Appendices N and Q: Faculty Event Evaluation Forms | The Gevirtz School (GGSE)

Faculty Event Evaluation Forms

Select the appropriate evaluation form below, fill in the rubrics, and click "Generate Printout" to create a clean document for signatures.

Appendix N: Research Festival Evaluation Form

To be completed by three faculty members of student's emphasis area, or of the advisors' choosing, at Research Festival fall quarter of student's third year in program.

Student & Project Details

Student's Name

Year in Program

Second Year Project / Title

Quarter/Year

Fundamental Elements

Students must obtain a "satisfactory" score in all of these fundamental elements to meet criteria for passing (0 = unsatisfactory, 1 = satisfactory).

Element	Score (0 or 1)
1. Student identified an area of study that has relevance to professional psychology...
2. Student placed the study in the context of previous work in the area
3. Appropriate & clearly articulated hypotheses/research questions
4. Student made a clear argument for the need to conduct research...
5. Student provided rationale for research and approach method chosen...
6. Data collection was in accordance with APA's ethical Principles...
7. Data collection was in accordance with IRB guidelines
8. Multicultural and individual difference considerations were attended to...
9. Student demonstrated an ability to professionally present scholarly findings...

Notes / Comments:

Overall Evaluation

Yes, the student meets or exceeds the requirements.

No, the student does not meet requirements (one or more elements were rated "fair" or worse).

Person Completing Form (Note: student must receive a "meets expectations" by all three evaluators to proceed with Qualifying Exams)

Printed Name:

Signature:

Date:

Appendix Q: Qualitative Exams and Dissertation Evaluation Form

To be filled out by Committee Members at event.

3 = Pass - Consistently good quality, meets expectations
2 = Revise - Inconsistent quality, shows evidence of ability to meet expectations
1 = No Pass - Consistently poor quality, shows evidence of need for remedial training
NA = Not applicable for this program requirement

Event Details Milestone to be Evaluated:

Date of Event:

If Dissertation, Title of Dissertation:

Specific Performance Domains

Domain	Score
1. Editorial quality of the written document (e.g., APA style, clarity, organization)
2. Scholarly/Scientific quality of the written document (e.g. depth, breadth, integration)
3. Quality of the presentation and response to questions (e.g., slides, oral communication, time management, diversity issues)

Comments to support rankings on above and other areas of strength or area for improvement:

Overall Evaluation

Remediation Necessary?

1. Global rating of performance on specified program requirement:

Signatures

Doctoral Chair (Print Name):

Signature:

Committee Member (Print Name):

Signature:

Committee Member (Print Name):

Signature:

Student Signature:*

*My signature on this form indicates only that these results have been shared with me.

Date: