Rubric

Please find the evaluation rubric for the 2017 QEP Awards Program below.

QEP Awards Evaluation Rubric: Primary Criteria
Quality Enhancement Plan
University of Central Florida

Primary

Criteria

3

Excellent

2

Needs Some Improvement

1

Needs Much Improvement

0

 

Project Description Proposal offers a compelling project description; project goals are feasible given the scope of the project and are clearly articulated Project description is clear; project goals are described in adequate detail but may seem somewhat over- or under-ambitious for the scope of the project. Project description is vague or unclear; goals of the project may not be clearly articulated or may not seem feasible. Proposal does not meet minimal standards.
Rationale Proposal convincingly describes a need for the project; proposal persuasively demonstrates how project is related to integrative learning and how it will contribute to a “culture of integrative learning” at UCF. Proposal describes a need for the project but may not offer convincing evidence; proposal shows potential to contribute to a “culture of integrative learning” but rationale may not be clearly articulated or persuasive. Proposal’s rational for the project is unclear; project’s relation to integrative learning may be minimal. Proposal does not meet minimal standards.
Relationship to Interventions in QEP Proposal clearly addresses one or more of the required interventions and provides a clear explanation of how the project will contribute to the intervention(s). Proposal mentions one or more of the required interventions but the projects relationship to the intervention(s) may not be clear. Proposal does not mention the required interventions or does not provide a clear explanation of the project’s relationship to the intervention (s). Proposal does not meet minimal standards.
Student Learning Outcomes & Assessment Methodology Proposal lists clear, specific and measurable student learning outcomes and assessment methods to assess participants and evaluate the project. Proposal includes student learning outcomes and at least one method to assess participants or evaluate the project. Proposal does not include specific, measurable outcomes or the proposal does not include any methods to assess participants or evaluate the project. Proposal does not meet minimal standards.

QEP Awards Evaluation Rubric: Secondary Criteria
Quality Enhancement Plan
University of Central Florida

Secondary

Criteria

 

3

Excellent

2

Needs Some Improvement

1

Needs Much Improvement

0

 

Collaboration Proposal includes a well-defined plan identifying appropriate collaborative partners, each of which add value to the program. Proposal shows some indication of appropriate collaborative partners. Collaboration is not included in the proposal or partner contributions are unclear. Proposal does not meet minimal standards.
Beneficiaries Proposal clearly articulates how the project will benefit UCF’s undergraduate students. A realistic estimate of number of beneficiaries over the immediate and long term is provided. Proposal may provide some evidence of how undergraduate students will benefit, but the evidence is not clearly articulated. An estimate of the number of beneficiaries is included. Proposal does not provide clear evidence of the benefit to undergraduate students; the number of students affected by the project may be unclear. Proposal does not meet minimal standards.
Sustainability Proposal includes a clear, feasible path for sustainability of the project after the initial grant; proposal describes convincingly how results of the project will be preserved and further developed. Proposal offers some plan for sustainability, but the path is unclear or seems unrealistic. Proposal does not include a clear or easily understood explanation of project sustainability. Proposal does not meet minimal standards.
Budget Budget is complete and contains all required information. Budget seems cost effective, and there is a clear link between proposed expenditures and project activities and outcomes. Budget is complete but may seem unrealistic (e.g., overinflated or underinflated); relationships between proposed expenditures and project activities and outcomes may be unclear. Budget lacks required information, is unclear in how it expenditures relate to activities and/or outcomes, or includes unallowable expenditures. Proposal does not meet minimal standards.
Signature HIP Experiences for Majors Proposed project will provide meaningful high-impact learning experiences for majors. Proposed project has the potential to provide some high-impact learning experiences for some majors but may have a narrow or limited scope. Proposed project does not include a clear explanation of how high-impact learning experiences will be implemented for majors. Proposal does not meet minimal standards.
Project Renewal (for “phase II” projects only) Provides compelling evidence of success of phase I project and offers clear, feasible plan for building on that success. Provides evidence of success of phase I project but transition to phase II plan may not be clearly articulated on how it will build on previous successes. Plan may be unrealistic in scope or scale. Provides little or no evidence of success of phase I of project. Phase II plan is vague or unclear. Plan may be unrealistic in scope or scale. Proposal does not meet minimal standards.