[IMAGE: Southern Illinois University Edwardsville Logo]
Apply to SIUE
[IMAGE: URCA Header]

Prospective URCA Associates

Proposal Evaluation

Evaluation Scoring Scale for URCA Associate Proposals


After proposals are submitted for the URCA Associate Program, the URCA Board evaluates each one on its merit for funding. Proposals are assigned primary and secondary reviewers, and board members carefully scrutinize these submissions. At the meeting in which proposals are evaluated, the primary and secondary reviewers present their comments to the entire URCA board. Board members vote individually on each proposal. However, board members may not vote on proposals from their own departments or for which they are serving as faculty mentors.

Student proposals can receive up to four points in each of the five areas listed below for a maximum of 20 points. The scoring rubric for each area is displayed. A proposal must have an overall score of 12.5 or more to be considered eligible for funding.


Importance of the topic

4. The topic is recognized as substantial by people who are knowledgeable in the field. The proposal provides either in the problem identified, the methodology employed, or the mode of interpretation, a recognizable contribution to the field.

3. The topic is recognized as appropriate by people who are knowledgeable in the field. the proposal provides either in the problem identified, the methodology employed, or the mode of interpretation, a limited contribution to the field.

2. The topic is recognized as minor by people who are knowledgeable in the field. The proposal provides either in the problem identified, the methodology employed, or the mode of interpretation, little contribution to the field.

1. The topic is recognized as trivial by people who are knowledgeable in the field. The proposal provides either in the problem identified, the methodology employed, or the mode of interpretation, no recognizable contribution to the field.


Methodology

4. The methodology is appropriate and innovative.

3. The methodology is appropriate and interesting.

2. The methodology is appropriate and acceptable.

1. The methodology is inappropriate and unacceptable.


Foundation

4. The research project is clearly understood by the student. A clear relationship exists between the topic and existing information in related areas of knowledge. The proposal is firmly rooted in disciplinary foundations.

3. The research is to some extent understood by the student. A questionable relationship exists between the topic and existing information in related areas of knowledge. The proposal is rooted in disciplinary foundations.

2. The research project may be understood by the student. An ambiguous relationship exists between the topic and existing information in related areas of knowledge. The proposal drifts from its disciplinary foundations.

1. The research project is not understood by the student. No logical relationship exists between the topic and existing information in related areas of knowledge. Disciplinary foundations are not evident or are misused.


Expectations

4. The extent of the proposed study is eminently reasonable in terms of time and resources available. A clear indication exists that the student has considered and made provision for each of the demands implicit within the study.

3. The extent of the proposed study is moderately reasonable in terms of time and resources available. An indication exists that the student has considered and made provision for some of the demands implicit within the study.

2. The extent of the proposed study may be reasonable in terms of time and resources available. An unclear indication exists that the student has considered and made provision for each of the demands implicit within the study.

1. The extent of the proposed study appears unreasonable in terms of time and resources available. There is little or no indication that the student has considered and made provision for each of the demands implicit within the study.


Style

4. The proposal is free from grammatical and typographical errors. The appearance of the document is professional and clean. All intellectual or creative aspects of the proposal are included and complete.

3. The proposal includes occasional grammatical and typographical errors. The appearance of the document is pleasing. Most intellectual or creative aspects of the proposal are included and complete.

2. The proposal includes troublesome grammatical and typographical errors. The appearance of the document is acceptable. Some significant intellectual aspects of the proposal are absent or incomplete.

1. Grammatical and typographical errors appear in unacceptable numbers and intensity. the appearance of the document is unacceptable. Gross intellectual or creative aspects of the proposal are absent or incomplete.



For more information on the Undergraduate Research and Creative Activities Program,
contact Dr. Laura Pawlow at (618) 650-2608 or lpawlow@siue.edu.


facebookoff twitteroff vineoff linkedinoff flickeroff instagramoff googleplusoff tumblroff foursquareoff socialoff