Rubric
Rubric
OER Grant Rubric
Project idea
|
Exceeds expectations
|
Meets expectations
|
Approaches expectations
|
|
|
Novelty |
The idea/approach to this project is unique and worth pursuing. It does not duplicate work that currently exists. |
The idea/approach to this project is compelling and worth pursuing. While other work like this may exist elsewhere, this project adds value to work happening at UR. |
The idea/approach to this project is basic and widely covered. It could benefit from a UR twist or elements that make it more compelling. |
|
Need |
This proposal clearly addresses needs of universal access, cost savings, and/or student agency to be covered by the project.
A reviewer would have no questions about the level of needs that the project will meet. |
This proposal addresses needs of universal access, cost savings, and/or student agency to be covered by the project.
A reviewer would have minor questions about the level of needs that the project will meet. |
This proposal minimally addresses needs of universal access, cost savings, and/or student agency to be covered by this project.
A reviewer would have many questions about the level of needs that the project will meet. |
|
Immersiveness |
This proposal clearly articulates ways in which students can become part of the open practices utilized in the project.
A reviewer would have no questions or suggestions about ways in which the project can engage the course community. |
This proposal articulates ways in which students can become part of the open practices utilized in the project.
A reviewer would have minor questions or suggestions about ways in which the project can engage the course community. |
This proposal minimally articulates ways in which students can become part of the open practices utilized in the project.
A reviewer would have many questions or suggestions about ways in which the project can engage the course community. |
Clarity of the project
|
|
Exceeds expectations
|
Meets expectations
|
Approaches expectations |
|
Goals |
Goals are clearly defined and align with the description and planned assessment of the project.
A reviewer would have no questions about the project’s goals. |
Goals are defined and align with the description and planned assessment of the project.
A reviewer would have some questions about the project’s goals. |
Goals are not well-defined and/or do not align well with the description and planned assessment of the project.
A reviewer would have many questions about the project’s goals. |
|
Plan for implementation |
The descriptive plan and approach for this project is comprehensive and clear, leaving no room for ambiguity.
A reviewer would have no questions about the ways in which this project will be achieved. |
The descriptive plan and approach for this project is clear, but some key elements may be missing.
A reviewer would have some questions about the ways in which this project will be achieved. |
The descriptive plan and approach for this project is not well-defined.
A reviewer would have many questions about the ways in which this project will be achieved. |
|
Statement of Impact |
This proposal clearly addresses the intended project impacts of previously stated needs.
A reviewer would have no questions about the intended impacts of this project. |
This proposal addresses the intended project impacts of previously stated needs.
A reviewer would have some questions about the intended impacts of this project. |
This proposal minimally addresses the intended project impacts of previously stated needs.
A reviewer would have many questions about the intended impacts of this project. |
Feasibility of the project
|
Exceeds expectations
|
Meets expectations
|
Approaches expectations
|
|
|
Timeline |
The proposal’s timeline for development and implementation of the project is feasible, well-documented, and includes plans to implement the project within the stated deadline. |
The proposal’s timeline for development and implementation of the project is feasible, but sparsely documented or unable to be fulfilled within the stated deadline. |
The proposal’s timeline for development and implementation of the project is confusing, not feasible, or otherwise needs improvement to convey the proposal’s intent. |
|
Complexity |
While the complexity of the project may appear ambitious, the proposal clearly defines safeguards and extra supports to make the project a reality within the intended timeline. |
The level of complexity for this project seems just right for the intended timeline. |
The level of complexity for this project seems underwhelming and may require suggestions for a more robust end product. |
|
Support (could include monetary, staff, travel, personal compensation, etc.) |
This proposal clearly articulates need and resolution for the necessary supports to make the project a reality.
A reviewer would have no questions about the supports needed for this project. |
This proposal articulates need and partial resolution for the necessary supports to make the project a reality.
A reviewer would have some questions about the supports needed for this project. |
This proposal misses the opportunity to fully articulate need and resolution for the necessary supports to make the project a reality.
A reviewer would have many questions about the supports needed for this project. |
|
Exceeds expectations
|
Meets expectations
|
Approaches expectations
|
|
|
Contribution to the community |
The work resulting from this project adds a unique, high quality, and necessary contribution to the OER/OP community and advances a culture of equity at UR. |
The work resulting from this project adds a helpful contribution to the OER/OP community and/or advances a culture of equity at UR. |
The work resulting from this project aims to advance a culture of equity at UR. |
|
Student learning |
This proposal clearly addresses how the project will impact student learning using specific examples and details.
A reviewer would have no questions about the project’s impact on student learning. |
This proposal addresses how the project will impact student learning using some examples and details.
A reviewer would have minor questions about the project’s impact on student learning. |
This proposal minimally addresses how the project will impact student learning without using any examples or details.
A reviewer would have many questions about the project’s impact on student learning. |
|
Cost savings (considering number of enrolled students to cost of traditional course text(s)) |
Potential cost savings are fully considered, appropriately calculated, and make a dramatic statement in what open educational practices can do in terms of cost. |
Potential cost savings are considered, calculated, and make a reasonable statement in what open educational practices can do in terms of cost. |
Potential cost savings have not been fully considered or calculated, despite a mention in the proposal of the intended project impacts. |
