Teaching Innovation and Improvement

The PROSPER Teaching Innovation and Improvement Awards will target four areas:

  1. Development of innovative teaching approaches/resources: These proposals will support development of new teaching approaches that require personnel and equipment support currently not available within the college. The proposals may also support development of teaching resources such as interactive web-based teaching tools (e.g., simulations, gaming, lessons) and videos (e.g., clinical demonstrations) that are beyond the scope of work of the College’s educational technology team. The teaching approach/resources must have potential for being sustainable by the College. The proposal is expected to evaluate the innovation through the Scholarship of Teaching.1
  2. Student Performance Assessment: These proposals will support development or evaluation of assessment approaches that document student achievement of the College’s educational outcomes. Innovative approaches for documenting and assessing student achievement of “milestones” and student learning/achievement during “capstones” are included in this category. The assessment approach must have potential for being sustainable by the College. The proposal is expected to evaluate the assessment approach through the Scholarship of Teaching.1
  3. Evaluation of teaching approaches/strategies: Proposals in this area support the evaluation of a teaching or assessment method being used within a course or across the curriculum. This area is expected to use methodologies common to educational research and accomplish the Scholarship of Teaching.1
  4. Development of Innovative New Elective Courses: These proposals will support development of new elective courses. The course must meet the criteria the Curriculum Committee has established for elective courses in the new curriculum. Although this category does not require interdisciplinary collaboration, it is encouraged when feasible. The proposal is expected to include a plan for evaluating achievement of the learning outcomes.1,2

1. Glassick CE. Acad Med. 2000;75:877-880.
2. Poirier T et al. Am J Pharm Educ. 2009;73 (3) Article 55.

Additional information

All of the above funding areas are equally encouraged during all funding periods.

A Teaching Innovation and Improvement Award will generally be for $5,000 to $10,000 and should not exceed $15,000 and will not cover PI or other faculty salary support.

PROSPER Teaching Innovation and Improvement proposal guidelines and review process:

Faculty interested in submitting a proposal should notify the Associate Dean for Curricular Affairs and Accreditation for information on guidelines, selection procedures and deadlines for any given funding cycle.

Proposals must be submitted electronically and emailed in Word or PDF format only as ONE file to: Associate Dean for Curricular Affairs and Accreditation, Diane Beck, Pharm.D. at beck@cop.ufl.edu

The PI’s Chair should be copied on all email submissions.

Formatting requirements: Single spacing; font size no smaller than 11 point; minimum 0.5 inch margins; tables and figure legends can be in 10 point font.

Proposals should consist of the following materials in this sequence:

  1. Cover Page: Include title, identify PROSPER target area (Development of Innovative Teaching Approaches/Resources, Student Performance Assessment, Evaluation of Teaching Approaches/Strategies), list of PIs, co-PIs and all faculty contributing time to the project and their departmental/college affiliations, email address of primary contact PI and budget request.
  2. Abstract: Explain the rationale for the work to be accomplished in terms that can be understood by an “intelligent non-expert.”
  3. Project Description: Up to four (4) pages of text MAXIMUM describing the project to include the following sections that align with Glassick’s 6 standards for Scholarship of Teaching (Ref: Academic Med. 2000;75: 877-880.) :
    • Specific Aims/Objectives
    • Background and Significance
    • Innovation/Potential Impact of the Teaching Innovation and Improvement
    • Methodology
  4. Literature Cited (no page limit)
  5. Key Personnel: A list of the individuals to be involved and details of their participation. Include a current biosketch of the Principal Investigator and each of the Co-PIs/Co-Investigators (Brief biosketch and list of education-related projects and initiatives that have been accomplished. Maximum of 1 page for each investigator identified).
  6. A detailed budget and justification of expenses
    • Budgets should generally be $5,000 – $10,000 and should not exceed $15,000 for the entire project period.
    • The budget may include usual resources related to course development and evaluation, and student assessment with the exception of COP faculty and staff salaries and indirect costs.
    • The percent effort of each participating faculty member must be included in the budget justification.
    • Budgets may be for one year. Extensions will be considered with justification.
  7. Plans for dissemination: Describe plans for attaining external peer review of the project/disseminating the project results/products. Possible methods include but are not limited to licensing of educational resources, publishing a peer-reviewed paper describing the project, dissemination via MedEdPortal, and presentation at a national meeting. (up to 1 page).

Review Process

Submitted Teaching Innovation and Improvement proposals will be reviewed by faculty review panels that will be determined on each review cycle based on expertise needed. The review committee will consist of at least two senior and one junior faculty within the college and usually 1-2 reviewers with relevant expertise external to the college, but within the university.

The faculty review panels will make recommendations to the Associate Dean for Curricular Affairs and Accreditation who will also serve as ex officio chair of the review committee.

An overall priority score will be assigned to each proposal. Contact the Associate Dean for Curricular Affairs and Accreditation for the rubric that will be used to evaluate proposals. The rubric criteria evaluate the following:

  1. Significance and Innovation: Does this project address an important problem or need within Pharm.D. education at a national level? Do the proposed outcomes represent a new paradigm for pharmacy education? Does the proposed project address a need within the COP entry-level Pharm.D. curriculum? What will be the impact of this project on Pharm.D. education? Is the project original, multi/interdisciplinary and innovative? Does the project develop or employ novel concepts, approaches, methodologies, tools, or technologies? Does the project represent a new direction for the faculty involved, or is it a new collaborative partnership?
  2. Approach: Does the application show an understanding of related scholarship in pharmacy education? Does the application represent a new conceptual/multidisciplinary approach to the identified problem? Are the conceptual framework, design, and methods adequately developed, well integrated, well- reasoned, and appropriate to the aims of the project? Does the applicant acknowledge potential problem areas and consider alternative tactics?
  3. Investigators: Are the investigators appropriately trained and well suited to carry out this work? Is the work proposed appropriate to the experience level of the principal investigator and other researchers? Does the investigative team bring complementary and integrated expertise to the project? Is there evidence of the ability of the team of investigators to work together in an interdisciplinary fashion?
  4. Budget: Is the requested budget appropriate for the scope of work?