S-BOLD Full Proposal Review Process (2015-16)

Goal: The goal of the S-BOLD full proposal review process was to solicit input from different viewpoints, while being mindful of the tight timeline and respectful of reviewers’ main responsibilities and commitments.  The review process entailed five steps, which are summarized below:

1. Proposal Scoring -each proposal was read by a panel of three to four reviewers, who rated and provided comments on the following categories:
   
   
   • impact (30 points);
   • institutional context (30 points);
   • feasibility and budget (20 points); and
   • assessment and quality (20 points).  
   There were three panels for the seven invited proposals, with each panel responsible for the review of two to three proposals. Each panel of reviewers consisted of a group of faculty in related disciplines, staff with experience in online education, and one administrator. The administrator was the panel leader and a member of the "Blue Ribbon Committee" referred to in Step Three. During Step One, each member of the review panel provided independent, written rating and comments on proposals under his/her review, which were subsequently discussed in a panel meeting.  
2. Review Panel Ranking – Each panel met during a two-week period with the Associate Provost for Online Education (APOE) and presented their summarized comments and ratings in a "panel review summary."
3. Blue Ribbon Committee – All panel review summaries were discussed and ranked in a "Blue Ribbon Review Committee" that consisted of panel leaders, and the Associate Provost for Online Education
4. GOAL Input – The APOE met with the Group for Online and Alternative Learning (GOAL) to share the Blue Ribbon Committee review summaries and to solicit the group's input.
5. Final Recommendations – Panel leaders met to provide final recommendations.    
   
   

Panel Leaders and Blue Ribbon Committee:  Charles Taber, Stefan Hyman, Chuck Powell, Charles Robbins, Stella Tsirka

Panel Reviewers: \Jennifer Adams (TLT), Monica Bugallo (Electrical and Computer Engineering), Shafeek Fazal (Library), David Ferguson (Department of Technology and Society), David Hanson (Chemistry), Robert Kelly (Computer Science), Devinder Mahajan (Chemical Engineering), Sarah Malmquist (Neurobiology and Behavior), Linda Unger (TLT), Frederick Walter (Physics and Astronomy). 

1. Proposal Scoring - each proposal was read by a panel of three to four reviewers, who rated and provided comments on the following categories:  

• impact (30 points);
• institutional context (30 points);
• feasibility and budget (20 points); and

assessment and quality (20 points).