CON Faculty Practice Fund Scoring Rubric: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
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 15:30, 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.