Culverhouse Pedagogical Enhancement Grant (PEG) Program

1. The faculty member will submit a proposal (five page limit) which explains the:
   • pedagogical development effort to be supported.
   • portion of the pedagogical development effort that has been completed and portion of the pedagogical development effort that remains to be completed before it is finalized and implemented in a course.
   • innovation(s) of the proposed pedagogical development effort.
   • potential impact of the proposed pedagogical development effort on student understanding, application, and/or retention.
   • targeted outcome(s) of the pedagogical development effort and manner(s) in which the success(es) of the pedagogical development effort will be assessed.
   • ways the funds will be used to support the proposed pedagogical development effort (i.e., a summary budget that shows what will be devoted to summer stipend, travel to attend a teaching-related workshop or work with colleagues off-campus, software, equipment, etc.).

   If applicable, the proposal should also explain how the proposed pedagogical development:

   • can be transferred to other sections of the Culverhouse course targeted by the PEG and can be used by other Culverhouse instructors.
   • can be transferred to other Culverhouse courses and can be used by other Culverhouse instructors.
   • expands Culverhouse’s impact on society (beyond direct impact on students).
   • may result in submission of a manuscript to a peer-reviewed academic journal and/or submission of a proposal for additional funding for pedagogical development efforts to a recognized grant agency/organization (federal, state, foundation, or private industry).

   The proposal will also include:

   • a summary of the faculty member’s previous pedagogical development efforts.
   • a copy of the form that has been initialed and signed by the faculty member in the indicated places.
2. During the academic year immediately following the summer in which the faculty member receives a PEG, the awardee will give a formal thirty-minute presentation to the faculty and students in which the awardee explains:
   • the pedagogical development effort that has been supported by the PEG;
   • the portion(s) of the pedagogical development effort that were completed during the summer (the period of support).
   • the portion(s) of the pedagogical development effort that remain to be completed before the proposed pedagogical development effort is finalized and implemented.
   • the potential impact of the proposed pedagogical development effort on student understanding, application, or retention.
   • the effectiveness of the pedagogical enhancement effort in achieving the targeted outcome(s) outlined in the PEG proposal (if it is feasible to provide this information at that time) or the manner(s) in which the success(es) of the pedagogical development effort will be assessed.
3. A PEG recipient will be expected to serve on the PEG Review Panel and review submissions to the PEG program in at least one of the two years immediately following receipt of the PEG.

To receive a PEG, a faculty member must:

• agree to the conditions listed in the Requirements section 
• be a full-time member of the Culverhouse faculty during the academic year in which the PEG application is filed and during the academic year immediately following the summer in which the PEG is received.
• not currently be receiving summer funds as part of an initial employment agreement
• not receive other support (course releases, grants, other financial support, etc.) to develop the proposed pedagogical enhancement
• not teach more than one section overall during the summer (summer one or summer two) in which the faculty member receives a PEG.

In addition,

• No faculty member may be awarded or receive a PEG and an SEiR-F grant and during the same academic year.
• The total funds received by the faculty member during the summer in which the PEG is received cannot exceed 30% of the recipient’s base salary. If receipt of the PEG would result in the faculty member receiving over 30% of the recipient’s base during the summer in which the PEG is received, the amount of the faculty member’s PEG will be reduced so the faculty member’s summer compensation does not exceed of 30% of the faculty member’s base salary.
• The faculty member must have not received a PEG in the past two years.
• Resubmissions of proposals or revisions of proposals previously submitted to but not funded by the PEG program are welcome.

When accepting, the faculty member must agree to the following conditions:

1. Residency Condition:

   • The faculty member will engage in the development during the summer the PEG is received*

     • *exceptions must be approved in writing in advance by the Dean
2. One-Year Condition:
   • • If a faculty member who receives a summer grant accepts a position at another institution within the following year, will result in immediate cancelation of their grant.If awarded, the faculty member will remain for one academic year following the receipt of the PEG.
3. Presentation:

• • The faculty member will present the progress and results of their grant-supported efforts to faculty during the fall or spring semester following receipt of the grant.

1. Background/rationale:
   • Is the statement of the pedagogical problem/issue to be addressed clear and well defined?
   • Is the pedagogical problem/issue to be addressed timely and does it address an identified gap in the standard instructional methods for a specific course or set of courses?
   • Is the proposed pedagogical development effort innovative?
2. Pedagogical problem/issue to be addressed:
   • Is the pedagogical issue to be addressed appropriately focused and narrow?
   • What is the potential impact of the proposed pedagogical development effort on student understanding, application, and/or retention?
   • Are the objectives reasonable and achievable? How will achievement of these objectives be assessed?
3. Methodology:
   • Is the description of the approach to be taken in addressing the pedagogical problem/issue clear?
   • Are the methods appropriate for the pedagogical problem/issue to be addressed?
   • Will the project employ appropriate analytical methods and, if so, does the proposal provide a clear plan for analysis?
4. Anticipated outcomes/impact:
   • Can the anticipated results be transferred to other sections of the Culverhouse course targeted by the PEG and used by other Culverhouse instructors?
   • Can the anticipated results be transferred to other Culverhouse courses and used by other Culverhouse instructors?
   • Will the anticipated results expand Culverhouse’s impact on society (beyond direct impact on students)?
   • Is the pedagogical development effort expected to result in submission of a manuscript to a peer-reviewed academic journal and/or submission of a proposal for additional funding for pedagogical development efforts to a recognized grant agency/organization (federal, state, foundation, or private industry)?
   • Does the proposal provide a sound and realistic means for assessing the achievement of the pedagogical development effort’s targeted outcome(s)?
5. Other selection criteria:
   • The nature of the proposed pedagogical development effort.
   • The potential impact of the proposed pedagogical development effort on student understanding, application, and/or retention.
   • The faculty member’s previous pedagogical development efforts.
   • The transferability of the outcome of the proposed pedagogical development effort to other Culverhouse courses and use by other Culverhouse instructors.
   • The potential impact of the proposed pedagogical development effort on society (beyond direct impact on students).
   • The expectation that the pedagogical development effort may result in submission of a manuscript to a peer-reviewed academic journal and/or submission of a proposal for additional funding for pedagogical development efforts to a recognized grant agency/organization (federal, state, foundation, or private industry).
   • The innovation(s) of the pedagogical enhancement.
   • The means for assessing the achievement of the pedagogical development effort’s targeted outcome(s).

Although the funds will be paid out over the summer of the award, in many circumstances development of the proposed pedagogical enhancement effort will carry over into the ensuing academic year.

Final funding decisions will be made by a review panel comprising colleagues on the Culverhouse College of Business faculty who do not submit PEG proposals for this year.