SFG Committee
Spring 2010


SLU Fellows Proposal Evaluation Form
         
Proposal Title/Topic ________________________________________________________________

Applicant _______________________________ Mentor ___________________________________

Major __________________________________ Recommender _____________________________

 

Category

Evaluation

Comments

Introduction and theoretical underpinnings (10 points)

  • Discusses the purpose of the study
  • Discusses the relevance of the paper
  • Captures reader’s attention

Excellent (10)
Good (8)
Acceptable (6)
Marginal (4)
Unacceptable (0)

 

Research question, design and methodology (20 points)

  • Research question and hypotheses are clear
  • Research method is clear (a literature review; data collection and analysis; a reflective essay; producing a movie or play; creating a piece of artwork; or other creative work)

Excellent (20)
Good (16)
Acceptable (12)
Marginal (8)
Unacceptable (0)

 

Quality of writing (10 points)

  • Concise: sentences are well structured and focused
  • Clear: words are used accurately and effectively, not too general 
  • Vocabulary is appropriate for a general audience and for a college-level writing (no slang)
  • Bibliography contains an appropriate proportion of academic papers and is carefully cited and referenced

Excellent (10)
Good (8)
Acceptable (6)
Marginal (4)
Unacceptable (0)

 

Ideas and structure (20 points) 

  • Interesting content, demonstrates sophistication of thought
  • Central research question is clearly communicated and explained
  • Proposal recognizes complexity of the problem, possible contradictions and limitations

Excellent (20)
Good (16)
Acceptable (12)
Marginal (8)
Unacceptable (0)

 

Feasibility and preparedness of the student (20 points)

  • Student clearly communicates challenges of the project
  • Activities are reasonable to be accomplished within the outlined time period   
  • Student possesses knowledge, practice, and skills to succeed in the project

Excellent (20)
Good (16)
Acceptable (12)
Marginal (8)
Unacceptable (0)

 

Quality of recommendations (20 points)

  • Mentor is enthusiastic about working with the student
  • Mentor is devoting sufficient time to guide the project
  • Mentor is sure about the feasibility of the project
  • Mentor and recommender believe that the project is worth pursuing
  • Recommender is positive about the student

Excellent (20)
Good (16)
Acceptable (12)
Marginal (8)
Unacceptable (0)

 

Total: __________________________out of 100 points