Teaching Assistant Development Grants:  2008-2009

TA Development proposals are evaluated by a faculty-staff Advisory Committee that recommends awards to the Vice-Provost for Undergraduate Studies. In assessing proposals, the Advisory 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 Advisory Committee if they reflected some of the following features:

1) A clear statement of purpose related to skills required for effective teaching
2) A direct response to internal or external program reviews
3) Connections to departmental and campus priorities
4) The potential to serve a significant number of TA’s
5) The potential to serve a significant number of students
6) Budget projections that are strategic and reasonable
7) New applicants and/or new approaches
8) Thoughtful and appropriate evaluation strategies
9) Departmental commitment

1) A clear statement of purpose related to skills required for effective teaching: 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 a TA for a particular class, unsafe physical facilities, and so on). Other proposals request funds for research or service projects that have little to do with the instructional responsibilities of TA’s. These proposals are regarded less highly than proposals that focus directly on helping TA’s develop the skills, knowledge and dispositions they need to be effective instructors of undergraduates.

2) 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 the findings of such reviews are given more credence by the TA Development Grant Advisory Committee than proposals that ignore or trivialize them. In general, proposals that document the problems being addressed are taken more seriously than those that don’t.

3) Connections to departmental and campus priorities for instruction: Proposals that can help move teaching towards department or campus ideals are given special recognition. Departmental ideals may appear in a program mission statement or an academic plan. Campus ideals are articulated in the Campus Strategic Plan http://strategicplan.ucdavis.edu/plan.html; the UC Davis Principles of Community, http://principles.ucdavis.edu/; and the UC Davis statement of Educational Objectives for Students: http://wasc.ucdavis.edu/standards/descriptiongetter.cfm?standard=2&id=2.
TA Development applications are not expected to reflect attention to all departmental or campus teaching ideals, but articulation with some ideals reflects a form of thoughtfulness valued by the Advisory Committee. As one example, the UC Davis Principles of Community refer to ideals of inclusion and the open and respectful exchange of ideas. Activities that help TA’s support inclusive class discussions or encourage respect among diverse students could represent a valuable step towards affirming these principles.

 4) The potential to serve a significant number of TA’s: The Advisory Committee has not defined what "significant" means, but proposals for working with a critical mass of TA’s are typically ranked more highly than those that would affect only a few. However, the depth and scope of instructional impact are also important considerations, regardless of how many TA’s are affected. No proposal is regarded highly simply because it appears to serve many TA’s.

5) The potential to serve a significant number of students: The Review Committee has not defined what "significant" means, but proposals that could indirectly affect many students are typically ranked more highly than those that would affect only a few. However, here too, the depth and scope of instructional impact are also important considerations, regardless of how many students might be affected.

6) Budget projections that are strategic and reasonable: The availability of TA Development funding appears to be 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 TA Development funds are not regarded as highly as those for which this kind of funding seems both necessary and essential. In some cases applicants request funds to cover normal instructional activities (e.g. faculty instructors meeting with their TA’s to review student assignments) that the Committee expects to be covered through normal operating budgets. In other cases, applicants request food and entertainment allocations that are exorbitant or that exceed official campus allowances.

7) 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 TA Development funds recently or who received them several times in the past.

8) Thoughtful and appropriate evaluation strategies: Proposals submitted for TA Development support should include a “value added” evaluation component that is objective-oriented and outcome-based. The evaluation should enable applicants and the TA Development Review Committee to answer the following three questions: (a) What were the goals and objectives of the activities funded? (b) What evidence will indicate whether or not these goals and objectives are achieved? (c) What evidence will indicate that goals and objectives were achieved as a direct result of activities supported by this grant?

Return to CALL