Difference between revisions of "CON Faculty Practice Fund Scoring Rubric"

From University of Nebraska Medical Center
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 61: Line 61:
 
<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>
+
<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;">

Revision as of 14:30, 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.