Difference between revisions of "2025 Scholarship Documents/Rubric"
From Code4Lib
(→Evaluation process) |
(→Evaluation process) |
||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
== Evaluation process == | == Evaluation process == | ||
| − | '''4''' of '''4''' members of the scholarship committee reviewed and rated applications according to the rubric below (20 possible points). | + | '''4''' of '''4''' members of the scholarship committee reviewed and rated applications according to the rubric below (20 possible points). All '''4''' members met to review and discuss scores. We identified '''6''' top candidates based on highest average score, as well as a '''6'''-person waitlist ranked by averaged application score. |
== Evaluation rubric == | == Evaluation rubric == | ||
Latest revision as of 22:45, 7 February 2025
2025 Scholarship Committee Documents
Contents
[hide]Application components
Evaluation process
4 of 4 members of the scholarship committee reviewed and rated applications according to the rubric below (20 possible points). All 4 members met to review and discuss scores. We identified 6 top candidates based on highest average score, as well as a 6-person waitlist ranked by averaged application score.
Evaluation rubric
| Category | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Eligibility no points. answered as yes or no |
Under 18 and/or does not self-identify as a member of a group not well represented in the code4lib community. Note that this year (2025) Code4Lib is only awarding scholarships to domestic applicants (those residing in the United States or Canada). | 18 and older AND self-identifies as member of a group not well represented in the code4lib community. For 2025, must also reside in United States or Canada. | |||
| Financial need 4 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. | ||
| Rationale - what you are looking forward to/how you may participate in Code4Lib 2025 4 pts possible |
Does not express interest in participating in Code4Lib 2025 | Expresses interest in participating in Code4Lib 2025. | Expresses interest in participating in Code4Lib 2025 and provides reasons for this interest. Discusses plans for participation in Code4Lib 2025. | Expresses interest in participating in Code4Lib 2025 and discusses plans for participation. Links interest in Code4Lib 2025 to personal and/or professional goals, interests and/or activities. Links interest and plans to specific elements of Code4Lib 2025 (e.g. Pre-conference, lightning talks, range of session topics, childcare). | Clearly, persuasively, and critically expresses interest in participating in Code4Lib 2025; describes plans for participation; links interest in Code4Lib 2025 to personal and/or professional goals, interests and/or activities; and links interest and plans to specific elements of Code4Lib 2025 (e.g. Pre-conference, lightning talks, range of session topics, childcare). |
| Rationale - how it may meet your professional goals 4 pts possible |
Does not discuss professional goals. | Discusses professional goals. | Discusses professional goals and links personal interests and/or activities. | Discusses professional goals, interests, and/or activities. Links benefits of participating to specific elements of Code4Lib 2025 (e.g. Pre-conference, lightning talks, range of session topics, childcare). | Clearly persuasively, and critically discusses professional goals, interests, and/or activities; and links benefits of participating to specific elements of Code4Lib 2025 (e.g. Pre-conference, lightning talks, range of session topics, childcare). |
| Rationale - how you may participate in the 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). |
References & Sources
Annotated list of evaluation examples (helpful and unhelpful) that we consulted while designing the rubric above:
Northeastern University Scholars Independent Research Fellowship
- Application guidelines
- project- and output-focused
- emphasis on clarity & feasibility
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
Donald D. Myers Scholarship Scoring Rubric (Missouri University of Science & Technology)
- expresses values like quantitative over qualitative data, the importance of "passion"
Kappa Delta Pi 2016 Scholarship Review Rubric
- asks evaluators to rate 1-5 without explaining criteria for each rating
Keego Harbor Optimist Scholarship Rubric
- Gives overall definitions of 1-5 first, then lists areas for evaluation
Elks National Foundation Scholarship Judges Manual - Evaluating Applications 🦌🦌🦌
Learning Forward Foundation Scholarships and Grants Scoring Rubric
- separate section for application completeness
- each scoring categories addresses multiple criteria
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"
- rewards specificity
- writing skills weighted equivalent to experience
AAUW Selected Professions Fellowships Criteria for Selection and Application Review
- gives percentages rather than point values for weighting criteria
AAUW Campus Action Project Grant Instructions
- public-facing list of selection criteria rather than a table/rubric structure
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.
ACRL Immersion Program Characteristics of Successful Applicants
- rubrics for specific tracks (Teacher, Program, Intentional Teaching, Assessment, Teaching with Technology) no longer online
- current scholarships page lists criteria rather than a rubric
American Association of School Librarians Innovative Reading Grant
- Grant Rating Sheet
- Rating Rubric
- space for comments in rating sheet
National Organization for Human Services Rubrics for Awards, Scholarships, and Grants
- Howard Harris Professional Development Award Rubric
- Research Grant
- little explanation for what each rating means
