Evaluation Rubric

Download a PDF version of this rubric

 

ITIF CRITERIA

DESCRIPTION

3

2

1

0

Alignment with this year’s ITIF theme

The degree to which the project is focused on this year’s theme The project is very clearly connected to this year’s theme The project is connected to some aspect of this year’s theme The project is tangentially connected to this year’s theme There is no apparent  connection to this year’s theme
 

Curricular & Programmatic  Priorities

 

Prospects for integration into a unit/program’s overall curriculum plan and programmatic priorities

 

The project is very clearly  connected to the unit’s  curricular &
programmatic priorities

 

The project is connected to some of the unit’s curricular and programmatic priorities

 

The project is vaguely connected to one of the unit’s curricular and programmatic priorities

 

There is no apparent  connection to the unit’s curricular and programmatic priorities

Collaboration

 

The project involves more than one person

This is a collaborative
project from one or more units/programs
/departments
This is a collaborative project of a team of individuals or a single unit/program/ department This is a project from a single individual N/A
Interdisciplinary / Interprofessionalism The interdisciplinary/ interprofessional nature of the project The project clearly leverages multiple interdisciplinary or interprofessional opportunities across multiple units The project clearly leverages interdisciplinary or interprofessional opportunities within the unit The project leverages some interdisciplinary or interprofessional opportunities No  interdisciplinary or interprofessional opportunities are articulated in the proposal
 

 

Student Involvement

 

The level of student involvement in the project

The proposal clearly articulates active roles for students in the project, and envisions using a majority of funds for this purpose  

The proposal clearly articulates active roles for students in the project

 

The proposal vaguely articulates some kind of role for students in the project

 

The proposal does not articulate a role for students in the project

Assessment & Evaluation The assessment/ evaluation component of the project (with credit for having a SOTL focus) The methodology for assessing/ evaluating the success of the project is clearly articulated and has a SOTL focus The methodology for assessing/ evaluating the success of the project is clearly articulated but without  a SOTL focus The methodology for assessing/ evaluating the success of the project is vaguely articulated No methodology for assessing/ evaluating the success of the project is articulated in the proposal

Transferability

The transferability of the project’s idea or concept to other units The proposal clearly & specifically articulates how the project can be used by other units (with specific examples) The proposal articulates how the project can be used by other units but without specific examples The idea that other units could use the project is vaguely articulated There is no articulation of how other units will make use of the project.

Shareability

The degree to which the project is ‘shareable’, ‘modifiable’ or uses open standards. The proposal clearly and specifically articulates that the project is shareable and modifiable (through, for example, the use of open standards and Creative Commons licensing). The proposal articulates that the project is  modifiable (through, for example, the use of open standards). Open standards are employed in the development of the project, but modifiability or shareability is not explicitly addressed in the proposal The proposal does not address shareability, transferability or open standards, or, explicitly states that none of these factors are part of the project.
UofT Resources The degree to which the project leverages existing resources and mechanisms at UofT The proposal clearly articulates the internal UofT resources that will be leveraged for the project and envisions most of the non-student funding being spent on internal UofT services The proposal articulates the internal UofT resources that will be used for the project but includes expenditures on external services that would otherwise be available at UofT The proposal is vague about which UofT resources or services will be leveraged for the project. The proposal advocates for spending the complete budget on external resources or services that would otherwise be available at UofT
 

Budget

The specificity of the matching funds The proposal clearly and specifically articulates the source and nature of matching funds The proposal articulates the source and nature of matching funding The proposal contains only a supporting letter of matching funds [The proposal does not contain a supporting letter of matching funds]

Sustainability

The specificity of a plan for the long-term sustainability of the initiative The proposal  clearly and specifically articulates the long-term mode of sustainability for the project The proposal articulates a mode of sustainability for the project The proposal contains  only a vague notion of how the project will be sustained beyond the terms of the funding The proposal does not articulate how the project will be sustained beyond the terms of the funding