9,879
edits
CON Faculty Practice Fund: Difference between revisions
→Process:
| Line 119: | Line 119: | ||
<td> </td> | <td> </td> | ||
</tr> | </tr> | ||
</table> | </table> | ||
<br /> | |||
<p style="max-width:70em !important;">Scoring Explanation </p> | |||
<p style="max-width:70em !important;">Not applicable – This item is not relevant to this application.</p> | |||
<p style="max-width:70em !important;">Score of 1 – The application poses a '''weak''' explanation for the request. There is little explanation of what the funding request is for or how the outcomes are beneficial.</p> | |||
<p style="max-width:70em !important;">Score of 2 – The application poses a '''reasonable''' explanation for the request. The explanation of the funding request is clear and concise. The outcomes are moderately beneficial. </p> | |||
<p style="max-width:70em !important;">Score of 3 – The application poses a '''strong''' explanation for the request. The explanation of the funding request is clear and concise. Additionally, it includes a strong explanation for significance, innovation, and approach. The outcomes are very beneficial. </p> | |||