Grant Proposal Evaluation Checklist by unu16148

VIEWS: 15 PAGES: 4

More Info
									            2009-2010Assessment Grant Application Evaluation Checklist

Requirements (to be completed prior to the formal review of applications)

___     Proposal received in the Office of Student Learning Assessment by ____

___     Proposal includes cover sheet signed by Department Chair, College (Associate)
        Dean, or Unit Director/Coordinator.


Category       ___    Individual
               ___    (Inter)Department/Program/Unit


Focus          ___    Classroom-level assessment
               ___    Program-level assessment




OVERALL SCORE: _________ out of 10.


Reviewer signature: ______________________________ Date: ___________________



                                                                                        1
2009-2010 Assessment Grant Application Evaluation Rubric

In evaluating this assessment grant application, please keep in mind that this grant
opportunity should “improve current assessment plans and/or practices OR institute them
as part of a future program or support service unit.”

First, please rate the proposal’s goals and outcomes:

                         0 pts.                    1 pt.                    2 pts.           Rating
1. Goals and        Missing,            Goals and/or outcomes         Goals and
corresponding       unclear, or         are included, but they are    outcomes are
                    irrelevant to the   stated                        clearly stated, and
outcomes            RFP.                vaguely/inconclusively        their correlation is
                                        and/or their correlation is   evident/strong.
                                        weak.

Comments regarding the proposal’s goals and outcomes (please include as much
information as you can in order to facilitate the funding decision process):




Please rate the proposal’s description/summary:

                        0 pts.                   1 pt.                   2 pts.              Rating
2. Project       Missing, unclear, or   Description               Description
description      irrelevant to the      demonstrates weak         demonstrates strong
                 RFP.                   relevance of the          relevance of the
                                        project to assessment     project to assessment
                                        efforts.                  efforts.

Comments regarding the proposal’s description/summary (please include as much
information as you can in order to facilitate the funding decision process):




                                                                                                      2
Please rate the proposal’s timeline:

                              0 pts.                             1 pt.                    Rating
3. Timeline        Missing, unclear, or           Timeline is clear, and it
                   incomplete.                    matches both project
                                                  description and proposed
                                                  outcomes.

Comments regarding the proposal’s timeline (please include as much information as you
can in order to facilitate the funding decision process):




Please rate the proposal’s measures of project effectiveness:

                          0 pts.                 1 pt.                   2 pts.             Rating
4. Measuring       Missing, unclear, or   Measures are             Measures are clearly
project            incomplete.            included, but they       stated, and they
                                          are poorly described     match project goals
effectiveness                             and/or weakly            and outcomes;
                                          matched to project       moreover,
                                          goals and outcomes.      supporting details
                                                                   are included.

Comments regarding the proposal’s measures of project effectiveness (please include as
much information as you can in order to facilitate the funding decision process):




                                                                                                     3
Please rate the proposal’s plans for dissemination of findings:

                          0 pts.                  1 pt.                   2 pts.           Rating
5. Plans for        Missing, unclear, or   Plans are included,      Plans are clearly
dissemination of    incomplete.            but insufficient         stated, detailed,
                                           details are              and relevance to
findings                                   mentioned and/or         target audience is
                                           relevance to target      strong.
                                           audience is weak.

Comments regarding the proposal’s plans for dissemination of findings (please include
as much information as you can in order to facilitate the funding decision process):




Please rate the proposal’s budget:

                              0 pts.                             1 pt.                   Rating
6. Budget          Budget lacks details and/or    Budget is clearly detailed,
                   contains serious “padding.”    with no evidence of
                                                  “padding.”

Note: By “padding” we mean items not covered by this mini-grant, such as: hardware or
ongoing departmental/program/unit budget items (e.g., exit surveys or proficiency
testing).

Comments regarding the proposal’s budget (please include as much information as you
can in order to facilitate the funding decision process):




                                                                                                    4

								
To top