Blugold Commitment Differential Tuition Reviewer Professional Development Workshop October 18, 19, 20, 2010 Stephanie Jamelske Jeremy Miner Mike Wick Stephanie Jamelske Jeremy Miner Mike Wick

Workshop Overview Blugold Commitment Differential Tuition Blugold Commitment Differential Tuition BCDT Reviewers and Milestones BCDT Reviewers and Milestones Proposal Deadlines and Review Timelines Proposal Deadlines and Review Timelines Review Process Review Process Proposal Guidance, Features, Budget Considerations Proposal Guidance, Features, Budget Considerations Review Tips Review Tips Reviewers Do’s and Don’ts Reviewers Do’s and Don’ts Examples of Comments Examples of Comments Questions Questions

Blugold Commitment Differential Tuition Enhance the distinctive UW-Eau Claire experience Enhance the distinctive UW-Eau Claire experience l Financial Assistance l Provost-led initiatives l High-impact practices High-impact practices High-impact practices l Research and scholarly activity l Immersion experiences l Internships l Practicum l Learning and teaching l Innovative projects Transformative Significant Impact Measurable Outcomes

BCDT Reviewers You will work independently and as a committee (3 students and 2 faculty/academic staff) to objectively assess each application’s strengths and weaknesses. You will work independently and as a committee (3 students and 2 faculty/academic staff) to objectively assess each application’s strengths and weaknesses. Your task is to rank all of the proposals, distinguishing the most promising ones from those that are good and those that have little potential. Your task is to rank all of the proposals, distinguishing the most promising ones from those that are good and those that have little potential. You are acting as the conscience of the community, ensuring that funds are invested wisely. You are acting as the conscience of the community, ensuring that funds are invested wisely.

BCDT Milestones Chancellor’s formal invitation Chancellor’s formal invitation l September 3, 2010 – campus-wide Proposal Workshop Proposal Workshop l September 14, 2010 – 35 attendees l September 15, 2010 – 25 attendees l September 16, 2010 – 15 attendees Informal Proposal Discussion Drop-In Informal Proposal Discussion Drop-In l September 21, 2010 – 6 attendees l September 22, 2010 – 8 attendees l October 8, 2010 – 19 attendees l October 11, 2010 – 16 attendees

Proposal Deadlines Before October 13, 2010 Before October 13, 2010 l Faculty and staff should consult with and submit proposals to their chairs or directors October 13, 2010 October 13, 2010 l Department chairs and unit directors submit proposals to their respective dean, AVC, AC, VC or Chancellor October 25, 2010 October 25, 2010 l Deans, AVC, AC, VC and Chancellor prioritize proposals and submit a ranked list along with proposals to the Provost

Review Timeline November 1-10, 2010 November 1-10, 2010 l Categorical Review Committees review proposals and rank November 15-26, 2010 November 15-26, 2010 l Funding Analysis Committee recommendations to Student Senate December 6, 2010 December 6, 2010 l Student Senate first reading of BCDT Spending Plan January 24, 2011 January 24, 2011 l Student Senate second reading and vote on BCDT Spending Plan Week of January 24, 2011 Week of January 24, 2011 l BCDT award notifications sent via

Review Process Proposals distributed for review by October 29 Proposals distributed for review by October 29 Read proposals independently by November 1 Read proposals independently by November 1 l Note strengths, weaknesses, questions l Consider a possible ranking l Be prepared to discuss Review all proposals as a committee by November 10 Review all proposals as a committee by November 10 l Be on time for committee discussions l Rank proposals l Develop written comments

Proposal Guidance Format Format l 8 pages total l 12 point font, 1.5 inch line spacing Proposal Type Proposal Type l Forward looking Budget Class Budget Class l Matches sum for first year Project Category Project Category l Only one can be selected l Follow guiding questions

Proposal Features Project Summary Project Summary Project Background Project Background Project Narrative Project Narrative l Objectives l Methods Project Assessment Project Assessment l Evidence l 4 year graduation l LELOs

Budget Considerations Budget Summary Budget Summary l One per year Budget Detail Budget Detail l Year 1 only If funded If funded l Rebudgeting? l Carry over? l Guaranteed?

Review Tips You are not judging people You are not judging people You are not judging departments/colleges You are not judging departments/colleges You are not judging how you’d do the project You are not judging how you’d do the project You are not judging proposals against each other You are not judging proposals against each other

Reviewer Don’ts Make disparaging remarks about an application Make disparaging remarks about an application Provide comments that are vague Provide comments that are vague Ask questions in your commentary Ask questions in your commentary Contact applicants during the review process Contact applicants during the review process Let only the budget drive ranking considerations Let only the budget drive ranking considerations Use information external to the proposal Use information external to the proposal

Reviewer Do’s Read proposals independently Read proposals independently Be analytical and unbiased Be analytical and unbiased Participate fully in the discussion and ranking Participate fully in the discussion and ranking Provide constructive comments Provide constructive comments Keep in mind that most applicants invested a great deal of effort into preparing proposals Keep in mind that most applicants invested a great deal of effort into preparing proposals Aim to provide feedback that will assist: Aim to provide feedback that will assist: l Applicants to know what they did right l Applicants to know how they might improve

Levels of Commentary Content and Organization – has all of the requested information been included? Content and Organization – has all of the requested information been included? Clarity – is the narrative clear and persuasive? Clarity – is the narrative clear and persuasive? Mechanics – is the narrative free from errors in grammar, spelling, and punctuation? Mechanics – is the narrative free from errors in grammar, spelling, and punctuation? Design – does the narrative look inviting to read? Design – does the narrative look inviting to read?

Examples of Comments Unhelpful Feedback It’s a great proposal It’s a great proposal I like it I like it This should be funded This should be funded Nice assessment plan Nice assessment plan I’ve heard really good things about this prof I’ve heard really good things about this prof This project will really help the department This project will really help the department Helpful Feedback The applicant identifies two specific outcomes (X and Y) and systematically describes how they will be accomplished and assessed. This project will have a significant impact on student learning. The applicant identifies two specific outcomes (X and Y) and systematically describes how they will be accomplished and assessed. This project will have a significant impact on student learning.

Examples of Comments Unhelpful Feedback This project doesn’t make any sense This project doesn’t make any sense A waste of money A waste of money Spelling mistakes were distracting Spelling mistakes were distracting The table is confusing The table is confusing Their other application was better Their other application was better Helpful Feedback The narrative would benefit from including specific details such as X, Y, and Z, which will lend to a better understanding of the true impact this project can have on students and learning. The narrative would benefit from including specific details such as X, Y, and Z, which will lend to a better understanding of the true impact this project can have on students and learning.

Your Questions? Thank you for your service