The document provides information about the Higher Education Academy's Teaching Development Grant scheme. It details the purpose of the grants, which is to develop evidence-informed teaching practices and support innovative projects. Individuals, departments, and collaborations between institutions can apply. Applications are reviewed by peers and funding is awarded for projects up to £7,000 for individuals, £30,000 for departments, and £60,000 for collaborations. The selection panel uses reviewer feedback to select proposals that will benefit teaching and learning.

1. Teaching Development Grants
Reviewer briefing
1

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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

11. • 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

12. • 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

13. • 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

14. • 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

15. • 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

16. • 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

17. 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

18. • 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

19. • 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

20. 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

21. 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

22. 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

23. 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