AmyWickner: 2018 scholarship evaluation process, scoring rubric, and sources good & bad

2018-04-27T20:19:26Z

2018 scholarship evaluation process, scoring rubric, and sources good & bad

New page

[[2018_Scholarship_Documents|2018 Scholarship Committee Documents]]

== Application components ==
[[2018_Scholarship_Documents/Application_form#Diversity_Scholarship_Eligibility.2C_Criteria.2C_and_Requirements|Eligibility criteria]]

[[2018_Scholarship_Documents/Application_form#How_to_Apply|Application components]]

== Evaluation process ==
10 of 13 members of the scholarship committee reviewed and rated applications according to the rubric below (20 possible points). A group of 11 met to review and discuss scores. We identified 12 top candidates based on highest average score, as well as a 5-person waitlist ranked by averaged application score.

== Evaluation rubric ==
{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Category
! 0
! 1
! 2
! 3
! 4
|-
| '''Eligibility''' 1 pt possible
| Under 18 and/or does not self-identify as a member of a group not well represented in the code4lib community.
| 18 and older AND self-identifies as member of a group not well represented in the code4lib community.
|-
| '''Financial need''' 2 pts possible
| Does not cite a financial need for this scholarship.
| Cites a financial need for this scholarship.
| Explains current personal circumstances that support a need for this scholarship, including but not limited to (and in no particular order): family responsibilities; full- or part-time student status; lack of employment; part-time work or other contingent employment; lack of employer-funded professional development; expenses or other circumstances that create a financial need.
|-
| '''Describe interest in and plans for participating in Code4Lib 2018''' 4 pts possible
| Does not express interest in participating in Code4Lib 2018
| Expresses interest in participating in Code4Lib 2018.
| Expresses interest in participating in Code4Lib 2018 and provides reasons for this interest. Discusses plans for participation in Code4Lib 2018.
| Expresses interest in participating in Code4Lib 2018 and discusses plans for participation. Links interest in Code4Lib 2018 to personal and/or professional goals, interests and/or activities. Links interest and plans to specific elements of Code4Lib 2018 (e.g. CodeOfConduct4Lib, pre-conference, lightning talks, range of session topics, childcare).
| Clearly, persuasively, and critically expresses interest in participating in Code4Lib 2018; describes plans for participation; links interest in Code4Lib 2018 to personal and/or professional goals, interests and/or activities; and links interest and plans to specific elements of Code4Lib 2018 (e.g. CodeOfConduct4Lib, pre-conference, lightning talks, range of session topics, childcare).
|-
| '''Describe anticipated benefits of participation in Code4Lib 2018''' 4 pts possible
| Does not discuss benefits of participating in Code4Lib 2018
| Discusses benefits of participating in Code4Lib 2018.
| Discusses benefits of participating in Code4Lib 2018 and links benefits to personal and/or professional goals, interests, and/or activities.
| Discusses benefits of participating in Code4Lib 2018 and links benefits to specific personal and/or professional goals, interests, and/or activities. Links benefits of participating to specific elements of Code4Lib 2018 (e.g. CodeOfConduct4Lib, pre-conference, lightning talks, range of session topics, childcare).
| Clearly persuasively, and critically discusses benefits of participating in Code4Lib 2018; links benefits to specific personal and/or professional goals, interests, and/or activities; and links benefits of participating to specific elements of Code4Lib 2018 (e.g. CodeOfConduct4Lib, pre-conference, lightning talks, range of session topics, childcare).
|-
| '''Describe interest in / plans for engaging with Code4Lib community''' 4 pts possible
| Does not express interest in participating in the general Code4Lib community OR discuss reservations about participating.
| Expresses interest in participating in the general Code4Lib community and/or discusses reservations about participating.
| Expresses interest in participating in the general Code4Lib community. Discusses plans for participating in the general Code4Lib community.
| Expresses interest in participating in the general Code4Lib community. Discusses plans for participating. Links interest in the general Code4Lib community to personal and/or professional goals, interests and/or activities. Links interest and plans to specific elements of the general Code4Lib community (e.g. CodeOfConduct4Lib, conferences, local meetups, journal, online community, wiki).
| Clearly, persuasively, and critically expresses interest in participating in the general Code4Lib community; describes plans for participation; links interest in the general Code4Lib community to personal and/or professional goals, interests and/or activities; and links interest and plans to specific elements of the general Code4Lib community (e.g. CodeOfConduct4Lib, conferences, local meetups, journal, online community, wiki).
|-
| '''Describe anticipated benefits of engaging with Code4Lib community''' 4 pts possible
| Does not discuss benefits of participating in the general Code4Lib community.
| Mentions anticipated benefits of participating in the general Code4Lib community.
| Discusses anticipated benefits of participating in the general Code4Lib community and links benefits to personal and/or professional goals, interests, and/or activities.
| Discusses anticipated benefits of participating in the general Code4Lib community and links benefits to specific personal and/or professional goals, interests, and/or activities. Links benefits of participating to specific elements of the general Code4Lib community (e.g. CodeOfConduct4Lib, conferences, local meetups, journal, online community, wiki).
| Clearly, persuasively, and critically discusses anticipated benefits of participating in the general Code4Lib community; links benefits to specific personal and/or professional goals, interests, and/or activities; and links benefits of participating to specific elements of the general Code4Lib community (e.g. CodeOfConduct4Lib, conferences, local meetups, journal, online community, wiki).
|-
| '''CodeOfConduct4Lib''' 1 pt possible
| Application material does not adhere to the CodeOfConduct4Lib
| Application material adheres to the CodeOfConduct4Lib
|}

== References & Sources ==
Annotated list of evaluation examples (helpful and unhelpful) that we consulted while designing the rubric above:

[https://www.northeastern.edu/universityscholars/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Evaluation-rubric.pdf Northeastern University Scholars Independent Research Fellowship]
* [https://undergraduate.northeastern.edu/research/awards/summer-scholars-independent-research-fellowship/ Application guidelines]
* project- and output-focused
* emphasis on clarity & feasibility

[https://www.gips.org/assets/site/Foundation/images/Scholarships/CPI%20Scholarship%20Scoring%20Rubric.pdf Grand Island Public Schools Career  Pathways  Institute]
* evaluates applications for demonstration of financial need
* multiple opportunities for applications to build a case through personal experience

[https://studentlife.mst.edu/media/studentsupport/studentlife/documents/Scoring%20Rubric.pdf Donald D. Myers Scholarship Scoring Rubric (Missouri University of Science & Technology)]
* expresses values like quantitative over qualitative data, the importance of "passion"

[https://www.kdp.org/resources/pdf/scholarshipsandgrants/Scoringrubric.pdf Kappa Delta Pi 2016 Scholarship Review Rubric]
* asks evaluators to rate 1-5 without explaining criteria for each rating

[http://www.keegoharboroptimist.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/SCORING-RUBRIC-2013-2014.pdf Keego Harbor Optimist Scholarship Rubric]
* Gives overall definitions of 1-5 first, then lists areas for evaluation

[https://www.elks.org/SharedElksOrg/enf/images/EvaluatingBrochures.pdf Elks National Foundation Scholarship Judges Manual - Evaluating Applications] 🦌🦌🦌

[https://learningforward.org/docs/default-source/pdf/rubric-final.pdf Learning Forward Foundation Scholarships and Grants Scoring Rubric]
* separate section for application completeness
* each scoring categories addresses multiple criteria

[https://www.lrs.org/ripl-2016-scholarship-application-rubric/ Research Institute for Public Libraries Scholarship Application Rubric]
* in addition to rating answers to application questions, includes 3 overall categories for evaluating applications: written communication skills, commitment to learning about data, commitment to incorporating research and evaluation into workflow, "passion for making data sing"

[https://aauw-sd.aauw.net/files/2014/01/NCCWSL-Scholarship-Application-Scoring-Rubric.pdf Scoring Rubric – Student Application for State AAUW Funds to Attend National Conference for College Women Student Leaders (NCCWSL)]
* rewards specificity
* writing skills weighted equivalent to experience

[https://www.aauw.org/what-we-do/educational-funding-and-awards/selected-professions-fellowships/spf-application/ AAUW Selected Professions Fellowships Criteria for Selection and Application Review]
* gives percentages rather than point values for weighting criteria

[https://www.aauw.org/resource/cap-grant-application-instructions/ AAUW Campus Action Project Grant Instructions]
* public-facing list of selection criteria rather than a table/rubric structure

[http://www.ala.org/acrl/liaison-grant-funding-evaluation-rubric ACRL Liaison Grant Funding Evaluation Rubric]
* evaluation seems to address both grant application and project outcomes
* note at the bottom: ''If a proposal is scored “0” in any category or earns a total score of “0-5” the applicant will receive feedback from the Chair or Vice-Chair.''

[http://www.ala.org/acrl/immersion/characteristics ACRL Immersion Program Characteristics of Successful Applicants]
* rubrics for specific tracks (Teacher, Program, Intentional Teaching, Assessment, Teaching with Technology) no longer online
* [http://www.ala.org/acrl/conferences/immersion/scholarships current scholarships page] lists criteria rather than a rubric

[http://www.ala.org/aasl/awards/innovative American Association of School Librarians Innovative Reading Grant]
* [http://www.ala.org/aasl/sites/ala.org.aasl/files/content/aaslawards/docs/InnovativeReadingGrantRatingSheet.pdf Grant Rating Sheet]
* [http://www.ala.org/aasl/sites/ala.org.aasl/files/content/aaslawards/docs/InnovativeReadingGrantRubric.pdf Rating Rubric]
* space for comments in rating sheet

[http://www.nationalhumanservices.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&catid=19:site-content&id=98:rubrics National Organization for Human Services Rubrics for Awards, Scholarships, and Grants]
* [http://www.nationalhumanservices.org/assets/Rubrics/rubrics%20-%20howard%20harris%20professional%20developmen%20award.pdf Howard Harris Professional Development Award Rubric]
* [http://www.nationalhumanservices.org/assets/Rubrics/rubrics%20-%20research%20grant.pdf Research Grant]
* little explanation for what each rating means

2018 Scholarship Documents/Application evaluation rubric - Revision history

AmyWickner: 2018 scholarship evaluation process, scoring rubric, and sources good & bad