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.