Skip to main content

Alternative Textbook Grant

Rubric

The following measures are the basis by which Alternative Textbook Grant applications are scored.  All applications are reviewed and scored by a panel of reviewers. Subjective measures are scored in the following way.  Scores are used to determine if a proposal will be funded and to what degree.  Grants range from $250 to $2,500, potentially $5,000 depending on matching funds from applicants' college and reviewers' discretion.

  1. Does not meet criteria
  2. Meets criteria
  3. Exceeds criteria

Savings

Because the primary goal of the Alternative Textbook Grant is student savings, savings per semester as a result of the Alternative Textbook Grant is used in scoring applications.

For new classes  –those being offered for the first time–  $100 is used for "cost of replaced resource."

savings = (cost of replaced resource) × (expected enrollment)

 

Enrollment

For classes that might be using inexpensive resources but are large in terms of enrollment, enrollment per semester is considered as a stand-alone metric.

 

Frequency

How frequently a course affected by an Alternative Textbook Grant is offered over a three year period excluding summer and interim semesters.  Frequency also takes into consideration parallel offerings.  –courses offered by those who do not apply for a grant themselves, but will use the same resources as applicant.

Example:  Demonstration that a course with smaller enrollment can serve more students if offered more frequently than a class with a larger enrollment.

Enrollment
  Year 1 Year 2 Year 3  
  Fall Spring Fall Spring Fall Spring Total
Class 1 75 75 75 75 75 75 450
Class 2 100   100   100   300

 

Openness [0, 2]

  1. Not open at all. Proposed implementation makes ued of all rights reserved material
  2. Proposed resource is openly licensed, but not as accessible as possible. Maybe the resource is technically difficult to reuse
  3. Proposed resource is openly licensed, is easy to modify, and easy to discover

 

Pedagogical Innovation [0, 2]

  1. Proposes using a resource that is a drop-in replacement for previous traditional resource 
  2. Proposes using a resource that is a drop-in replacement for previous traditional resource, but causes course to be taught in a new way. Might include updating content or improving its relevance
  3. Proposes using a resource that is not a direct replacement for previous traditional resource and significantly changes how course is taught

 

Community Benefit [0, 2]

  1. Proposes delivering a resource that is exceedingly specific to a particular class and instructor.  Likely of no use to anyone but applicant
  2. Proposes delivering an improvement to an existing open resource or the creation of a new resource useful to others
  3. Proposes delivering an original, technically usable by others, and serves a subject not already well represented among current OER offerings

 

Ability to Succeed [0, 2]

  1. Proposes a project that will be an extraordinary undertaking or does not clearly explain how it will be completed.  May also be completely dependent upon the time, effort, and skill of those other than the applicant or their employees
  2. Proposes a project moderate in scope and a plan of execution is loosely defined, possibly incomplete.  May also utilize but not completely depend on the time, effort, and skill of those other than the applicant or their employees
  3. Proposes a project moderate or narrow in scope and a plan of execution is clearly articulated.  Also does not heavily depend on the time, effort, and skill of those other than the applicant or their employees