Information Item# 6- Submitted By the Faculty Enhancement Committee (2014/2015- May)

 

UNF Faculty Development Summer Teaching Grant
Rubric and Instructions for reviewers

Revised Spring 2015: Faculty Enhancement Committee

 

 

This rubric was designed as a tool to assess the quality of proposals with respect to four dimensions; clarity, innovation, evaluation and impact.  These topics are often difficult to assess quantitatively and present even greater challenges when comparing rankings of proposals across many academic disciplines. To assist the reviewer in their scoring efforts, careful attention has been paid to the description of the four dimensions, as well as the various levels of performance within each.  The goal was to broadly define the dimensions for the sake of applicability across academic disciplines, while specifying distinct levels of performance within each dimension to provide consistency in scoring.  Please read the rubric prior to reading the proposals to familiarize yourself with the descriptions of levels of performance in each category. 
 

While the goal of any rubric is to produce consistent and objective ranking, it is impossible to eliminate all ambiguity.  In the event the rubric does not address a topic you feel is noteworthy, please make written comments to assist the committee in their efforts to fairly rank the proposals.

 

Rubric 

 

Clarity

The narrative should clearly describe proposed methods of instruction, course modification, educational goals and potential benefits of the endeavor.  A holistic, yet concise description of the proposed effort should define subject specific terms and methodology so that a lack of familiarity with the academic topic on the part of the reviewer, should not hinder the reviewer’s comprehension of the proposed effort.

 

Description of Performance

Rating

The proposal is poorly written and ambiguous.

1

The proposal is grammatically sound, but remains ambiguous with respect to specific details of the proposed endeavor.

2

The proposal is well written and describes the proposed endeavor in simple, effective terms, leaving the reviewer with very few unanswered questions.

3

The proposal is well written and describes the proposed endeavor with detailed and effective language that leaves the reviewer with no unanswered questions.

4

The proposal is artfully written and describes the proposed endeavor in an efficient, yet highly descriptive manner that leaves the reviewer with no unanswered questions.

5


 

Innovation

The proposed endeavor should consist of novel ideas and methods for course delivery.  The narrative should directly address the ways in which the proposed effort will provide new, challenging or innovative opportunities for student learning by differentiating the proposed endeavor from currently offered courses.  The degree of innovation should be discussed in a way that is easily understood by a broad academic audience. 
 

Description of Performance

Rating

The proposal does not suggest or explain any new, challenging, or innovative pedagogical methods or opportunities for students beyond a traditional course in this field.

1

The proposal offers a singular advancement/improvement/new pedagogical activity that is new or innovative to the program at UNF but not beyond a typical classroom experience.

2

The proposal offers a methodology that is described as new to the program as well as UNF and suggests innovations that may yield/produce improvements in the course, curriculum and student learning outcomes.

3

The proposal offers a methodology that is demonstrated to be novel and new to the program and UNF and is sufficiently supported by pedagogical research/literature on student learning outcomes.

4

The proposal offers a methodology that is demonstrated to be new and truly unique to the program, UNF, and beyond.  The proposed endeavor is both nuanced and sophisticated in design with respect to the pedagogical approach and outcomes.

5

 

 

Evaluation

The narrative should present means by which the student learning outcomes and other success metrics will be evaluated.  Evaluation methods should be appropriate and valid for the pedagogical approach and methodology of the proposed endeavor.  Proposed evaluation of the effects of the endeavor beyond student learning outcomes will further strengthen the application. 

 

Description of Performance

Rating

The proposal lacks an evaluation component.

1

The proposal alludes to evaluation methods, but does not describe them in sufficient detail.

2

The proposal includes a simply defined, yet valid evaluation plan, that is pedagogically appropriate for the proposed endeavor,

3

The proposal clearly presents a multifaceted evaluation methodology that measures a plurality of learning outcomes using standard and appropriate methods. 

4

The proposal clearly presents a sophisticated and nuanced evaluation plan that measures learning outcomes and other effects of the proposed endeavor in an effective and holistic manner. 

5

 

 

Impact

The narrative should articulate the anticipated impact(s) of the proposed endeavors  Success in this metric can come from high impact in a few areas or moderate impact across many areas.  The likelihood of these impacts should be addressed, and supported with logical and evidentiary arguments, where possible.

 

  

Description of Performance

Rating

The proposal presents no anticipated effects of the endeavor beyond currently assessed learning outcomes.

1

The proposal presents possible outcomes from the endeavor, but does little to describe them, or support them with evidentiary argument.

2

The proposal clearly presents a small number of anticipated effects from the endeavor, and clearly defines the likelihood and extent of the effects on student learning.

3

The proposal clearly presents multiple anticipated effects from the endeavor, and clearly defines and describes the likelihood and extent of the effects on student learning.

4

The proposal clearly presents multiple anticipated effects from the endeavor, and clearly defines and describes the likelihood and extent of the effects on student learning, curriculum and the program as a whole.

5