Undergraduate Research Grants Evaluation Rubric
Evaluation Rubric
|
Strength of the proposed mentoring relationship |
Proposed mentoring relationship Clear, well defined proposal; role of mentor clearly explained |
Relatively clear proposal but lacking some definition; role of mentor is a bit vague |
A number of weaknesses but scope of work is articulated; evidence of some mentoring provided |
Proposal is vague and scope of work is poorly identified; no clear mentor role |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Demonstrated significance of the project and merit of the work |
Clearly assesses the role of the proposed project in the field |
Provides some evidence of significance |
Claims significance but lacks substance. |
No sense of how the proposed project contributes to the field |
|
Appropriateness of the methodology or the creative focus |
Evidences clear understanding of methodology/creative focus |
Methodology/creative focus is defined but not clearly |
Lacks some understanding of methodology or creative focus |
No evidence of methodology/creative focus |
|
Potential for accomplishing the proposed project |
Well defined budget and realistic detailed timeline |
Budget and/or timeline realistic but missing some detail |
Budget and/or timeline not realistic or clearly defined |
Budget and/or timeline unrealistic or missing |
|
The overall quality of the proposal |
Outstanding |
Commendable |
Satisfactory |
Weak |