CON Faculty Practice Fund Scoring Rubric: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
Line 64: | Line 64: | ||
<table width="100%" style="max-width:70em !important;"> | <table width="100%" style="max-width:70em !important;"> | ||
<tr> | <tr> | ||
<td> </td> | <td width="20%"> </td> | ||
<td align="center">Not Applicable</td> | <td width="20%" align="center">Not Applicable</td> | ||
<td align="center">1</td> | <td width="20%" align="center">1</td> | ||
<td align="center">2</td> | <td width="20%" align="center">2</td> | ||
<td align="center">3</td> | <td width="20%" align="center">3</td> | ||
</tr> | </tr> | ||
</table> | </table> |
Revision as of 15:28, May 30, 2017
Home | Appendices |
UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA MEDICAL CENTER COLLEGE OF NURSING |
||
Faculty Practice Fund Scoring Rubric | Subsection: Appendix Z4 | |
Appendix - Appendices | Originating Date: May 2017 | |
Responsible Reviewing Agency: Faculty Practice Committee Executive Council |
|
|
Faculty Practice Fund Scoring Rubric |
Applies to: |
Projects, Conferences or Continuing Education |
Scoring Rubric:
Not Applicable | 1 | 2 | 3 |
Scoring Explanation:
Not applicable – This item is not relevant to this particular application.
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 might benefit faculty practice at the UNMC CON.
Score of 2 – The application poses a reasonable explanation for the request. The explanation of the funding request is clear and concise. The outcomes would benefit faculty practice at the UNMC CON.
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 directly benefit faculty practice at the UNMC CON and the individual’s personal trajectory towards promotion and tenure.