UIIP application

Teaching Resources Center, UC Davis
UIIP application

The Undergraduate Instructional Improvement Program is the primary source of on- campus funding for undergraduate curricular renewal and pedagogical innovation. For more complete information regarding the UIIP program, please visit our website.

Please use this application form as a guide for completing your proposal. You can copy and paste it into a word processing document or e-mail ljmadsen@ucdavis.edu for a copy of the application in Microsoft Word.


Submit all proposals by email (along with the Chair’s departmental support letter) to Danielle McAlister, Teaching Resources Center: trc@ucdavis.edu. To ensure that a proposal is considered for funding, the TRC must receive your completed email application no later than 5:00 p.m. on the deadline of the funding cycle for which you are applying.

Project Title:

Applicant:
Name:
Academic Title:
Department:
Email:
Phone:
Date submitted:
Total UIIP funds requested:

Category and Amount
Salary:
Equipment:
Materials and Supplies :
Travel:
Other Benefits:
Other:
Other:
Other budget requirements:


Abstract:
Provide a brief abstract for the proposal.

Rationale:
Provide a brief context for the proposal. Note the justification for the project and how it addresses the intent of the Undergraduate Instructional Improvement Program.

Explanation of the Project:
Describe the nature of the project in reasonable detail (typically, a page or so is sufficient). Explain how it will be carried out, by whom, and, if by more than a single person, how it will be coordinated or managed. In the case of ongoing projects, indicate how the project will be supported in the future.

Course Information:
Course Identifier
(3 letters plus numbers. EX: PSC 001)

Course Name:

Is this course a regularly scheduled part of the curriculum, or is it a 'varied topics' / seminar / etc

Estimated number of enrolled students per academic year:

Is this a new course?
If Yes, the application must also include a copy of the CAF.

If funded, which quarter and year will this project first be used for this class?

How many years do you anticipate using this resource?


Budget:
Costs and expenses listed should be reasonable and verifiable. Budgets must be itemized. Rough estimates under categories such as "miscellaneous" or "videotapes" are not acceptable. UIIP does not fund routine departmental support items such as photocopying, word-processing, telephone and NAM expenses.

Category and Amount
Salary
Equipment
Materials and Supplies
Travel
Other
Other
Other budget requirements:


Total UIIP funds requested:

Departmental (or other) contribution:

PROJECT TOTAL:

Budget Justification:
Provide a detailed justification of how the budget will be allocated.

Departmental (or other) Contribution Explanation:
Provide an explanation of what your department (college, grant, etc) is committing to the project:

Technical Needs:

Report and evaluation:
A report on the completed project, including an evaluation, is required of all proposals supported by UIIP funds. For assistance with evaluation options, contact the Teaching Resources Center (752-6050 or TRC@ucdavis.edu).

Faculty / PI Report
State briefly how the project will be evaluated. Your final report should include information regarding how your time was spent, whether this project met your expectations, and explanations of any issues you encountered.

Student Evaluation
Briefly describe how you will evaluate the impact of this project on students. There is a Standard UIIP student evaluation form available either through QuizBuilder or on Scantron forms.

Letter of Support from Department Chair
Please include a letter of support from your department chair.

UIIP Review Criteria

UIIP Proposal Review Criteria -- Fall 2008

The Undergraduate Instructional Improvement Grant Program is the primary source of on-campus funding for projects to improve undergraduate teaching and learning. Each year, UIIP funding priorities are identified to reflect evolving campus challenges and opportunities, and each year valuable projects are funded that could not be supported in any other way. Proposals that address annual UIIP priorities are encouraged, but projects focusing on other aspects of undergraduate instruction are also very much welcomed.

UIIP proposals are evaluated by a faculty-staff Review Committee that recommends awards to the Vice-Provost for Undergraduate Studies. In assessing proposals, the Review Committee considers their relative merits for improving teaching and learning on the Davis campus. In recent years, proposals were more likely to be well regarded by the Review Committee if they reflected some of the following features:

* A clear statement of instructional purpose
* A direct response to themes listed in the annual UIIP Call
* A direct response to internal or external program reviews
* The potential to improve instruction for a substantial number of students
* Non-routine and essential course development features
* Budget projections that are strategic and reasonable
* New applicants and/or new approaches

A clear statement of instructional purpose: Some proposals request funds to solve administrative or facilities problems that are more properly addressed by departmental chairs and deans (i.e. the lack of an instructor for a particular class, unsafe physical facilities, and so on). Other proposals request funds for research or service projects that might or might not lead to instructional improvement. These proposals are regarded less highly than proposals that have a clear instructional purpose.

A direct response to themes listed in the UIIP Call: The UIIP program is guided by an "open" call and welcomes a diverse array of proposals, but the UIIP call also emphasizes themes that are important to the instructional development of the campus as a whole. All other things being equal—and they rarely are— preference is given to proposals that respond to one or more of the key themes listed in the UIIP Call.

A direct response to internal or external program reviews: Internal or external program reviews can help define a thoughtful context for improving courses, programs and instructional approaches. Proposals that acknowledge and respond to such reviews are given more credence by the UIIP Review Committee than proposals that ignore or trivialize them. Proposals that document problems being addressed are taken more seriously than those that don’t.

The potential to improve instruction for a substantial number of students: The Review Committee has not defined what "substantial" means, but proposals that might improve instruction for many students are typically ranked somewhat more highly than those that would affect only a few. However, the depth and scope of instructional effect are also important considerations, regardless of how many students are affected. No proposal is regarded highly simply because it appears to serve many students.

Non-routine course development features: Some proposals for developing or revising courses include components that clearly require additional resources (i.e., acquisition of materials, training or technical assistance for faculty members, and so on). These are regarded more highly than proposals for faculty members to prepare lectures, design assignments, course syllabi, etc. The latter activities may be heart of a good course, but they are also more likely to be considered by Committee members as part of a faculty member's routine responsibilities.

Budget projections that are strategic and reasonable: The availability of UIIP funding is more critical to the success of some proposals than to the success of others. In general, proposals that request funding for activities that are likely to take place with or without UIIP funding are not regarded as highly as those for which UIIP funding seems both necessary and essential. In some cases applicants request funds to support normal instructional costs (a TA- ship for example) that the Committee expects to be covered through normal operating budgets. As a special case of "strategic investments," proposals that request funds to cover the cost of technical services that are already freely available through Mediaworks are referred to Mediaworks rather than awarded UIIP funds.

New applicants and/or new approaches: Proposals that call for a simple extension of previous funding are regarded less highly than proposals that reflect a new or fresh approach. First-time applicants receive some preference relative to applicants who have received UIIP funds recently or who received them several times in the past.

Detailed call for UIIP proposals

2008-2009 CALL FOR PROPOSALS
THE UNDERGRADUATE INSTRUCTIONAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM

A. Program Objectives

Undergraduate Instructional Improvement funds provide support for projects that enhance the educational experience of UC Davis undergraduates. Proposals from individual faculty members, faculty groups and departments or programs are invited. Projects may range from efforts by an individual faculty member to revise an existing course to a department-wide update of undergraduate curricula. (See Section C below).

B. Overview of the Application and Review Process

Applications must be prepared according to the guidelines described in Section E and submitted via email to Leslie Madsen-Brooks at the Teaching Resources Center: ljmadsen@ucdavis.edu. The deadline for the first round of applications this year is Monday, November 17, 2008. The second round of proposals is due Monday, April 13, 2008. All proposals are sent to the appropriate college or divisional dean for comment and then to a Faculty Advisory Committee for formal review. The Review Committee recommends awards to the Vice Provost -- Undergraduate Studies. Normally, the entire process from application deadline to notification of award takes 6-8 weeks. Most awards fall within the range of $1,000-$8,000.

Review Criteria: In evaluating proposals, the Review Committee considers their relative merits for improving teaching and learning on the Davis campus. Proposals are more likely to be well regarded if they reflect some of the following elements:

-A clear statement of instructional purpose
-A direct response to themes listed in the annual UIIP Call
-A direct response to internal or external program reviews
-The potential to improve instruction for a substantial number of students
-Non-routine and essential course development features
-Budget projections that are strategic and reasonable
-New applicants and/or new approaches


C. Categories of Awards

1. Department/Program Awards. Departments and programs can request UIIP funds to substantially revise all or part of an existing curriculum. Revisions can include developing new courses, consolidating existing courses, program assessment, and so on. Requests of this sort normally complement additional resources committed by the college or division and by the department or program.

2. UIIP Faculty Course Development Awards. Individual faculty members can request UIIP funds to help develop new courses or make substantial revisions to existing courses. UIIP funds allocated for Department or Individual course development projects may be used to develop or purchase course materials, hire graduate or undergraduate assistants, and for other related expenses. During the academic year they cannot be used for salaries of faculty members with full-time appointments (See Section E4). NOTE: proposals to develop new courses require (a) a clearly stated commitment from the department to support the course as a regular offering’ and (b) evidence that the department has formally submitted the course proposal to the Senate Committee on Courses of Instruction.

3. Chancellor’s Fellow Course Development Awards. Four Chancellor’s Fellow Course Development Awards will be available in 2008 to support summer course development activities by Davis faculty members. Recipients of these awards will receive up to $6,000 in summer salary compensation. Applications for a Chancellor’s Fellow Course Development award may be submitted at the same time as other UIIP applications, but they will be reviewed separately. Applicants for these awards should describe: (a) any respects in which their proposed course development project requires exceptional investments of faculty time, effort, skills or training and (b) how the project will address significant instructional needs of the Davis campus. To be eligible for a Chancellor’s Fellow Course Development Award faculty members must be employed at UC Davis for the following academic year(s) (See Section E4). Note: Faculty members who request summer salary through the Chancellor’s Fellow Course Development Award program can also apply for a UIIP Faculty Course Development Award to cover other project expenses.

D. Areas of Special Emphasis for 2008-2009

(1) redesign curricular offerings to better serve the new General Education program, (2) incorporate student learning outcomes at the course and major level, (3) strengthen students’ writing and oral communication skills, (4) enhance the quality of faculty-student interactions in large enrollment classes, (5) incorporate value-added and outcome based assessments of courses or programs, (6) increase understanding of social-cultural diversity.

1. Redesign curricular offerings to better serve the new General Education program. The new General Education program focuses on four core literacies: literacy with words and images, civic and cultural literacy, quantitative literacy, and scientific literacy. The UIIP Program welcomes proposals that integrate innovative approaches to increasing students’ creative and critical thinking skills in these core literacies. For more information about the revised GE requirements, see http://ge.ucdavis.edu.

2. Incorporate student learning outcomes at the course and major level. When designing traditional lecture and seminar courses, it is easy for the instructor to fall prey to the tyranny of content—the compulsion to cover a tremendous amount of material in hopes of giving students a breadth and depth of understanding within the discipline. Instead of focusing on covering content, a course or major designed with student learning outcomes in mind begins instead with specific learning objectives for students. Proposals submitted in this category will elucidate how a course or major will make the shift from content-centered to student-centered learning and justify the learning outcomes selected.

3. Strengthen students’ writing and oral communications skills. The UIIP Program invites proposals to develop new or revised courses that support General Education objectives of increased emphasis on analytic competencies that are exercised through writing and oral communication, particularly in the science and engineering disciplines. Proposals that address these matters in both lower and upper division courses are encouraged. Writing skills can emphasize analytical dimensions of technical, academic or narrative genres. Oral communication can emphasize public speaking and presentation skills, listening strategies that enhance understanding, debate skills and strategies, and effective communication in-group settings, including questioning and responding skills. Proposals should refer to seminars that include significant skill development activities, structured feedback, and opportunities for revisions and peer discussions about disciplinary topics. The incorporation of similar elements in other course formats is also encouraged. Attention to the needs of non-native speakers will be considered as a positive component of any proposal.

4. Enhancing the quality of faculty-student interactions in large enrollment classes: Projects addressing this emphasis area involve strategies for encouraging for formal and informal faculty-student interchange in large enrollment classes. Strategies can include personal response system (PRS) technologies (“clickers”), alternative formats for in-class presentations and discussions or for faculty response to student work, on-line interactions between faculty and students (course chats and blogs), and course related but out-of-class mentoring, social activities and meetings.

5. Incorporating value-added or outcome-based evaluations of courses, programs or instructional technologies. Proposals are invited to design, implement and assess alternative outcome-based approaches to evaluating teaching and learning. Outcome-based or “value-added” approaches can include various forms of pre and post testing as well as comparative assessments of student work--across courses or course sections, over time, or in among different instructional approaches, including contrasting assignments, technological support and other planned variations. Proposals that incorporate these elements can focus on enhancing course content or developing more effective means of course delivery. In general, UIIP funds cannot be used to purchase equipment, as other resources are available for that purpose.

6. Increasing understanding of social and cultural diversity. Support is available for instructors to develop new courses or modify existing ones so that they meet the Academic Senate's General Education criteria for social-cultural diversity courses. These courses must have substantial emphasis on issues, topics, and/or perspectives such as race, ethnicity, social class, etc. that have been underrepresented in the curriculum.

Call for Proposals from Vice Provost Patricia Turner

Call for Proposals
Letter from the Vice Provost

UC Davis: Office of the Provost
October 15, 2008
To: MEMBERS OF THE FACULTY

RE: The Undergraduate Instructional Improvement Program (UIIP)

The Undergraduate Instructional Improvement Grant Program is the primary source of on-campus funding for undergraduate curricular renewal and pedagogical innovation. Each year, areas of emphasis are identified on the basis of campus needs. Please read the descriptions of these areas carefully; some have appeared in previous Calls, others are new. Although priority is given to proposals that address emphasis areas, faculty members are invited to submit proposals on other topics as well.

This year’s UIIP program encourages proposals to: (1) redesign curricular offerings to better serve the new General Education program, (2) incorporate student learning outcomes at the course and major level, (3) strengthen students’ writing and oral communication skills, (4) enhance the quality of faculty-student interactions in large enrollment classes, (5) incorporate value-added and outcome based assessments of courses or programs, (6) increase understanding of social-cultural diversity.

Review and funding of UIIP proposals is coordinated through the Teaching Resources Center. All UIIP proposals are evaluated by a faculty-staff review committee. Whether or not they are funded, UIIP proposals that request consultant time and/or production services also may be eligible for a technical services resource allocation from Academic Technology Services.

Applications are accepted twice each year. The dates for 2008-2009 are listed below.

Fall Quarter Deadline November 17, 2008
Spring Quarter Deadline April 13, 2009

Although this Call addresses the large grant program, I would also like to draw your attention to the UIIP Minigrant Program that has a funding limit of $500. Applications are accepted year round.

Patricia A. Turner
Vice Provost - Undergraduate Studies