.

• Although we endeavour to match bids to reviewers as closely

as possible, reviewers may receive an application that does not

match their areas of subject expertise but aligns with their

particular focus on teaching and learning pedagogy and practice.

• We endeavour to inform reviewers of forthcoming rounds of

applications well in advance, to facilitate planning and establish

availability during the academic year.

How are applications allocated?

13

• Refer to applicants in the third person, do not use the

name.

• Use clear and concise language.

• Try to identify positive as well as negative comments to

achieve a balance and inform the applicant’s future

proposals.

• Assess the application against the pre-set criteria.

• If areas of the application lack clarity or evidence then

state this and explain why it is not clear or what is not

well evidenced.

Good practice in reviewing

14

• Whenever possible we aim to provide at least one-month’s

notice for the review period. In exceptional circumstances we

may ask for assistance at short notice, when applications are

unexpectedly high.

• Reviewers need to commit to returning reviews on time within

the pre-agreed reviewing period, so we can service the

selection panel in a timely and well informed manner.

• We expect reviewers to be mindful that their comments may

be used in the feedback process to applicants, and provide a

balanced assessment of the application using the review

criteria.

Responsibilities of reviewers

15

• The review and assessment of Teaching Development Grant

applications is an unpaid activity that relies upon a team of

committed external and internal reviewers, all of whom have

broad expertise in learning and teaching in higher education.

• This team of expert reviewers makes it possible to maintain a

robust, open, fair and transparent process for allocating grant

funding.

• We are committed to providing constructive feedback to

applicants and to ensure this we monitor the quality of the

review process.

The importance of reviewing

16

Process:

• completion of a registration of interest form, to identify

your areas of discipline expertise, learning and teaching

interests and conflicts of interest;

• notification from the TDG team of forthcoming review

periods;

• allocation of bids for review (based on your preferences)

and offering a structured critical appraisal and assessment

of the quality of the application via an online portal.

Becoming a reviewer

17

• Reviewing is a rewarding process which is used to benefit

teaching and learning pedagogy, either through the

assessment and identification of suitable projects or via

constructive feedback to unsuccessful applicants.

• For reviewers it provides insight into emerging and

potential developments in teaching and learning pedagogy

within the disciplines.

• The process of reviewing itself develops the reviewer’s

critical appraisal skills, and so builds on their own ability

to write quality applications.

Benefits of reviewing

18

• All bids are reviewed by two independent peer reviewers and

graded against the underlying principles and criteria.

• Where there is a lack of parity between reviewers, a third

reviewer will be involved.

• Feedback from reviewers is used by the Teaching Development

Grant panel to inform decision making on successful bids at the

selection panel.

Selection process

19

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 Development

Officers.

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 process

20

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 TDG

Reviewers mailbox: TDGreviewers@heacademy.ac.uk

Our commitment to reviewers

21

Academic Lead – Helen Howard

Administration – Fran Eggington

Academic Development Officers:

• Sam Ellis

• Jane Priestley

• Andrew Fleming

Email: first-name.surname@heacademy.ac.uk

TDG team

22

http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/funding#tdg

http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/resources

http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/disciplines

http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/wales

http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/scotland/home

For any enquiries contact:

tdgenquiries@heacademy.ac.uk

Additional resources

23