DRC’s Evaluation Form for
Teaching and Learning Enhancement Support Grant
Abstract (5 points):
-
0
The abstract is written in a way that people outside the discipline would
understand it.
1
2
3
4
5
Rationale/Comment:
Rationale (5 points):
-
0
The proposal is drawn from sound pedagogical practices or current learning
theory.
1
2
3
4
5
Rationale/Comment:
Objectives (5 points):
-
0
The objectives address a current student learning problem or challenge that
needs to be approached.
1
Rationale/Comment:
2
3
4
5
Student Learning Outcomes (5 points):
-
The proposal clearly identifies the relevant student learning outcomes.
0
1
2
3
4
5
4
5
Rationale/Comment:
Methodology (25 points)
-
The methodology is of good quality. (10 points):
0
1
2
3
Rationale/Comment:
-
0
There is a clear alignment of the rationale and methodology of the project
to the learning objectives for student learning. (10 points):
1
Rationale/Comment:
2
3
4
5
-
0
The proposal includes related literature and descriptions of listed methods
to measure the project outcomes. (5 points):
1
2
3
4
5
Rationale/Comment:
Workplan (5 points)
-
As per the workplan, the project is feasible within the identified time frame.
0
1
2
3
4
5
Rationale/Comment:
Evaluation Plan (15 points)
-
0
The proposal clearly addresses the gains in student learning. (10 points)
1
Rationale/Comment:
2
3
4
5
-
0
The proposal measures the change in student learning. (5 points)
1
2
3
4
5
Rationale/Comment:
Sustainability Plan (10 points)
There is a potential for long-term impact on student learning and especially when it is
adapted by other programs/courses.
0
1
2
3
4
5
3
4
5
Rationale/Comment:
Budget (15 points)
-
0
Accurate (5 points):
1
Rationale/Comment:
2
-
0
Reasonable (5 points):
1
2
3
4
5
3
4
5
Rationale/Comment:
-
0
Well-Justified (5 points):
1
2
Rationale/Comment:
Use of previous TLESG (10 points)
Did not meet
Exceeding
Expectations_______________________________________________Expectations
0
1
2
3
4
5
Rationale/Comment:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Interpretation of the score:
0: The proposal fails to address the criterion under examination or cannot be judged
due to missing or incomplete information.
1: The criterion is addressed in an inadequate manner, or there are serious inherent
weaknesses.
2: While the proposal broadly addresses the criterion, there are significant weaknesses.
3: The proposal addresses the criterion well, although improvements would be
necessary.
4: The proposal addresses the criterion very well, although certain improvements are
still possible.
5: The proposal successfully addresses all relevant aspects of the criterion in question
and any shortcomings are minor.