Rubric to Assess the Quality of SoTL Grant Proposals – Deadline April 1, 2010

0 (not evident) / 1 (poor) / 2 (sufficient) / 3 (excellent) / points
Teaching & Learning Area to be Investigated / The proposal does not describe the teaching and learning area to be investigated. / The proposal does a poor job of describing the teaching and learning area to be investigated, and provides limited contextual reference for the proposed work. There is little potential for contribution to the researcher’s own practice, and a limited sense of how the project 1) fits with relevant literature; and 2) will contribute to current thinking in the area. / The proposal does a sufficient job of describing the teaching and learning area to be investigated, and provides some contextual reference for the proposed work, including potential for contribution to the researcher’s own practice, as well as some description of how the project 1) fits with relevant literature; and 2) will contribute to current thinking in the area. / The proposal clearly describes the teaching and learning area to be investigated, and provides a contextual reference for the proposed work, including a clear contribution to the researcher’s own practice, as well as a description of how the project 1) fits with relevant literature; and 2)will contribute to current thinking in the area.
Research Questions / Research questions have not been articulated. / The research questions are unclear. / The research questions are sufficiently articulated and are related to the description of the teaching and learning area to be investigated. / The research questions are clearly articulated and follow logically from the description of the teaching and learning area to be investigated.
Method / No methods are proposed. / Proposed methods do not follow logically from the research question. Major elements of the research (including planning, data collection, analysis, reporting, and project closure) are not articulated. The proposal does not identify specific steps to ensure results are valid. / Proposed methods follow from the research question. The proposal does a sufficient job of articulating all elements of the research (including planning, data collection, analysis, reporting, and project closure), although some elements may lack sufficient detail. The proposal does a sufficient job of identifying specific steps to ensure results are valid. / Proposed methods follow logically from the research question. The proposal clearly articulates all elements of the research, (including planning, data collection, analysis, reporting, and project closure) in sufficient detail. The proposal identifies specific steps to ensure results are valid.
Impact / The proposal does not describe how the project potentially impactsteaching and learning. / The proposed work has limited potential to positively impact teaching and learning. / The proposed work has some potential to positively impact teaching and learning. / The proposed work has strong potential to positively impact teaching and learning.
Work Plan / No work plan is provided. / The work plan is neither logical nor well articulated. The milestones and timelines may be unrealistic, unclear, and/or do not address the lifecycle of the work, including planning (including ethics review if necessary), data collection, analysis, reporting, and project closure. / The work plan is sufficiently logical and well articulated. The milestones and timelines are realistic and clearly identified for the most part. The proposal does a sufficient job of addressing the lifecycle of the work, including planning (including ethics review if necessary), data collection, analysis, reporting, and project closure, although more articulation of these may be needed. / The work plan is logical and well articulated. The milestones and timelines are realistic, clearly identified, and address the lifecycle of the work, including planning (including ethics review if necessary), data collection, analysis, reporting, and project closure.
Budget/Costs / Budget/costs are not identified. / The budget and/or project costs are not well articulated and there is some question as to the need for the funds based on the information provided. / The budget and/or project costs are relatively well articulated and defensible. / The budget and/or project costs are clearly articulated and highly defensible.
Sharing of the Work / The proposal has no plan for how the results of the research will be shared. / The proposal includes very little information about how the results of the research will be shared both inside and outside of the NAIT community. / The proposal includes a reasonable plan for how the results of the research will be shared both inside and outside of the NAIT community. / The proposal includes a clearly articulated plan for how the results of the research will be shared both inside and outside of the NAIT community.
Overall Quality of the Proposal / The proposal shows no logic or clarity, necessary elements are incoherent and inconsistent. / Problem definition is unclear or not present. Argumentation is for the most part unclear and/or inconsistent. The necessary elements of the proposal are poorly aligned. / Problem definition is accurate but limited. Argumentation is clear, but superficial. The necessary elements of the proposal are sufficiently aligned, coherent and consistent. / The problem definition is precise, accurate and based on reliable sources of information. Argumentation is clear, in-depth, logical and consistent.The necessary elements of the proposal are clearly aligned and highly coherent and consistent.