Applicants & Reviewers

Information and Instructions for Grant Applicants

Deadline: April 30 (Spring Call) and October 31 (Fall Call) or next working day if occur on a holiday or weekend.

We welcome proposals for grants ranging from $500 to $3000 from members of the Educational Developers Caucus. Please note that there is a $350 cap on travel related to the creation and/or development of the knowledge or resource and no funding to travel for dissemination.

Step 1: Read the guidelines carefully; following them simplifies the work for our reviewers considerably

Step 2: Write a proposal that includes the required components (below) and addresses the criteria (below).

Step 3: Include in your proposal the agreements. Mark an “[x]” if you agree with the statements.

Step 4: Save your file as a Word document (doc or docx). Name it LastName_YearEDCgrant.doc For example, Smith_2020EDCgrant.doc

Step 5: Email to Kris Knorr, EDC Grants Coordinator, knorrk@mcmaster.ca Subject: EDC Grant

 

Proposal required components

  1. Title
  2. Contact information (Principal investigator must be an EDC member)
  3. 50 word proposed project mini-description (for posting on the website for successful applications)
  4. 300-1000 word full description of the project including intended outcomes/deliverables
  5. Budget (describe each item and indicate the cost including hourly rate, per item cost and any in-kind or other contributions)
  6. Agreements

[ ] I/We agree to provide the EDC community, who funds this grant, with access to resulting information and resources for which the copyright remains with the author(s).

[ ] I/We acknowledge that I/we will submit an interim report and a final deliverable (as described below).

 

Applications must address the stated criteria.

Criteria

Insufficient

Moderate

Outstanding

Need – addresses the EDC Living Plan, regional or national areas of interest or concern unaddressed by existing work, resources or literature.

Weighting: 2

Need for this work is not clearly stated, is not relevant to either the EDC living plan or regional/national interest nor notes how it addresses a gap in existing work, resources or literature.

Clearly articulated need with relevant literature and/or existing work and resources noted. 

Clearly articulated and demonstrated need based on literature and/or existing work and resources. The need is connected clearly to the EDC Living Plan, regional or national areas of interest or concern. Need exists across institutions and may involve collaboration across institutions.

Benefit to EDC Community and Higher Education

Weighting: 1

Implications of the work are not clearly stated, or will not be of benefit to the EDC Community or Higher Education, or the resulting resource will be relevant to only a small subset of the EDC community.

Resulting resource will be relevant and accessible to the EDC community, with some implications for educational development practice.

Resulting resource will be very relevant, and clearly useable and accessible by the community with clear implications for educational development practice regionally and/or nationally.

Feasibility & achievability

Weighting: 2

Timeline and/or budget is not clearly stated, or is not achievable or feasible. Proposed work duplicates or ignores existing resources.

Budget and timeline clearly outlined, but there is some uncertainty about the budget or timeline achievability or feasibility.

Has a clear and reasonable timeline and budget that is achievable and feasible.

Clarity of outcomes/ deliverables

Weighting: 1

Process and/or deliverables not clearly articulated.

Process and outcomes/deliverable are stated, and reasonably clear.

Process and outcomes/deliverable clearly stated. Sufficient information provided.

EDC grants may be used towards expenses such as RA hours (at the location institutional rate), direct material costs, and some travel (as specified above). The funded research and work to develop resources (may overlap with phd/master’s research) but deliverable back to the EDC cannot be solely a thesis or the publication of an article. PI nor co-applicants cannot be paid from the grant including salary, tuition or other payments that are not reimbursements for costs.

 

Interim report (Due 6 months after funding is received. Will be posted on the EDC website):

  • Title
  • Contact information
  • 50- 100 word update about the project; include note about expenditures/budget so far.

 

Final deliverable (Due 12 months after funding is received. Will be posted on the EDC website):

  • Title
  • Contact information
  • 50- 100 word description of the project; includes note about expenditures/budget.
  • The findings and resource (can be a summary, links, pre-print article, EDC guide, etc.)

Successful grant proposals are posted on the EDC website, along with the interim and final reports for the project.

Questions? 

Contact Kris Knorr, EDC Grants Coordinator.  Email: knorrk@mcmaster.ca


Note on revising the EDC Grants Fall 2014 – March 2015 

The revised criteria and process is thanks to the EDC members who completed the survey, provided comments at the AGM, provided feedback on the draft, and offer ideas, to Jovan Groen (University of Ottawa) & Janice Allen (Dalhousie University) who co-drafted this criteria and process, and to the EDC Executive for their ongoing feedback.  – Carolyn

 

Peer Review of Proposals

The EDC Grants Coordinator will receive the proposals and check for completeness – further information may be requested from the applicant before the submission progresses to the next stage. Next, proposals will undergo a blind peer-review process by two EDC members. Their ratings and recommendations will be compiled by the EDC Grants Coordinator with final decisions approved by the EDC executive or a subcommittee of the Executive or EDC members as necessary for inclusivity and representation of different constituent members. Principal applicants will be notified of the successful grants within 4 weeks of the deadline.

Conflict of Interest

The EDC Grants Coordinator will seek to assign peer reviewers to proposals that do not pose a conflict of interest, including not assigning reviewers any proposals from their institution. The Applicant Information section will be removed from the top of each application. In some cases, you may be able to determine, directly or indirectly, the applicants because of the title, budget or something else in the application. If you feel you may be in a conflict of interest, please let theEDC Grants Coordinator know as soon as possible to make alternative arrangements. Some proposals may create a perceived or actual conflict of interest for theEDC Grants Coordinator; in these cases, another EDC member will then be involved in the grant coordination process.

Steps for Reviewing

Step 1: Please complete a separate form for each proposal you review, naming each file in the following style: 
proposal number_reviewer family name.doc               e.g.      1_borin.doc

Step 2: Read and review the proposal based on the criteria. Mark the rubric using highlighting and write comments to the EDC Grants Coordinator.. You may also include comments to the applicant(s).

Step 3: Email reviews to Kris Knorr, EDC Grants Coordinator at knorrk@mcmaster.ca

Each proposal will be evaluated according to the following criteria:

Criteria

Insufficient

Moderate

Outstanding

Need – addresses the EDC Living Plan, regional or national areas of interest or concern unaddressed by existing work, resources or literature.

Weighting: 2

Need for this work is not clearly stated, is not relevant to either the EDC living plan or regional/national interest nor notes how it addresses a gap in existing work, resources or literature.

Clearly articulated need with relevant literature and/or existing work and resources noted. 

Clearly articulated and demonstrated need based on literature and/or existing work and resources. The need is connected clearly to the EDC Living Plan, regional or national areas of interest or concern.  Need exists across institutions and may involve collaboration across institutions.

Benefit to EDC Community and Higher Education

Weighting: 1

Implications of the work are not clearly stated, or will not be of benefit to the EDC Community or Higher Education, or the resulting resource will be relevant to only a small subset of the EDC community.

Resulting resource will be relevant and accessible to the EDC community, with some implications for educational development practice

Resulting resource will be very relevant, and clearly useable and accessible by the community with clear implications for educational development practice regionally and/or nationally.

Feasibility & achievability

Weighting: 2

Timeline and/or budget is not clearly stated, or is not achievable or feasible. Proposed work duplicates or ignores existing resources.

Budget and timeline clearly outlined, but there is some uncertainty about the budget or timeline achievability or feasibility.

Has a clear and reasonable timeline and budget that is achievable and feasible.

Clarity of outcomes/ deliverables

Weighting: 1

Process and/or deliverables not clearly articulated.

Process and outcomes/deliverable are stated, and reasonably clear.

Process and outcomes/deliverable clearly stated. Sufficient information provided.

 

Overall rating by reviewer:

[ ] Not recommended for funding       [ ] Recommended for consideration      [ ] Recommended for funding

 

Comments by Reviewer to Grant Coordinator

 

 

Additional Comments by Reviewer for applicant(s)

 

 

Questions? 

Contact Kris Knorr, EDC Grants Coordinator at knorrk@mcmaster.ca

   

2014 Reviewers

A special note of thanks to those who reviewed the 2014 grant proposals:

Shivanand Balram, Simon Fraser University
Adam Chapnick, Canadian Forces College
Stephanie Dayes, OCAD University
Jovan Groen, University of Ottawa
Isabeau Iqbal, University of British Columbia
Jaymie Koroluk, University of Ontario Institute of Technology
Leslie Linton, Western
Ellen Sims, York University
Nancy Turner, University of Saskatchewan

 

2015 Reviewers

Annique Boelryk, Georgian College
Adam Chapnick, Canadian Forces College
Nancy Chick, University of Calgary
Isabeau Iqbal, University of British Columbia
Peggy Jubien, University of Alberta
Roger Moore, NorQuest College
Robin Mueller, University of Calgary
Karyn Olsen, Western University