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:
1. Goals and
corresponding
outcomes
0 pts.
1 pt.
2 pts.
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.
Rating
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:
2. Project
description
0 pts.
1 pt.
2 pts.
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.
Rating
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.
3. Timeline
Missing, unclear, or
incomplete.
1 pt.
Rating
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:
4. Measuring
project
effectiveness
0 pts.
1 pt.
2 pts.
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.
Rating
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:
5. Plans for
dissemination of
findings
0 pts.
1 pt.
Missing, unclear, or
incomplete.
Plans are included,
but insufficient
details are
mentioned and/or
relevance to target
audience is weak.
2 pts.
Rating
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.
6. Budget
Budget lacks details and/or
contains serious “padding.”
1 pt.
Rating
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):
4