The Center for Integrated Professional Development grant reviewers (or designated external reviewers) will evaluate applications based on the following criteria:
| Met | Not Met | |
| Project Overview and outcomes | The project clearly identifies specific pedagogical needs or innovations. The project outcomes are specific, achievable, and measurable. | The project does not provide clear overview or uses vague languages to describe it. The project outcomes are not specific, achievable, or measurable. |
| Assessment | The method of assessment is clearly articulated and relevant to student learning. | The method of assessment is unclear or irrelevant to student learning. |
| FITE Dimensions | The project is aligned with one or more of the FITE dimensions. | The project is not aligned with the FITE dimensions. |
| Equity: | The reflection on the project's impact on students from diverse backgrounds is thoroughly discussed. | The reflection on the project's impact on students from diverse backgrounds is superficial or unclear. |
| Dissemination | The project outcomes can be shared with the campus community. | The project outcomes cannot be shared with the campus community. |
| Sustainability | Discuss the impact on students beyond one class or a semester. | The project cannot impact students beyond one class or a semester. |
| Additional Support | Additional support from IT or other support units is clearly stated and the statement of support is provided. | Additional support from IT or other support units is not clearly stated. |
| Budget | Itemized amounts for expenses are all listed and reasonable. External financial support is clearly articulated. | Itemized amounts for expenses are not listed or reasonable. External financial support is not clearly articulated. |