Funding

Open pedagogy is an area of growing importance for CU Denver. However, efforts in this area often focus on developing or evaluating open educational resources; many avenues exist to explore and lead within the broader lens of open pedagogy. Some possibilities include the following:

• Advocate on behalf of OER and open education as a strategic benefit and support to university equity and affordability efforts (see: Strategic Plan, Strategic Enrollment Management Plan)
• Create opportunities for cross-disciplinary/departmental collaboration and sharing on open education projects
• Create, facilitate, and/or co-facilitate short courses for the Course Development Institute on open education-related practices
• Be a resource for instructor colleagues on open education, open pedagogy, and the pedagogical affordances of OER through, among other avenues, the open pedagogy consultation service
• Facilitate and/or participate in open education-related programming, including Open Education Week
  

Inclusive pedagogy is of key importance to our student's success, our campus's identity, and our goal of becoming an institution that welcomes and empowers all learners. There are many possible avenues to explore within inclusive pedagogy; here are a few examples:

• Create, facilitate, and/or co-facilitate short courses for the Course Development Institute on inclusive pedagogy
• Share, develop, and distribute resources and events related to inclusive pedagogy and related areas of practice (e.g. universal design for learning)
• Advocate on behalf of inclusive pedagogy as a strategic benefit and support to university equity efforts (see: Strategic Plan, Strategic Enrollment Management Plan)
• Create opportunities for cross-disciplinary/departmental discussions and community learning on inclusive teaching practices
• Advise campus leadership and the broader community on inclusive pedagogy, centering the well-being of faculty and students alike in important discussions on campus priorities

This category is intended to be open to faculty areas of interest related to teaching practice and innovations. What emerging areas of pedagogy need deeper exploration? We are excited to learn about your areas of passion and expertise!

Application Timeline and Review Process

Required application materials include a brief statement of interest (150 words), a description of the area of focus you want to explore/share (200 words), and a letter of support from a leader or trusted colleague.

Review Rubric for Faculty Fellows Applications

To ensure that the selection process is fair, inclusive, and timely, the review committee will use the following rubric when reviewing applications:

Review Criteria	Limited (1)	Moderate (2)	Strong (3)
Statement of Interest demonstrates knowledge of CU Denver faculty needs and commitment to the goals and work of the institution.
Area of Focus—relevant to the diverse CU Denver faculty body; demonstrates significant expertise in the area of focus; indicates willingness to explore the work with colleagues through newly developed programming (e.g. short course, community of practice).
Letter of support highlights the importance of their work for CU Denver faculty and demonstrates support for the faculty and their area of focus.
Faculty applicant indicates a collaborative approach to their work and alignment with the mission and focus of CETL/TIPS.

Grant Category	Description
Pedagogy and Teaching Practice Innovations	Proposals in this category focus on emerging pedagogies and teaching practices and are not limited in scope—everything from a technique for a single class session to formal pedagogical frameworks are included and encouraged.
Professional Learning Opportunities	Proposals in this category are focused on professional growth, and can include opportunities such as professional organization memberships, conference attendance, workshops, online courses, and/or other learning opportunities focused on teaching practice.
Technology Innovations	Proposals in this category focus on academic, social, and/or other emerging technologies. Technologies can include software, web applications, mobile applications, hardware, and other technologies relevant to teaching practice in any modality/context. *
Inclusive Pedagogy Practice	Proposals in this category will pursue improvements to teaching practice to provide more equitable and inclusive learning experiences for our students. Proposals can include professional development centered on inclusive pedagogical training or funds needed to redesign course(s) toward more inclusive pedagogies. Applicants are encouraged to propose ideas that go beyond these examples.

*Technology proposals with new technologies are subject to security review/approval from OIT; please also note that new technologies may not receive centralized support from OIT and academic technology.

We have two funding cycles each academic year:

Fall Cycle: Typically apply by mid-April; funding available from July 1 to December 30.

Spring Cycle: Typically apply by late October; funding available from January 2 to June 30.

This grant cycle will be around $20,000 available for dispersal in individual awards of up to $1,000, distributed through professional development accounts.  Please note that faculty cannot use these grants to fund personnel such as Teaching Assistants (TAs) or Research Assistants (RAs).

Required proposal materials include:

• a description of the project or opportunity (200 words)
• the category of your grant proposal
• funding amount requested
• a brief plan for gathering and sharing your results and/or reflections (150 words)
• and a brief statement on how your proposal could advance teaching innovation, both for you personally and for our broader community of teachers at CU Denver.

Review Rubric for Teaching Innovation Grants

Proposals will be reviewed by a collaborative group of faculty and TIPS Division staff. To ensure that the selection process is fair, inclusive, and timely, the review committee will use the following rubric when reviewing proposals:

Review Criteria	Limited (1)	Moderate (2)	Strong (3)
Proposal description outlines a unique innovation or opportunity related to teaching innovation at CU Denver
Funding request is appropriate to the scope of the proposal
Proposal includes a clear plan for gathering and sharing results and/or reflections
Proposal is positioned to advance teaching innovation personally and within the broader CU Denver community

Please reach out to us at [email protected] with any questions.

What is the acceptance rate of grant proposals?

Over the past 3 cycles, the acceptance rate for proposals has been around 50%.

Who reviews the proposals?

The reviewers are a combination of faculty (the CETL Faculty Fellows) and TIPS staff.

Can I use the grant to pay for teaching or research assistants?

No, these funds cannot be used to pay personnel such as TAs or RAs.

Any tips for writing my proposal?

In general, reviewers prefer work that will:

• Last more than one semester. Guest speakers and field trips are great experiences. How can we make those have a longer impact?
• Have an impact on more than one course. Do you teach several courses? Are there plans to share innovations across your department or school/college?
• Help reduce costs, or at least keep costs neutral. Are you researching an open education resource to replace a more expensive solution? Or, is there a free student license for the software you’re introducing?

• All teaching faculty (including IRC faculty) are eligible to submit a proposal for one of the courses they currently teach. Faculty should discuss plans for their proposal with their department chairperson and/or curriculum committee. Because this initiative does NOT involve creation of new courses, further curriculum approvals should not be required. 

• Each proposal must indicate approval from the department chairperson.  

• Selected proposals are typically announced early in the Spring semester. 

• Half of the $2000 stipend is typically awarded in Spring as work commences on course revision. The second portion of the stipend will be paid out after census date when the revised course is offered for the first time. 

• An assessment tool for gathering student reactions to the added content will be sent to the instructor during the semester the course is offered. The assessment should be administered to the enrolled students and results shared with TIPS and the University’s Age-friendly University Committee for consideration in extending funding for this initiative in the future. 

Relevant Aging-Related Topics & Materials for Course Content

Below are brief examples of materials and ideas to assist faculty in preparing aging content for courses across different disciplines. These suggestions are intended to inspire submissions for the current RFP.

---

Psychology

Whitbourne, S. K., & Cavanaugh, J. C. (Eds.). (2003). Integrating aging topics into psychology: A practical guide for teaching.
American Psychological Association.
Click here for book info

---

Environmental Issues

Sampling of Articles:

• Bektas, A., Schurman, S. H., Sen, R., & Ferrucci, L. (2018). Aging, inflammation and the environment. Experimental Gerontology, 105, 10-18.
  DOI: 10.1016/j.exger.2017.12.015
• Carnes, B. A., Staats, D., Willcox, B. (2014). Impact of climate change on elder health. The Journals of Gerontology: Series A, 69(9), 1087–1091.
  Read article
• Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2013). Climate change and extreme heat events.
  CDC resource
• Delpla, A. et al. (2009). Impacts of climate change on surface water quality in relation to drinking water production. Environment International, 35, 1225-1233.
• Leyva, E. W. A., Beaman, A., & Davidson, P. M. (2017). Health impact of climate change in older people: An integrative review and implications for nursing. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 49(6), 670–678.
  Read article
• Nwanaji-Enwerem, J. C., Jackson, C. L., Ottinger, M. A., Cardenas, A., James, K. A., Malecki, K. M. C., et al. (2021). Adopting a compound exposome approach in environmental aging biomarker research: A call to action. Environmental Health Perspectives, 129:045001.
  DOI: 10.1289/EHP8392

---

Politics and Policy

Faber, M. A. (2016). The policies and politics of aging: A new paradigm? In Sugar, J. A., Riekse, R. J., Holstege, H., & Faber, M. A. (Eds.), Introduction to Aging: A Positive, Interdisciplinary Approach (Ch. 18).
DOI: 10.1891/9780826108845.0018

Geys, B., Heggedal, T.-R., & Sørensen, R. J. (2022). Age and vote choice: Is there a conservative shift among older voters? Electoral Studies, 78.
Read article

Super, N. (2020). Three trends shaping the politics of aging in America. Public Policy & Aging Report, 30(2), 39–45.
Read article

---

Criminal Justice

• Burke, G., Prunhuber, P., Phan, T., & Takshi, S. (2022). Reducing barriers to reentry for older adults leaving incarceration. Justice in Aging Issue Brief.
  Download issue brief
• Kratcoski, P. C., & Edelbacher, M. (2016). Trends in criminality and victimization of the elderly. Criminology, 80(1), 58-63.
• Maschi, T., Sutfin, S. L., & O’Connell, B. (2012). Aging, mental health, and the criminal justice system: A content analysis of the literature. Journal of Forensic Social Work, 2, 162-185.
• Reese, H. (2017). What should we do about our aging prison population? Can compassionate release laws solve the problem of nearly 200,000 people aged 55 and older who are incarcerated in America? JSTOR Daily.
• Wright, A. M., & Holliday, R. E. (2010). Police officers’ perceptions of older eyewitnesses. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 10, 211-223.