Tag Archives: education

L&T Grants – to apply or not to apply, that is the question

Posted by: Ruth Moeller, Senior Advisor, Learning and Teaching, Design and Social Context College, RMIT University

“Contemplating in Vanuatu” Picture © by Ruth Moeller

 At RMIT it’s L&T grant writing season

I have been sitting here contemplating the many grant proposals I’ve seen. As the DSC College’s Learning and Teaching Investment Fund (LTIF) co-ordinator I have seen many proposals, the good, the bad and the ugly. Over this time I have garnered some insights into what makes a successful proposal and would like to share them with you. (My experience and examples relate to LTIFs but the advice generally relates to all L&T grants.)

1. Have an idea, but make sure it’s the right kind

Grants will have a particular focus and to be successful you need to ensure that what you are proposing reflects that.

LTIFs are about learning and teaching and specifically things that “lead to quality learning experiences for students” and “provide students with a cohort experience that makes a difference to their lives”. So the focus here is the student and their outcomes. I have seen many proposals that were thinly disguised research applications, proposals that were focused on course/program development that is really part of normal business, and every now and again an idea that’s put forward just to see if someone will pay for it. These proposals may have merit but not for an LTIF.

2. Let someone know

This is a dilemma, as grants are competitive. By sharing your concept you may feel that you are giving away your idea but it is better to test your plan before you invest in a proposal that may be better placed elsewhere.

I have seen groups put forward similar projects – committees are unlikely to fund proposals about the same thing. If the groups consulted they could have been linked to talk about the direction each were taking and ways they could cooperate or differentiate. Likewise there are the proposals that are similar to ones previously submitted. This means they were successful, so it’s been done, or unsuccessful, and you need to find out why before proceeding.

Talk to the relevant grants co-ordinator to test out your idea before you become too invested in it.

Contacts for LTIFs and Office of Learning and Teaching (OLT) grants at RMIT

Design and Social Context College

Business College

Science, Engineering and Health College

3. What are the conditions/parameters for the grant? Work within them.

This information will be on the website and presented at information sessions. You need to make yourself familiar with “The Rules” of the particular grant you are applying for and follow them.

I am always surprised that when the criterion says: “Travel and equipment purchases will not be funded unless there are extenuating reasons” there is a request for travel to a conference or the purchase of 25 iPads.

Even if you have applied for many grants, checking the guidelines and going to information sessions can provide you with insights and tips for your application.

4. Consult

Have the people/groups that can make your proposal a reality been consulted and are they involved?

By listing an EdTech group on a proposal there is an expectation is that they will take part but have they been asked? Conversely, proposing a technology dependent idea and not consulting with the experts weakens the application.

Also you need to consider issues of work planning and work load when forming your project team.

5. Be realistic

Ask yourself the following questions before the review panel does:

  • What do we actually want money for?
  • Could we do it within our current resources?
  • Can we really achieve what we are promising in the time allocated?
  • Is our budget optimistic/aspirational or realistic?
  • Is the idea sustainable? What happens next year without funding?
  • Does our idea have application beyond our course/program? When investing money the expectation is broader application
  • If it was my money, would I pay for this?

6. Read the form – and then fill it out – all of it

If a box isn’t completed it begs the question are you avoiding or ignoring or not good at proof reading – either way, a quality application is a complete one.

In the LTIFs, you are asked to identify “Which strategic objective(s) does this project address?”. In many of the proposals this is not addressed, begging the question, does it not align/ do you not know or do you not care?

On the matter of signatures, all grants require sign off by various roles with in the university. Make sure you allow enough time to do this and even better, consult before you ask for a signature.

In the LTIFs, your Head of School is required to support your application. It would be politic as well as good manners to tell them what you are proposing before you ask for a signature that shows their support.

7. Have a ‘critical friend’ read the final proposal

Your team members know what you are talking about but will others? Get someone who is not part of the team to read your application, do they understand it? You need to think about who will be reading and assessing your proposal. This can be particularly challenging when you have people from different disciplines assessing proposals.

These are my insights on writing a successful application. The one thing I haven’t mentioned is the element of luck that goes with any completive endeavour as that is out of our control. But I do wish you good luck with your application and if you need further information:

Or contact the LTIF/OLT grants co-ordinator for your college listed in No.2

Do you have any advice/tips/strategies you would like to share on L&T grant writing?

Share your thoughts in the comments section!
_________
Find us on:

Facebook: www.facebook.com/teachingtomtom
Twitter: @teachingtomtom
and WordPress: www.theteachingtomtom.wordpress.com

This article has a readability score of grade 9 assessed by the program Hemingway App

Student feedback: What it can and can’t tell us

Posted by: Associate Professor Andrea Chester, Deputy Pro Vice Chancellor, Learning and Teaching, Design and Social Context, RMIT University.

As we move towards the end of semester we begin the process of collecting student feedback via the Course Experience Survey (CES). Student feedback on teaching is a complex topic and it typically raises a range of issues for academics.

Get any group of teaching staff together to discuss student feedback and you will be guaranteed a lively discussion. In addition to the many hours clocked up in our staff rooms on this topic, it has generated thousands of articles examining the validity of student evaluation tools; the best time in the semester for such feedback; how to most effectively close the feedback loop and how to communicate with students about changes made as a result of their feedback.

Lecturer showing a mindmap on an overhead projector.

Copyright © RMIT University. Photographer: Margund Sallowsky.

Previous tomtom posts like this one and this one have effectively captured the ups and downs of the process and both make mention of the importance of putting the CES in context for students.  The phenomenon of “survey fatigue” too (as we know from our own lives) is a risk in any drive to increase response rates, particularly as we move to online administration of the survey.

There is one issue, however, on which there is widespread agreement: student feedback is only one source of information available to us about our courses and our teaching. Triangulation is crucial. This means complementing student feedback with information from:

  • assessment tasks, giving due consideration to the learning your students demonstrate
  • peer observation, such as via Peer Partnerships, in which you invite colleagues to experience your teaching and provide feedback and your own reflections on what seems to work and not work and why.

The CES can provide us with useful information, but we do need to remember what it measures, namely student experience. In his useful summary of research on student evaluations, Terry Doyle (2004) reminds us that while student feedback can provide valuable information, there are a number of aspects about which students are not well qualified to provide feedback including:

  • if the teaching methods used were appropriate for the course
  • if the content covered was appropriate for the course
  • if the content covered was up-to-date
  • if the assignments were appropriate for aiding student learning
  • if what they learned has real world application
  • if what they learned will help them in future classes
  • if the type of assistance, help or support given to students was appropriate to the learning goals of the class
  • if the difficulty level of the course material was at an appropriate level.

What Doyle also provides here I think is a structure for a teacher or lecturer to speak to towards the end of her or his course. A quick reminder about each of the elements above would also be an appropriate introduction to students before they complete their survey.

RMIT TAFE Students in class.

Copyright © RMIT University. Photographer: Margund Sallowsky.

Before making changes in response to student feedback, we need to be confident in the validity of the data provided and this brings us to response rates. This semester the Survey Services Group has developed a reliability band calculator. During the administration period of the survey (May 6 – June 2) you will be able to check how your own response rates are tracking against the reliability bands (good, sufficient and insufficient). You can check the response rates by program and school here (RMIT Staff login required). Contact your L&T group if you’d like to use a short presentation that has been designed by the Survey Centre to be displayed in a class so that students can follow the links and complete any outstanding surveys.

The RMIT Academic Expectations have set expected and aspirational targets for the Good Teaching Scale. In the coming years there will be more pressure on academics to provide reliable snapshots of the student perspective on their teaching. The vast majority of academics have always used the surveys as a tool for self-reflection.

I’m confident that we can continue a culture at RMIT that puts an appropriate emphasis on major surveys like the CES as one way in which we identify both evidence of excellence and areas for improvement.

Resources:

  • Read more about Terry Doyle’s research into surveys and teacher effectiveness at his blog Learner Centered Teaching.
  • For more on the CES, read this FAQ published by the Survey Services Centre.

Share your thoughts about the CES in the comments section below!

Education vs/and Entertainment

Post by Ruth Moeller
Image by: Lost Albatross

I can not believe I am saying this but I am inspired to learn computer programming! As someone with a love/hate relationship with technology (love it when it works/hate it when it doesn’t), you should wonder what has brought this on? I have been cruising Youtube, looking for ideas and resources for my education students (of which there are many, resources that is, but that is a post for another day) when I came across Richard Buckland, and was inspired.

Richard teaching teaches computer programming at UNSW and has posted his lectures online as part of an access project. By the student comments on each lecture, I can see I am not the only one impressed.

When you look at the lectures, and I encourage you to do so, you feel that he is talking to you, or at least a small group of students, not a full lecture theatre. Besides having a t-shirt collection worthy of Sheldon Cooper (see The Big Bang Theory), he exudes a passion for his subject, and sharing that with his students. Importantly from my perspective, he uses good teaching strategies to engage the students.

Watch the first lecture in the subject, and see how he starts to learn student names, cleverly deals with a lighting problem using a 20th century teaching icon, and links his subject to the previous one, even commenting on the students’ assessment from this subject. Can I say, that as a potential student, I would be hooked – he has passion that he wants me to share and is interested in ME, and this is all within the first 20 minutes of the lecture.

I am sure that this will cause many to say “that’s OK for him, but I’m not entertaining and my subject is boring”. Now we have the age old conundrum, entertainment vs education. I understand it would be wonderful if we all had a natural gift for entertainment but for most, teaching is a craft, a series of strategies and techniques held together by practice rather than an art for which we have a gift.

Richard is entertaining but he also uses a range of teaching strategies to engage his students with the content. In my opinion, entertainment can be a trap, you go to a lecture or presentation and it is fun, the presenter is amusing and sharp, has great technology and there is a buzz in the room. But what happens once you leave; what did you learn? Are you just left with a “feel good” factor – not content – sizzle without the sausage?

The trap is being teacher centred, making classes “all about me”, with student laughter being the ultimate reward. On the other hand, good teaching is student focussed, with the learning based on what the students are doing and the aim is to ensure they have achieved the outcomes of the subject. I think this view can be liberating for it values learning over entertainment, student achievement over the feel good factor. Don’t get me wrong, enjoyment and fun with learning is to be desired, not aimed for. For me realistically as an educator, if I can provide good learning by what I do and the strategies I use, I have met my contract with my students.

Having said all that, have a look at Richard, see what you think – consider not only what he is doing but how he does it. Are you as inspired as I am to take up computer programming? If so, I will see you at the lecture.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,392 other followers

%d bloggers like this: