Topics Map > Library
OER Mini-Grant Application Evaluation Rubric
Each spring, instructors are invited to apply to an OER Mini-Grant to adopt, adapt, remix, or create an OER. UW-Superior instructors can find more information at the CLIC's SharePoint site. This rubric shows how we evaluate program applications.
| Criteria | Excellent (3 Points) | Adequate (2 Points) | Needs Work (1 Point) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Quality | The primary selected resources are from high quality, peer-reviewed journals, and open textbooks. | Resources are a mixture of peer-reviewed and credible supplemental resources (newspaper articles, educational videos, podcasts, etc.). | Selected resources are mainly not from peer-reviewed sources. |
| Goals | The proposal’s goals are well-defined and reported. Reflection on what is needed to successfully implement the OER is evident. | The proposal’s goals are well-defined. Reflection on the project’s needs is present but not extensive. | The proposal’s goals are listed but not clear or otherwise lacking. |
| Savings | The combination of previous textbook costs, student enrollment, and frequency this course is taught means that the implementation of OER could create extensive cost savings for students. | The implementation of an OER could create some cost savings for students OR the course does not currently use a textbook or other commercial resource. | The proposal does not intend to replace any commercial course materials through this project, though such materials do exist. |
| Number of Students Impacted | The project affects a high number of students. The course is taught at least every year. The faculty member expects to teach this course again multiple times in the future. University Studies course. | The project affects a fair number of students. The course is taught about every other year. The faculty member expects to teach this course at least once more past the next academic year. Required for a major. | The project does not affect many students. The course is rarely taught. The faculty member is not sure when they will be able to teach this course again, or this is an experimental course. Neither a University Studies course nor required for a major. |
| Preparedness for Implementation | Applicant has a full plan for implementation in place. A timeline for development and implementation is feasible and well-documented. | Applicant has a partial plan for implementation in place. A timeline for development and implementation is feasible, but sparsely documented, or unable to be fulfilled in the next academic year. | Applicant has yet to plan how the materials will be implemented in the course. A timeline for development and implementation is confusing, not feasible, non-existent, or otherwise needs improvement. |
| Sustainability | The use of OER materials in the course can be repeated and can be shared with other instructors of the course. | The use of OER materials in the course can be repeated each semester by the instructor. | The use of OER materials in the course is only used for the semester of the project. |
| Equity, Diversity & Inclusion | Creation: Applicant describes how they will make any created OER(s) ADA compliant, addresses W3C standards, uses a diverse range of images representing differing backgrounds, avoids a single cultural view, and includes diverse authors and contributors. Adoption: Applicant describes how they will ensure chosen OER(s) are ADA compliant, follow W3C standards, use diverse images, avoid a single cultural view, and include diverse authors and contributors. | Creation: Applicant describes ADA compliance, use of non-homogeneous images, culturally respectful language, and diverse authors and contributors. Adoption: Applicant describes ADA compliance, uses non-homogeneous images, avoids culturally insensitive language, and includes diverse authors and contributors. | Applicant minimally describes ADA compliance, does not address images or language, and does not describe how they will ensure diversity of referenced authors or contributors. |