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 byDepartment 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: ______

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

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 description / Missing, unclear, or irrelevant to the RFP. / Description demonstrates weak relevance of the project to assessment efforts. / Description demonstrates strong relevance of the project to assessment efforts.

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

Please rate the proposal’s timeline:

0 pts. / 1 pt. / Rating
3. Timeline / Missing, unclear, or incomplete. / Timeline is clear, and it 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 project effectiveness / Missing, unclear, or incomplete. / Measures are included, but they are poorly described and/or weakly matched to project goals and outcomes. / Measures are clearly stated, and they match project goals and outcomes; moreover, 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):

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

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

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 contains serious “padding.” / Budget is clearly detailed, 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):

1