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

jamelss@uwec.edu minerjt@uwec.edu wickmr@uwec.edu

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.

Your Questions?

Thank you for your service