CON Faculty Practice Fund Scoring Rubric: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
Line 58: | Line 58: | ||
<table width="100%" style="max-width:70em !important;"> | <table width="100%" style="max-width:70em !important;"> | ||
<tr><td align="center">'''Faculty Practice Fund Scoring Rubric'''</td></tr> | <tr><td align="center">'''Faculty Practice Fund Scoring Rubric'''</td></tr> | ||
<tr><td align="center">'''Applies to | <tr><td align="center">'''Applies to'''</td></tr> | ||
<tr><td align="center">'''Projects, Conferences or Continuing Education'''</td></tr> | <tr><td align="center">'''Projects, Conferences or Continuing Education'''</td></tr> | ||
</table> | </table> | ||
<p style="max-width:70em !important;">'''Scoring Rubric | <p style="max-width:70em !important;">'''Scoring Rubric'''</p> | ||
<br /> | <br /> | ||
<table width="100%" style="max-width:70em !important;"> | <table width="100%" style="max-width:70em !important;"> | ||
Line 94: | Line 94: | ||
</table> | </table> | ||
<br /> | <br /> | ||
<p style="max-width:70em !important; margin-bottom:15px">'''Scoring Explanation | <p style="max-width:70em !important; margin-bottom:15px">'''Scoring Explanation'''</p> | ||
<p style="max-width:70em !important; margin-bottom:15px">Not applicable – This item is not relevant to this particular application.</p> | <p style="max-width:70em !important; margin-bottom:15px">Not applicable – This item is not relevant to this particular application.</p> | ||
<p style="max-width:70em !important; margin-bottom:15px">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.</p> | <p style="max-width:70em !important; margin-bottom:15px">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.</p> | ||
<p style="max-width:70em !important; margin-bottom:15px">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.</p> | <p style="max-width:70em !important; margin-bottom:15px">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.</p> | ||
<p style="max-width:70em !important; margin-bottom:15px">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.</p> | <p style="max-width:70em !important; margin-bottom:15px">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.</p> |
Revision as of 09:06, May 31, 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 | |
Connection to practice role |
||||
Well-developed plan or design |
||||
Plans for dissemination |
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.