Scoring Rubric for FUSE Proposals submitted to CURCA
Prepared by Dr. Miriam Segura-Totten, November 2010
Project
Description
Significance
Goals and
Products
Exceptional (7)
Description is clear, concise,
and easy to understand in that it
uses appropriate non-technical
descriptions and terms. The
proposed project contains
original, innovative, or creative
aspect(s).
It is clear how the proposed
activities fit into the broader
scholarly or creative field at the
local, regional, or national
level. It is clearly shown that
others will benefit from the new
knowledge, applications, or
creative works produced
through the project; the
proposed project impact
extends beyond one particular
field of study.
The goals of the project are
clearly stated. Significant
products are described, such as:
presentations at regional or
national conferences,
publications in peer-reviewed
journals, participation in a
juried show, submission of a
grant proposal, projects with
economic impact on the region
or those that work with outside
programs or businesses to
promote expansion and growth.
Very Good (5)
Description depicts the
project well, but uses some
jargon or is otherwise hard
to understand. Project
contains original,
innovative, or creative
aspect(s).
It is clear how the proposed
activities fit into the broader
scholarly or creative field at
the local, regional, or
national level. The impact
beyond the proposed field
of study and/or the outside
community is modest: it
generates sporadic, irregular
communication between
scholars in different fields
or outside the community.
The goals of the project are
clearly stated. Products of
moderate impact are
described, such as
presentations at the local
level, publications in nonpeer reviewed sources,
participation in non-juried
shows, or presentations to
local community partners.
Average (3)
Description does not explain
project concisely, or it does
not give a general picture of
the proposed activities. The
project contains few original,
innovative, or creative
aspects.
A link is made between the
proposed work and the
broader creative or research
field. It is not clear how the
proposed activities will
further the field as a whole, or
how the community, scholarly
partners or other stockholders
will benefit from the proposed
activities.
Needs Improvement (1)
Description is hard to
understand, verbose, or
utilizes a lot of fieldspecific jargon. It is not
clear that the project is
creative or innovative.
The goals of the project are
not clearly stated. There are
either no products described,
or they are of minimal impact.
The goals of the project
are not clearly stated. No
products are described.
The contributions of the
proposed activities to the
broader community or
field are not clearly stated.
Alternatively, the proposed
project will not impact the
broader community or
scholarly field.
Score
Plan for
faculty-student
collaboration
and mentorship
Budget
Undergraduate
involvement in
project
Timeline
The description of the schedule
of student-faculty meetings or
interactions is clear, and it is
obvious that the student and
faculty member will work as a
team. It is obvious that the
faculty mentor is committed to
the student’s success, and that
he/she will provide an in-depth
research experience for the
student.
Budget is clearly explained and
is appropriate for the activities
proposed.
The description of the
schedule of student-faculty
meetings or interactions is
clearly described. The
faculty mentor and the
student will have
meaningful, consistent
interactions. The faculty
mentor has activities
planned to further the
development of the student.
Budget is not clearly
explained but is appropriate
for the activities proposed.
The description of the
schedule of student-faculty
meetings or interactions is
clearly described. The faculty
mentor and the student will
meet sporadically. Although
the student will be mentored,
the extent of the collaboration
between faculty and student is
unclear.
The description of the
schedule of student-faculty
meetings or interactions is
not clearly articulated. It is
not obvious that the faculty
and student will work as a
team, and mentorship
opportunities/activities
during the program are
limited.
Budget is clearly explained
but it is not appropriate for the
activities proposed
Undergraduate involvement is
obvious in the proposal. The
student will not be merely
observing or performing menial
tasks—he/she will be helping to
drive the project forward. The
student will have creative input
in the project. The student
seems mature enough to
undertake the project.
Timeline is suitable for and
meets all the activities
described.
The student plays a central
role in the planned
activities. Although the
student will be intimately
involved in the project,
his/her creative input is
limited. The student seems
mature enough to undertake
the project.
The student plays a role in the
planned activities. However,
he/she is mostly involved in
the implementation and/or
dissemination of the project
and has little or no creative
input. It is unclear if the
student is mature enough to
undertake the project.
Budget is not clearly
explained and it is not
appropriate for the
activities proposed.
The student does not seem
mature enough to
undertake the project. The
student’s involvement in
the project appears to be
limited in scope. The
student is mostly an
observer.
Timeline meets most of the
activities proposed.
Timeline appears to meet less
than half of the activities
proposed.
Timeline is not suitable for
the activities described.
Proposal receives a zero in any category that is not addressed. Proposals receiving a zero in any category CANNOT be considered for funding. Proposals receiving a
score of 1 in any category except for “Timeline” and “Budget” CANNOT be considered for funding.
Total score: Project description _____ + Significance _____ + Goals and Products = _____ + (Undergraduate Involvement X 2 = _____) + (Plan for faculty-student
collaboration and mentorship X 2 = _____) + (Budget X 0.5 = ____) + (Timeline X 0.5 =____) = ________