- Clear goals—Does the scholar state the basic purposes of his or her
work clearly? Does the scholar define objectives that are realistic and
achievable? Does the scholar identify
important questions in the field?
- Adequate preparation—Does the scholar show an understanding of
existing scholarship in the field? Does the scholar bring the necessary
skills to his or her work? Does the scholar bring together the resources
necessary to move the project forward?
- Appropriate methods—Does the scholar use methods appropriate to the
goals? Does the scholar apply effectively the methods selected? Does the
scholar modify procedures in response to changing circumstances?
- Significant results—Does the scholar achieve the goals? Does the
scholar's work add consequentially to the field? Does the scholar's work
open additional areas for further exploration?
- Effective presentation—Does the scholar use a suitable style and
effective organization to present his or her work? Does the scholar use
appropriate forums for communicating work to its intended audiences?
Does the scholar present his or her message with clarity and integrity?
- Reflective critique—Does the scholar critically evaluate his or her
own work? Does the scholar bring an appropriate breadth of evidence to
his or her critique? Does the scholar use
evaluation to improve the quality of future work?
Glassick, C. E., M. T. Huber, and G. I. Maeroff. 1997. Scholarship assessed: Evaluation of the professoriate. The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. San Francisco, CA:
- Clear goals—Your unit outcomes should be your clear goals.
- Adequate preparation—Your scholarly narrative for your unit (re)design should be your demonstration of adequate preparation or review of literature of what/why/how you are designing and delivering the unit in the manner you are. (Note, you also have to do a scholarly narrative of your assessment. Be sure to focus it on your methods.)
- Appropriate methods—This is the "heart" of this particular assignment. You need to design a method for assessing the instructional method (with some form of technology) that you have implemented in your unit (re)design. Assessing whether or not the students learned is only a part of this assessment. You also need to plan to collect data on the design and the delivery of the unit. In short, the (re)design assessment is a research proposal for how you would assess your unit (re)design. It should include:
Significant results—If you implement the unit (re)design, hopefully you will also implement the assessment as well as collect and interpret the data.
- Clear research question: Research proposals should always contain a
clear research question (or set of questions) that serve as way to show
the specific focus of the project. The research question(s) might appear
before or after the “significance” section in a research proposal,
depending on the requirements of the proposal and the author’s
preference. Some authors like to use the significance section to lead up
to a research question, while others prefer to state the question after
the introduction of the subject and then use the significance section
to justify the importance of the question. Either choice can be
effective, but make sure you are following any specific guidelines given
for the proposal you are writing.
- Statement of objectives: At some
point in the research proposal, the author must clearly state the
objectives and expected outcomes for the research. What do you hope to
achieve through this research? What is your purpose in researching this
subject? The objectives might be stated in a separate section, or they
might be incorporated into the description of the significance of the
project. In either case, the author should indicate a clear connection
between the research question(s), the intended audience, and the
expected outcomes, or purpose, of the research.
- Description of
methodology: More detailed proposals often include a description of the
methodology that will be used to complete the project. If the research
proposal you are writing requires a description of methodology, we
recommend reading Chapters 4 and 5 before proceeding. Depending on the
nature of the research project, the description of methodology might
look very different. For a research project that proposes conducting
secondary research , the author might describe ways that he or she
intends to find relevant resources for the project. For a research
project that involves primary research, the author should include a
specific description of how he or she will conduct that research
(conducting observations or interviews, distributing surveys).
Additionally, the proposal might include a copy of any interview
questions, surveys, or observation methods used in the project.
- Timeline for the
research project: Most research proposals include a timeline for
completion of the project, breaking the project down into manageable
steps with clear deadlines. Even if a timeline is not required for the
research proposal you are writing, it can be helpful to draft a timeline
for yourself to make sure that the scope of the project you are
proposing is manageable to complete in the amount of time that you have. Don't forget, for this type of project you would need IRB approval.
Effective presentation—If you collect and interpret the data, why not share it at a conference or write it up for publication?