HTML FDP Teaching Proposal Eval FILL-IN Form

CONFIDENTIAL

UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN OSHKOSH

FACULTY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM

AUTOMATED TEACHING COMPONENT

PROPOSAL EVALUATION FORM

2007-2008 Cycle

Click into first text box to begin entering. After that, press tab to proceed.

Please enter proposal number. i.e., T821

Enter your First Name here:

Enter your Last Name here:

                    Rate each question (1-9) on the following scale. DO NOT leave a blank.



                                        1 - 2 Poor - Minimal potential

                                        3 - 4 Fair. Has deficiencies which should be addressed.

                                        5 - 6 Good. Workable idea. Has minor deficiencies.

                                        7 - 8 Very Good. Fundable in present form.

                                        9 - 10 Nearly Perfect. (Use sparingly.)

Has the Proposer:

QUESTION 1

Eval Scale is 1 to 10

...explained the development OPPORTUNITY/PROBLEM? Is the professional development opportunity clearly defined and justified? Is the importance of the opportunity/problem explained? Has the proposer demonstrated familiarity with the literature and current activities related to the project?

Whole numbers only.

QUESTION 2

Eval Scale is 1 to 10

...identified OBJECTIVES of the project? Are the project objectives clearly specified for each proposer? Is the precise skill, knowledge, or ability to be acquired by each proposer clearly specified? Do the objectives clearly relate to the professional development opportunity/problem previously identified?

Whole numbers only.

QUESTION 3

Eval Scale is 1 to 10

...explained the PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT that will occur? Will the proposed activities lead to significant professional development? Has each proposer completed a self-assessment of strengths and weaknesses? Has the relationship of this project to other professional development efforts (completed or planned) been described? Whole numbers only.

QUESTION 4

Eval Scale is 1 to 10

...explained IMPORTANCE OF PROJECT TO DEPARTMENT/UNIT? Is the relationship of the proposed project to current or planned department/unit or College curriculum explained? Are letters from the department/unit Chair and/or Dean convincing that the need for the proposed project exists? If relevant, have the Chairs and/or Deans indicated their commitment to make resources and facilities available? Whole numbers only.

QUESTION 5

Eval Scale is 1 to 10

...explained IMPORTANCE OF PROJECT TO STUDENTS? Will the proposed project impact UW Oshkosh students in the near future? Will the project result in improved instruction? (The number of students affected is not necessarily a consideration.) Whole numbers only.

QUESTION 6

Eval Scale is 1 to 10

...established ACTIVITIES AND TIMELINE? Are the activities appropriate to accomplish the stated objectives and outcomes? Are the activities appropriate for the requested support? (Article, manuscript, creative, or translation writing are supportable when tied directly to the creative or analytical processes. The writing must be justified methodologically, tied to professional development, and justified as part of the creative process.) Is the timeline realistic? Are all the required items (e.g., equipment, supplies, software, consultants, library resources) available or planned for? If people are to be interviewed or observed, has their permission/acceptance or agency/institution permission/acceptance (as relevant) been obtained? Have problems been anticipated and alternatives planned for? Whole numbers only.

QUESTION 7

Eval Scale is 1 to 10

...presented EVALUATION CRITERIA? Are adequate criteria proposed to judge successful completion of the project? In addition to a final report, have tangible outcomes been identified?   Examples of outcomes may include: new teaching materials, bibliographies, procedures, conference papers or publications, proposals for external funds.Has the proposer explained how new knowledge, skills or abilities will be demonstrated? Whole numbers only.

QUESTION 8

Eval Scale is 1 to 10

…presented ABOVE LOAD rationale? Did proposer(s) explain why the proposed activities are substantially beyond normal professional responsibilities? Were both activities that will be performed as part-of-load and activities for which support is requested delineated? Whole numbers only.

QUESTION 9 Eval Scale is 1 to 10

...presented a CLEAR AND CONCISELY-WRITTEN proposal? Are the principal ideas understandable to those outside of the discipline? Has technical jargon been avoided? Have terms/concepts been defined where appropriate? Considerations may include organization, grammar, readability, clarity of objectives, sufficiency of details, length of proposal, proofreading, legibility. Panelists are expected to grade low rather than “give-the-benefit-of-the-doubt” in proposals where principal ideas are not understandable. Whole numbers only.

QUESTION 10

Is the total CAS/reassigned time support (for each proposer) requested appropriate and justified?
Select one of the following.



Is requested supplies/expenses/auxiliary budget appropriate and justified?
Select one of the following.



Is requested travel budget appropriate and justified?
Select one of the following.



Is requested student assistance support appropriate and justified?
Select one of the following.



Rationale QUESTION 10
Provide a rationale for your responses to question 10. (Rationale is required.)

QUESTION 11

If this proposal is requesting funding under Special Teaching Initiative, have the Terms of Success been fully identified and are they appropriate?
Select one of the following.



Rationale QUESTION 11

If this proposal is requesting funding under Special Teaching Initiative, provide rationale for your response. Otherwise, enter NA

General Comments (required): (Comments may address your overall impression and the desirability of funding the proposal. Address any special strengths or weaknesses of the proposal. Make constructive suggestions for improvements.)
A good review is useful to the proposer and helps the Committee to make decisions when disparate reviews are received. Panelists are responsible for the professionalism of their feedback to the proposers. Please be considerate with your written comments, yet maintain the high standards for quality associated with the Faculty Development Program. Negative feedback is to be accompanied by constructive suggestions. Please enter specific comments (related to your ratings in categories 1-9) identifying the strengths and weaknesses of the proposed project. Remember that you are evaluating the proposal not the proposer.

Do not press Submit Form button until you review your entries and print this form.

1. Scroll up and review your entries.

2. Click File Menu, Click Page Setup, Change Margins: Left & Right .25, Top and Bottom .5, Click OK, Click File, Click Print, OK.

Warning!

Pressing Clear the Form button will reset the form to blanks.

Go to top

QUESTION 1	Eval Scale is 1 to 10
...explained the development OPPORTUNITY/PROBLEM? Is the professional development opportunity clearly defined and justified? Is the importance of the opportunity/problem explained? Has the proposer demonstrated familiarity with the literature and current activities related to the project?	Whole numbers only.
QUESTION 2	Eval Scale is 1 to 10
...identified OBJECTIVES of the project? Are the project objectives clearly specified for each proposer? Is the precise skill, knowledge, or ability to be acquired by each proposer clearly specified? Do the objectives clearly relate to the professional development opportunity/problem previously identified?	Whole numbers only.
QUESTION 3	Eval Scale is 1 to 10
...explained the PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT that will occur? Will the proposed activities lead to significant professional development? Has each proposer completed a self-assessment of strengths and weaknesses? Has the relationship of this project to other professional development efforts (completed or planned) been described?	Whole numbers only.
QUESTION 4	Eval Scale is 1 to 10
...explained IMPORTANCE OF PROJECT TO DEPARTMENT/UNIT? Is the relationship of the proposed project to current or planned department/unit or College curriculum explained? Are letters from the department/unit Chair and/or Dean convincing that the need for the proposed project exists? If relevant, have the Chairs and/or Deans indicated their commitment to make resources and facilities available?	Whole numbers only.
QUESTION 5	Eval Scale is 1 to 10
...explained IMPORTANCE OF PROJECT TO STUDENTS? Will the proposed project impact UW Oshkosh students in the near future? Will the project result in improved instruction? (The number of students affected is not necessarily a consideration.)	Whole numbers only.
QUESTION 6	Eval Scale is 1 to 10
...established ACTIVITIES AND TIMELINE? Are the activities appropriate to accomplish the stated objectives and outcomes? Are the activities appropriate for the requested support? (Article, manuscript, creative, or translation writing are supportable when tied directly to the creative or analytical processes. The writing must be justified methodologically, tied to professional development, and justified as part of the creative process.) Is the timeline realistic? Are all the required items (e.g., equipment, supplies, software, consultants, library resources) available or planned for? If people are to be interviewed or observed, has their permission/acceptance or agency/institution permission/acceptance (as relevant) been obtained? Have problems been anticipated and alternatives planned for?	Whole numbers only.
QUESTION 7	Eval Scale is 1 to 10
...presented EVALUATION CRITERIA? Are adequate criteria proposed to judge successful completion of the project? In addition to a final report, have tangible outcomes been identified? Examples of outcomes may include: new teaching materials, bibliographies, procedures, conference papers or publications, proposals for external funds.Has the proposer explained how new knowledge, skills or abilities will be demonstrated?	Whole numbers only.
QUESTION 8	Eval Scale is 1 to 10
…presented ABOVE LOAD rationale? Did proposer(s) explain why the proposed activities are substantially beyond normal professional responsibilities? Were both activities that will be performed as part-of-load and activities for which support is requested delineated?	Whole numbers only.
QUESTION 9	Eval Scale is 1 to 10
...presented a CLEAR AND CONCISELY-WRITTEN proposal? Are the principal ideas understandable to those outside of the discipline? Has technical jargon been avoided? Have terms/concepts been defined where appropriate? Considerations may include organization, grammar, readability, clarity of objectives, sufficiency of details, length of proposal, proofreading, legibility. Panelists are expected to grade low rather than “give-the-benefit-of-the-doubt” in proposals where principal ideas are not understandable.	Whole numbers only.
QUESTION 10
Is the total CAS/reassigned time support (for each proposer) requested appropriate and justified?	Select one of the following.
Is requested supplies/expenses/auxiliary budget appropriate and justified?	Select one of the following.
Is requested travel budget appropriate and justified?	Select one of the following.
Is requested student assistance support appropriate and justified?	Select one of the following.
Rationale QUESTION 10 Provide a rationale for your responses to question 10. (Rationale is required.)

QUESTION 11
If this proposal is requesting funding under Special Teaching Initiative, have the Terms of Success been fully identified and are they appropriate?	Select one of the following.
Rationale QUESTION 11 If this proposal is requesting funding under Special Teaching Initiative, provide rationale for your response. Otherwise, enter NA

General Comments (required): (Comments may address your overall impression and the desirability of funding the proposal. Address any special strengths or weaknesses of the proposal. Make constructive suggestions for improvements.) A good review is useful to the proposer and helps the Committee to make decisions when disparate reviews are received. Panelists are responsible for the professionalism of their feedback to the proposers. Please be considerate with your written comments, yet maintain the high standards for quality associated with the Faculty Development Program. Negative feedback is to be accompanied by constructive suggestions. Please enter specific comments (related to your ratings in categories 1-9) identifying the strengths and weaknesses of the proposed project. Remember that you are evaluating the proposal not the proposer.