|
Sullivan University Quality Enhancement Project (QEP) Sullivan UniversityQEP Faculty Grant Evaluation Process
|
|
Grant
Evaluation Process: The Faculty Grant Evaluation
and Selection Process consists of seven steps: The Faculty Grant Award
Committee (FGAC): (1) meets to discuss the evaluation and selection process
and the Faculty Grant Evaluation checklist, (2) performs independent
evaluation of each proposal, (3) conducts a group discussion to address
issues and concerns related to evaluation process, (4) completes independent
scoring on each proposal, (5) calculates final scores for each proposal, (6)
the Chairperson makes award recommendations (four grant winners) to Sullivan
University's Senior Administration, and (7) a
FGAC representative announces the faculty grant winners at the Annual Faculty
Conference (or sooner depending on the circumstances).
Members of the FGAC meet with
the Quality Enhancement Director (QED) to discuss the overall evaluation and
selection process and Faculty Grant Evaluation Checklist. A Chairperson
for the Committee will be selected to provide leadership and administrative
functions for the Committee.
The evaluation process begins
with each member of the Faculty Grant Award Committee (FGAC) independently
evaluating each of the faculty grant proposals submitted using the Faculty
Grant Evaluation Scoring Checklist (see below). The goal is for each
Committee member to evaluate each of the proposals against the checklist,
documenting any questions pertaining to their understanding and ability to
conduct an unbiased and equitable evaluation of each proposal.
After each Committee member
has independently evaluated each of the faculty grant proposals, the FGAC
convenes as a group to discuss the overall findings. The purpose of
this phase of evaluation is multi-fold; for instance, it may be used to
clarify the operational aspect of the checklist, request additional information
or proposal revisions to clarify ambiguities, address consistency concerns
discovered during independent evaluations, etc. The objective of the
group discussion phase of the process is not to reach consensus
on grant winners, but to clarify any misunderstandings associated with the
overall evaluation process or to address a need for more information from
applicants--the purpose of this step is establish an equitable, fair, and
consensus understanding of the evaluation process. The individual merits
or short-coming of a particular grant proposal should not be discussed at
this meeting; rather those considerations specifically related to the
evaluation process itself (e.g., clarification of process following an
initial review of the faculty grants).
Following the group discussion
and all associated follow-up activities, each Committee member independently
scores each of the faculty grant proposals using the Faculty Grant Evaluation
Checklist. Once completed, each Committee member submits their scores
to the FGAC Chairperson for calculation.
The FGAC Committee Chairperson
averages the scores of each proposal, ranking each of the grant proposals
based on their respective averages. Once calculated, the FGAC
Chairperson announces the findings to FGAC members and the QED.
The QED and FGAC Chairperson
presents the FGAC findings to
Sullivan University's Senior Administration
for final faculty grant award recipient selection. Once
verified/determined, the FGAC Chairperson conveys the Senior Administration
member's decision to the FGAC only; until made by public announcement, news
of who will receive the PBL grants is considered confidential.
Committee members are not to share the findings with non-FGAC members prior
to public announcement.
The FGAC will announce the four grant winners at the Annual Faculty Conference, or sooner depending on the circumstances. In the event that the grant awards are announced at a public meeting, a representative of the FGAC will make the award announcement.
|
|
Grant Evaluation Guide & Checklist: The Grant Evaluation Checklist
consists of two sections. The first section evaluates the quality of
the proposal based on the Faculty Grant Criteria guidelines. The second
section evaluates the relevance of the proposal toward the mission and spirit
of the QEP. Each section is weighted at 50 points each for a total of
100 points. A "Faculty Grant Evaluation Checklist" has
been developed to facilitate scoring of grant proposals.* *
Click here for a copy of the Faculty Grant Evaluation Checklist Section One: Overall
Quality: (50
points total) These measures address the
overall completeness and quality of the proposal as prescribed
by the Faculty Grant Criteria. Proposals that do not adhere to the
guidelines increase the difficulty of performing a fair and unbiased
assessment. If time permits, the Committee member may request that a
portion or entire proposal be rewritten to facilitate review; or the proposal
can simply be scored down for non-compliance. Each of the “quality”
scores is on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 represents “not included”
to 5 “included and clearly addressed.” Eligibility/Restrictions (0 points; yes—continue
with evaluation/no—terminate review and return to candidate with
explanation of non-eligibility) Application Format: (15 points)
Project Description: (35 points)
Section Two: Relevance to
the QEP: (50
points total)
These
measures are more subjective evaluations, requiring a high degree of
familiarity with the QEP. Essentially, these four items measure the
efficacy of the proposal to produce the desired outcomes stated within the
QEP. Applicability of the
proposal (15
points) A maximum of 15 points may be
awarded on how applicable the proposal is to the spirit and goals of the
QEP. How effectively does the proposal use the targeted instructional
strategy to meet the stated need, targeted course of instruction, stated
objectives, data collection methods, evaluation plan, and budget? The “applicability”
score is on a 1 to 15 scale, where 1 represents “not relevant to
QEP” to 15 “clearly relevant to QEP.” Promotes student engagement (15 points) A maximum of 15 points may be
awarded on how effectively the proposal promotes and contributes to the QEP
objective of increasing student engagement. How effectively does the
proposal engage (or involve) students in the learning process for the
selected course of instruction using the targeted instructional strategy? Student Engagement:
“Points of interaction initiated by the institution towards the student
whereby the student receives prepared lessons specifically designed to
stimulate learning through high levels of student involvement in the learning
process” (QEP, p. 28). The “student engagement”
score is on a 1 to 15 scale, where 1 represents “no student
engagement consideration” to 15 “students clearly engaged.” Improves student learning (15 points) A maximum of 15 points may be
awarded on how effectively the proposal contributes to student
learning. How effectively does the proposal describe improved student
learning outcomes? New student learning outcomes are clearly defined
drawing a clear distinction from status quo student learning performance. Student Learning: “A
value-added process whereby measurable improvements in student performance
can be demonstrated in the major field and in general education, specifically
in professional skills, critical thinking, and research skills to develop new
knowledge as a result of Sullivan University’s planning, environment, and
curriculum” (QEP, p. 28). The “student learning”
score is on a 1 to 15 scale, where 1 represents “no student
learning consideration” to 15 “student learning clearly
utilized.” Budget (5
points) A maximum of 5 points may be
awarded on how effectively and efficiently the budget accomplishes the
proposal’s stated objective. How effectively and efficiently is the
budget being used to accomplish state proposal objectives? Does the
balance of monies spent on proposal activities and “left over” funds seem
acceptable? The “budget” score is
on a 1 to 5 scale, where 1 represents “poor use of
budget to meet stated objectives” to 5 “effective and efficient
use of budget to meet stated objectives.”
Evaluation Process Revised: August 2008 |
Revised: 8/15/08
