Blugold Commitment Differential Tuition 2011-12 Reviewer Professional Development Workshop October...
-
Upload
angelica-douglas -
Category
Documents
-
view
214 -
download
1
Transcript of Blugold Commitment Differential Tuition 2011-12 Reviewer Professional Development Workshop October...
Blugold CommitmentDifferential Tuition 2011-12
Reviewer Professional Development Workshop
October 18, 19, 20, 2010
Stephanie Jamelske Jeremy Miner Mike Wick
836-2320 836-5514 836-2033
Workshop Overview
Blugold Commitment Differential Tuition BCDT Reviewers and Milestones Proposal Deadlines and Review Timelines Review Process Proposal Guidance, Features, Budget Considerations Review Tips Reviewers Do’s and Don’ts Examples of Comments Questions
Blugold Commitment Differential Tuition
Enhance the distinctive UW-Eau Claire experience Financial Assistance Provost-led initiatives High-impact practices
High-impact practices Research and scholarly activity Immersion experiences Internships Practicum Learning and teaching Innovative projects
Transformative
Significant Impact
Measurable Outcomes
BCDT Reviewers
You will work independently and as a committee (3 students and 2 faculty/academic staff) to objectively assess each application’s strengths and weaknesses.
Your task is to rank all of the proposals, distinguishing the most promising ones from those that are good and those that have little potential.
You are acting as the conscience of the community, ensuring that funds are invested wisely.
BCDT Milestones Chancellor’s formal invitation
September 3, 2010 – campus-wide email
Proposal Workshop September 14, 2010 – 35 attendees September 15, 2010 – 25 attendees September 16, 2010 – 15 attendees
Informal Proposal Discussion Drop-In September 21, 2010 – 6 attendees September 22, 2010 – 8 attendees October 8, 2010 – 19 attendees October 11, 2010 – 16 attendees
Proposal Deadlines
Before October 13, 2010 Faculty and staff should consult with and submit proposals to
their chairs or directors
October 13, 2010 Department chairs and unit directors submit proposals to
their respective dean, AVC, AC, VC or Chancellor
October 25, 2010 Deans, AVC, AC, VC and Chancellor prioritize proposals and
submit a ranked list along with proposals to the Provost
Review Timeline November 1-10, 2010
Categorical Review Committees review proposals and rank
November 15-26, 2010 Funding Analysis Committee recommendations to Student Senate
December 6, 2010 Student Senate first reading of BCDT Spending Plan
January 24, 2011 Student Senate second reading and vote on BCDT Spending Plan
Week of January 24, 2011 BCDT award notifications sent via email
Review Process
Proposals distributed for review by October 29
Read proposals independently by November 1 Note strengths, weaknesses, questions Consider a possible ranking Be prepared to discuss
Review all proposals as a committee by November 10 Be on time for committee discussions Rank proposals Develop written comments
Proposal Guidance
Format 8 pages total 12 point font, 1.5 inch line spacing
Proposal Type Forward looking
Budget Class Matches sum for first year
Project Category Only one can be selected Follow guiding questions
Proposal Features
Project Summary Project Background Project Narrative
Objectives Methods
Project Assessment Evidence 4 year graduation LELOs
Budget Considerations Budget Summary
One per year
Budget Detail Year 1 only
If funded Rebudgeting? Carry over? Guaranteed?
Review Tips
You are not judging people
You are not judging departments/colleges
You are not judging how you’d do the project
You are not judging proposals against each other
Reviewer Don’ts
Make disparaging remarks about an application Provide comments that are vague Ask questions in your commentary Contact applicants during the review process Let only the budget drive ranking considerations Use information external to the proposal
Reviewer Do’s
Read proposals independently Be analytical and unbiased Participate fully in the discussion and ranking Provide constructive comments Keep in mind that most applicants invested a
great deal of effort into preparing proposals Aim to provide feedback that will assist:
Applicants to know what they did right Applicants to know how they might improve
Levels of Commentary Content and Organization – has all of the
requested information been included?
Clarity – is the narrative clear and persuasive?
Mechanics – is the narrative free from errors in grammar, spelling, and punctuation?
Design – does the narrative look inviting to read?
Examples of CommentsUnhelpful Feedback It’s a great proposal I like it This should be funded Nice assessment plan I’ve heard really good
things about this prof This project will really
help the department
Helpful Feedback The applicant
identifies two specific outcomes (X and Y) and systematically describes how they will be accomplished and assessed. This project will have a significant impact on student learning.
Examples of CommentsUnhelpful Feedback This project doesn’t
make any sense A waste of money Spelling mistakes
were distracting The table is confusing Their other
application was better
Helpful Feedback The narrative would
benefit from including specific details such as X, Y, and Z, which will lend to a better understanding of the true impact this project can have on students and learning.