Pedagogical Inquiry Grants
|Quick Jump Menu|
Center for Teaching and Learning
Pedagogical Inquiry Grants
Purpose: Whitman faculty are continuously exploring new approaches to their teaching. The CTL grant program, generously funded through a number of endowments, provides special opportunities to do this exploration with the additional benefit of scholarly support and shared inquiry into teaching and learning. Grant recipients gain expertise that they can share with the faculty community at Whitman through hosting CTL programs and through departmental and other conversations.
Eligibility: Priority is given to instructors in long-term teaching appointments because of the likely longer duration of the benefit to students. However, visiting faculty may apply, particularly when their participation may bring expertise that benefits the teaching of other faculty. We also encourage instructors to invite relevant staff members into their project. If the staff member is providing support that goes beyond their normal job duties, they can receive a stipend for this support with approval of the staff supervisor. While there is no set limit to the number of times an individual or department can apply, priority may be given to those who have not recently received funding.
Review Process: We issue our calls twice a year but entertain proposals at any time. Our proposal application requirements are minimal in part because of our expectation that drafting the application itself is part of the inquiry process. The CTL steering committee often responds to an application with additional questions and suggestions before issuing an award letter.
Application Requirement: Please use the application template to provide:
- cover page including budget details
- a narrative that directly answers the questions for the project type selected below
- anything else? Feel free to let us know any questions you had in putting this application together or anything else you'd like us to know.
Note that after the project has concluded, the faculty member(s) must submit a report to the CTL steering committee that explains how the initial goal of the inquiry project was met, preliminary information on its impact on student learning, and how the grant recipient envisions sharing the results of the project with others on campus.
* Grant awards may be expended over a period of up to two years. After two years, unused funds will be returned to the pool for new grants. Successful projects created using CTL grants may be continued beyond the project period with support from external sources (grants or donor gifts) or a request initiated through the annual college budget process. The CTL grants are not meant to sustain projects long term.
A. Pedagogical Enhancement Project. An individual instructor is seeking to address some challenge in student learning by changing a pedagogical approach in their course. The changes sought go beyond the "what" of content to the "how" of engaging students with that content. Just a few examples include developing collaborative assignments or activities, learning clicker or other technologies that facilitate student engagement, developing new ways of grading student work, developing an assignment in collaboration with a local community organization to facilitate community-engaged learning. Faculty may request a $1500 stipend.
- What is it about your students' performance that you would like to improve and why?
- Thinking about what you hope to see improved a year after your project has ended, describe what you envision will have changed about students' performance in your course.
- What resources on teaching and learning might guide your work? Please include several titles you might include as a point of departure.
B. Cross-Departmental Inquiry Project. A team is exploring a common area of concern. This might include how a particular topic is taught from multiple perspectives or a particular skill that cuts across disciplines (e.g., writing, oral communication, quantative skills, intercultural learning). The participants will benefit from the experience of learning alongside each other. Each faculty member may request up to $1500 in compensation and a coordinator may request an additional $500 in recognition of the additional organizational time.
- What is the common area of inquiry you want to explore, and why do you think it is important?
- Who are your team members and what does each bring to your inquiry (1-2 sentences is fine)? Remember that staff can be included in your proposal. You might also mention people you had hoped would participate but who are not able to.
- What does each of you imagine to be the outcome of your participation in the project? Is it better teaching of writing? New interactive activities that help students get more from lecture? A better understanding of how a particular topic might connect to interdisciplinary issues that engage students in the subject? Each person needs to provide 2-3 sentences. Additionally, if there is some kind of shared "product" (public exhibit, a shared assignment or rubric, etc.) mention that here.
- What preliminary texts will guide your work? Some of these might be focused on content (e.g. articles or books about gender, animal studies, graphic novels) but you should also include some pedagogically focused readings about how to teach content.
The report should include a brief description by each person of specific changes they made/will make in at least one course.
C. Departmental Inquiry Project. Members of a department want to go beyond their regular departmental business to focus on an area of student learning identified as a high priority by the department. Each participating faculty member may request up to $1500 in compensation.
- What is the specific aspect of student learning that has sparked the department's decision to work together? What about students' performance has been less than expected? What source of information led the department to identify this as an issue (e.g. external review results, assessment in the major, alumni feedback, etc.)?
- What will success look like after your project ends? What do you envision will have changed in terms of what students can do?
- What specific collaborative work is necessary and which department members are participating? For example, a department might undertake curricular mapping to see where specific skills are being taught to ensure students are getting repeated opportunities to build their performance on that skill.
- What scholarly research or expertise would you like to focus on to guide your inquiry? This could include the general scholarship on teaching and learning or something specific to your field. It might also include consultation with a professor in your field with expertise in particular pedagocial approaches.
D. Course Pilot. An instructor wants to develop a new course that will be taught as an overload either because there is a unique timing opportunity for this course to meet student demand or because the instructor would like to see how the course might be adapted into their regular load. The instructor may request $4,000 to recognize the design time and implementation of the course. Because CTL recognizes the value of team-teaching for faculty learning, a team of two may apply for funding with each receiving the stipend (i.e., total of $8,000). Please note that these grants cannot be employed to support a domestic or international short-term off-campus study experience for students. If you are interested in such a program, please contact Susan Holme, Director of OCS.
- What is the curricular gap or other student need this course would address, and who are the likely students who would take the course?
- When is the course expected to be taught?
- How do you anticipate that the teaching of this course will be integrated into your teaching long-term? You might consider both where the content and concepts of the course might be woven into your teaching as well as any new pedagogical approaches you anticipate this pilot helping you to learn.
The report should include a tentative syllabus.
Stipends. Please provide a total amount of stipends by drawing on the information under each project type. Remember to explicitly indicate whether staff participants should receive a stipend as agreed by their supervisor. Stipends are paid upon receipt of the final project report.
Travel. Attending a teaching and learning conference or visiting a consultant (for example an NW5C collleague with relevant pedagogical expertise) can be included. Travel expenses may include lodging; airfare for coach rate only; ground transportation; registration costs; food ($75/day, maximum of 5 days); and mileage reimbursed at current IRS rate (Note that the College encourages staff and faculty to consider rental vehicles, which can be less expensive than mileage).
Consultants. A consultant with expertise can be brought to campus, ideally to meet with a group of faculty to help with assignment design or some other pedagogical aspect. Their travel expenses plus a stipend of $500 can be requested.
Readings. There are many books and online resources already available and the CTL can order titles we do not yet own. Each participant may request up to $100 in books or other research-related fees.
Equipment and Supplies: Any equipment purchased with PIG funds will become the property of Whitman College. For requests involving technology, please consult with David Sprunger, Director of Instructional and Learning Technology, prior to submitting your application.
Student assistants. Students often offer valuable perspectives on the classroom or curriculum. Up to 80 hours of student assistance can be requested (at the same rate as the Abshire awards). Make sure to explain why the student's assistance is especially valuable to the project.
Refreshments. Up to $50 per participant allows some meetings to occur over a meal or coffee. In addition, for projects that might entail hosting a visitor to campus, those expenses may be included.
Nicole Simek (Director of GNDS; French and Interdisciplinary Studies); Lauren Berger (Psychology; Consortium for Faculty Diversity Fellow); Eva Hoffman (German Studies); Lydia McDermott (RWPD); Suzanne Morrissey (Anthropology and Gender Studies) and Zahi Zalloua (French and Interdisciplinary Studies).
Gender Studies Curriculum Revision & Course Development REPORT
Description: After conducting a self-study and external review this year, the Gender Studies Program ahas identified a number of curricular revisions we'd like to pursue. We are applying for a departmental inquiry grant in order to jump start this process with a period of intensive work this summer from July 29-Aug 23, 2019. During the grant period, we will focus on two main goals:
1) Develop a 200-level course centered on intersectionality and interdisciplinary methods to help serve as a bridge between introductory and upper-level coursework
2) Consider alternative structures for the program in order to better reflect current emphasis in the field; rebalance 100-, 200-, and 300-level coursework; and enhance opportunities for praxis and collaborative research among students and between students and faculty.
Pavel Blagov (Psychology)
Psychotherapy Theories (or Science of Psychotherapy, TBD)
Description: Develop a 2-credit seminar course called either Theories of Psychotherapy or Psychotherapy Science. Part of my motivation behind requesting course pilot funding is that I am not certain which direction would be most advantageous to take (whether to focus on critiquing theory or research). Both topics are outside my research areas of specialization and, to the extent that I have practiced psychology in recent years, I did not provide much intervention, nor have I ever been involved in psychotherapy outcome research. Respectively, I would have to review a considerable amount of emperical articles, books and video material to develop the course.
Eva Hoffman (German Studies); Julia Ireland (German Studies) and Emily Jones (German Studies and Environmental Humanities)
German Studies Reconfiguration
Description: In response to Spring 2019 FLL external review report and to changes in our staffing in the program, German Studies proposes a Departmental Inquiry Project for the fall semester (2019) to address the following areas:
- Reconfiguration of the senior capstone experience
- Curricular review and revision
- Integrate new staff into a cohesive program
Lydia McDermott (Rhetoric, Writing and Public Discourse); Matthew Bost (Rhetoric, Writing and Public Discourse) and Kaitlyn Patia (Rhetoric, Writing and Public Discourse)
Rhetoric, Writing and Public Discourse Curricular Revision Project
Description: Starting in the 2019-2020 academic year, the existing Rhetoric and Composition programs will merge to form a new department: Rhetoric, Writing and Public Discourse. The primary intellectual impetus for the merger is the reconition that rhetoric as a field exists across two broad lines of rhetorical inquiry internationally and nationally: Rhetoric as it is taught as a subset of Communication Studies and Rhetoric and Composition as they are taught in English, Composition, or Writing Studies departments. One of the primary staffing and curricular reasons for the merger is the recognition that rhetoric, across both public speaking and composition courses, must balance development of a specific major curriculum and engagement with rhetoric as a field with teaching written and oral communication skills that have been broadly discussed in faculty retreats and across conversations about general education, and frequently referenced as growth areas or strong areas of interest across the college.
Lynn Sharp (History)
Theory as History: Accessibility and the Links between Life and Ideas
Description: This project proposes to work collaboratively with a junior history major, Connor Rauch, to improve students' reading and comprehension of theoretical texts in order to improve discussion and develop a richer relationship to the past within the classroom. Although the project involves one particular class; the outcome will be applicable to many.
Ginger Withers, Project Lead (Biology); Andrea Dobson (Astronomy); Michael Coronado (Biology); Jon Stratton (Computer Science); Albert Schueller (Mathematics); Jim Russo (BBMB); Nate Boland (Chemistry); Kirsten Nicolaysen (Geology) and Fred Moore (Physics)
Planning for the STEM HUB REPORT
Ginger Withers (Biology)
Developing tools for students to communicate and advocate for science
Description: The primary goal of this project is to develop new ideas and approaches to teaching science literacy and communication. Depending on how we restructure the first-year experience, and general education requirements, I anticipate an opportunity to develop a new course that could be a first-year seminar, part of a pod, or an interdisciplinary course for upper level stuents. The project includes four opportunities for pedagogy development and innovation.
Julia Ireland, Project Lead (Philosophy)
"Cosmopolitanism, Citizenship, and Belonging" Final Integrative Essay, Oral, and Writing Fellow Re-tooling
Description: As part of my last fall "Cosmopolitanism" course requirements I included an optional 15-17 minute oral presentation and 7-8 page "Final Integrative Essay" intended to apply course concepts to a current problem touched on in the course, e.g. female genital mutilation, asylum cities, the immigration caravan. The integrative essay echoed language included in the Global Studies Area of Concentration without there being a paradigm or model for that requirement; students who had concrete ideas did superbly, others just defaulted to a traditional philosophy paper or got lost somewhere in the process. My hope was to scaffold an asssignment structure or guidelines for putting together such an assignment by working together with my course Writing Fellow, Nicki Caddell.