SERVICE-­‐LEARNING  GRANT  &  DESIGNATION  (SLG&D)  RFP   COMMITTEE  EVALUATION  AND  REVIEW  PROCESS     Evaluation  Criteria:       1.   All  proposals  are  judged  on  a  competitive  basis  and  through  an  evaluation  process  that  strives  to   be  objective.  Grants  are  awarded  on  the  basis  of  the  proposal  itself.  Awards  are  not  based  on   the  employment  classification  of  the  proposal  writer  (i.e.,  faculty,  adjunct,  administration)  or  the   areas  of  the  College  represented  by  the  applicants.     2.  

The  Service-­‐Learning  Program  coordinator  will  select  a  committee  of  at  least  four  readers  to   judge  the  proposals  and  recommend  those  that  warrant  funding  (one  year  commitment).   Readers  will  be  selected  on  the  following  criteria:    

   

   

a.  Readers  must  not  be  applicants  or  have  a  vested  interest  in  any  of  the  proposals     being  considered.  Readers  will  have  objective  decision-­‐making  abilities.   b.  Readers  will  come  from  diverse  areas  of  the  college  and/or  be  Thayne  Center   Community  partners.   c.  The  committee  will  be  compromised  of  full-­‐time  and  adjunct  service-­‐learning   practitioners,  and  community  partner  organizations  who  a  significant  knowledge  of   service-­‐learning  pedagogy.    

3.    

Every  reader  will  individually  read  each  proposal  and  have  time  to  score  the  proposals  without   discussing  them  with  anyone  else.    

4.  

All  the  readers  will  score  the  proposals  in  advance  and  then  will  meet  in-­‐person  to  discuss  scores   including  commendation  and  suggestions  for  improvement.    The  scores  on  each  proposal  will  be   totaled  and  proposals  will  be  approved  based  on  their  average.     a.  The  committee  will  determine  a  cut-­‐off  line  separating  proposals  that  are  “Qualified   for  Funding”  from  those  that  are  “Not  Qualified  for  Funding.”  

6.  

Proposals  that  are  “Qualified  for  Funding”  will  be  funded  based  on  aggregated  scores,  with  the   following  possible  exception:     a.  There  may  be  a  situation  where  the  qualified  proposals  exceed  the  total  amount  of   money  available.    

7.  

 

Reviewers  will  utilize  that  same  rubric  provided  to  faculty  and  administrators  (in  the  SLG&D  RFP)   to  evaluate  service-­‐learning  course  and  engaged  department  best  practices.    Engaged   Departments  will  be  reviewed  on  a  case-­‐by-­‐case  basis.        

Service  Learning  Grant  &  Designation  (SLG&D)  Rubric     for  committee  proposal  evaluation   On  a  1-­‐4  scale,  indicate  by  your  numeric  response  how  well  the  applicant  addressed  the  following  criteria:  How  thorough   are  the  applicant’s  responses?  How  viable  is  the  service  learning  experience?  Is  it  in  line  with  the  best  practices  of  service   learning  pedagogy  (i.e.  does  it  fall  into  the  intermediate  to  maximum  impact  category)  or  is  it  more  general  community   engagement  (i.e.  minimal  to  moderate  impact)?  

Academics/Integrated Curriculum

 

Service-­‐ Learning   Pedagogy   integrated  into   academic   curriculum    

Academic   skills/   knowledge   used  in   community     settings  

Partnerships with Community

Meets communityidentified needs

Collaboration   with   community   partners  

Updated  10/5/15  

 

Minimal Impact (1)

Moderate Impact (2)

Intermediate

Impact (3)

Maximum Impact (4)

Service  learning   supplemental  to   curriculum  or   not  integrated   into  curriculum   at  all.  Includes   simple  service   projects  and   good  deeds.   Skills  and   knowledge  used   mostly  in  the   classroom;  little   or  no  active   service  in  the   community.  

Service   learning  is  part   of  the   curriculum  but   classroom   connections   are  weak,  with   emphasis  on   service.   Application  of   classroom   knowledge/skil ls  to   community   service   involvement  is   irregular   and/or  unclear.    

Service  learning  as   a  teaching  method   with  course   content  and   service   components   concurrent.  Some   course  learning   outcomes  linked   to  the  service.  

Service  learning   as  primary   instructional   strategy  with   course  content/   and  service   components  fully   integrated  with   course  outcomes.  

 Students  have   some  active   application  of   new  skills  or   knowledge  from   the  classroom   applied  in  the   community.  

Students  have   direct  application  of   new  skills  or   knowledge  from   the  classroom   applied  to  a   community   identified  need.     Service  can  be   direct,  indirect,   research,  or   advocacy.  

Project   Community   determined  by   needs   assuming   secondary  to   community   what  faculty  or   needs.   coordinator   Partnerships   wants  to  do.     mostly  benefit   Project   the  students  and   considers  only   faculty.       Partnerships  may   student/   not  be   academic  needs   appropriate   for   and  lacks   learning   communication.     outcomes   Charitable   identified.   outreach  only.   Community   Community   members   members   are/will  be   are/will  be   coincidentally   informed  of   informed  or  not   the  project   knowledgeable   from  students   at  all  about  the   involved  or   project.   through   Charitable   marketing.  For   outreach  only.       profit   For  profit   organizations   organizations   considered.   utilized.  

Project   determined  by   past  research  of   community   partner  needs.   Partnerships  are   mostly   reciprocal.     Partnerships  are   appropriate  for   learning   outcomes   identified.    

Project   determined  by   current  needs   research  with   community   partners.   Partnerships  are   mutually   beneficial.       Partnerships  are   appropriate  for   learning   outcomes   identified.   Active,  direct   collaboration   with  the   community  is/will   occur  by  the   instructor  and   students.  Non-­‐ profit  community   partners  and   community   assets  are   utilized.    

Community   members  act   as/will  be   consultants  in   the  project.     Non-­‐profit   community   partners  and   community   assets  are   considered.  

Scoring

Points 1-4

 

Critical Thinking and Reflection

 

Faculty    guide   structured   reflection  

 

Students’   develop  a  sense   of  social     responsibility      

Civic Learning and Democratic Engagement

 

Project   improves   quality  of  life   for  person(s)/   community/   environment

Minimal Impact (1)

Moderate Impact (2)

Intermediate Impact (3)

Maximum Impact (4)

Faculty  do  not   make  time  for   critical   reflection;   students   provide  a   summary  of   events  only  or   did  not  include   reflection.     Students  are   graded  for  the   hours  of   service,  not  the   learning   demonstrated.   Reflections/   learning  not   intended  to   help  students   understand   how  their   service  can   make  a   difference.     Civic   responsibility   not  included  as   a  focus.    

Students’   reflections   occur   sporadically   and  loosely   connect  the   service   experience  to   course  learning   outcomes.   Students   mostly  graded   for  the  hours  of   service,  not  the   learning   demonstrated.   Reflections/   learning   intended  to   help  students   gain  a  limited   understanding   of  the   importance  of   civic   engagement.      

Students  critically   think,  share,  and   produce   periodically   throughout  the   experience.   Reflection  is   linked  to  the   service.    Students   are  graded  based   on  demonstration   of  knowledge.  

Students  engage   in  critical   reflection  based   on  their  service   throughout  the   experience.   Students  are   graded  based  on   demonstration   of  knowledge.     Reflection  is   linked  to  service   and  course   learning   objectives.    

Reflections/   learning  intended   to  help  students   gain  an  increasing   understanding  of   the  importance  of   civic  engagement   and  his/her  ability   to  affect  positive   social  change.  

Proposed   changes  mainly   superficial  with   limited   community   benefit,  or  are   not  new  and   unique.     Negative   stereotypes   may  be   reinforced.     Short  term   impact.    

Proposed   changes  mainly   superficial,  but   new  and   unique  benefits   are  realized  in   community.     Mostly  focused   on  short-­‐term   impact.      

Reflections/   learning   intended  to   help  students   gain  deep,   personalized   understanding   of  the   importance  of   civic   engagement   and  his/her   ability  to  affect   positive  social   change.     Facilitates   change;  helps   alleviate  a   suffering;   solves  a   community-­‐ identified   problem;   meets  a  need   or  sustainably   address  an   issue  long   term.  

Proposed  changes   enhance  an   existing   community   initiative  and/or   support   community-­‐ driven  problem   solving.     Sustainability  is   addressed.      

Total  points  possible  (28)    

  Total  Score:___________________  

  Applicant  Name:  _________________________________________________________________     Course  Name  and  Abbreviation:  _____________________________________________________     Committee  member/reviewers  name:  ___________________________________________________  

Updated  10/5/15  

 

Scoring Points 1-4