Training Proposal Evaluation Rubric (Cover)

OCC-Workforce Advancement Branch – Training Proposal Evaluation Rubric

Page 1 of 9

✓ Directions and Guidance:

 Carefully review the training proposal package and use the attached scoring rubric to evaluate the proposal. (Updated May 2023)

 Read each indicator description carefully and check the box (score 0-5) that matches your assessment of the proposal.

 Do not mark in between scores (example 3.5).

 Score exceptional indicators with a 5.

 It is required that Reviewers provide a justification for a score of 0 or 3 within the comment section below each criterion within the

designated category. Please include recommendations on how the applicant can improve the Training Proposal.

 Total the scores within each category under “Organization, Content, and Presentation.”

 Record the category totals in the spaces provided below.

 Training Proposals must meet a minimum score of 80 to be approved.

 Title of the proposed training: _________________________________________________________________________________________

Print name of Peer Reviewer:

I, __________________________________, have carefully evaluated the training proposal using the criteria established in the evaluation rubric.

As the peer reviewer I am including my signature _________________________________ and the date______________ of the completed rubric.

Category Scores

Organization: ______/30

Content: ______/45

Presentation: ______/25

Total Score: _______/100

Training Proposal Evaluation Rubric (Cover)

OCC-Workforce Advancement Branch – Training Proposal Evaluation Rubric

Page 2 of 9

ORGANIZATION

CRITERIA

SCORE

Written materials including

handouts, PowerPoint slides,

trainer note pages, planning

template, etc., use quality

writing, grammar, spelling, and

mechanics.

The training proposal is

very poorly written and

has 6 or more errors in

grammar, spelling, and

mechanics.

The training proposal

has 3 -5 errors in

grammar, spelling, and

mechanics.

The training proposal

has 1 – 2 errors

grammar, spelling, and

mechanics.

The training proposal

is very clearly written

with no errors in

grammar, spelling, and

mechanics.

Comments:

Written materials including

PowerPoint slides, handouts,

etc., are consistent with ADA

approved font style, size, color,

bullet points, slide numbers,

readability.

Written materials

including PowerPoint

slides, handouts etc.,

do not meet any of the

criteria (ADA approved

font style, size, color,

bullet points, slide

numbers, readability).

Written materials

including PowerPoint

slides, handouts, etc.,

meet 3 of the 6 criteria:

(e.g. ADA approved font

style, size, color, bullet

points, slides numbers,

and readability).

Written materials

including PowerPoint

slides, handouts, etc.,

meet 4 of the 6 criteria:

(e.g. ADA approved font

style, size, color, bullet

points, slides numbers,

and readability).

Written materials

including PowerPoint

slides, handouts, etc.,

meet all 6 criteria:

(e.g. ADA approved

font style, size, color,

bullet points, slides

numbers, and

readability).

Comments:

Training Proposal – Scoring Rubric

OCC-Workforce Advancement Branch – Training Proposal Evaluation Rubric

Page 3 of 9

Maintains consistency

throughout the training proposal

description, learning objectives,

content, and methods.

Fewer than 2 of the 4

criteria are consistent

with one another

(training proposal

description, learning

objectives, content,

and methods).

2 of the 4 criteria are

consistent with one

another (training

proposal description,

learning objectives,

content, and methods).

3 of the 4 criteria are

consistent with one

another (training

proposal description,

learning objectives,

content, and methods).

All 4 criteria are

consistent with one

another (training

proposal description,

learning objectives,

content, and

methods).

Comments:

Specifies realistic and measurable

learning objectives (minimum of

3; maximum of 5, and each aligns

with a competency identifier).

None of the learning

objectives are realistic,

written in measurable

terms, and align with a

competency identifier.

Some of the learning

objectives are realistic,

written in measurable

terms, and each aligns

with a competency

identifier.

Most of the learning

objectives are realistic,

written in measurable

terms, and each aligns

with a competency

identifier.

All the learning

objectives are realistic,

written in measurable

terms, and each aligns

with a competency

identifier.

Comments:

A minimum of 3

References/Resources cited are

reputable, published within 5-7

years, from multiple source

types, and appropriate for use as

the foundation of training

content. All handouts, videos,

and documents are listed.

None of the sources

cited are reputable,

published within 5-7

years, and appropriate

for use as the

foundation of training

content. None of the

handouts, videos, and

documents are listed.

One of the sources cited

is reputable, published

within 5-7 years, and

appropriate for use as

the foundation of

training content. Some

handouts, videos, and

documents are listed.

Two of the sources cited

are reputable, published

within 5-7 years, and

appropriate for use as

the foundation of

training content. Most

handouts, videos, and

documents are listed.

Three of the sources

cited are reputable,

published within 5-7

years, and appropriate

for use as the

foundation of training

content. All handouts,

videos, and documents

are listed.

OCC-Workforce Advancement Branch – Training Proposal Evaluation Rubric

Page 4 of 9

Comments:

Timeline allots adequate time for

content, activities, assessment,

and evaluation (excluding

breaks).

Timeline allotted for

content, activities,

assessment, and

evaluation is not at all

adequate.

Timeline allotted for

content, activities,

assessment, and

evaluation is somewhat

adequate.

Timeline allotted for

content, activities,

assessment, and

evaluation is adequate.

Timeline allotted for

content, activities,

assessment, and

evaluation is clearly

adequate.

Comments:

Organization Category Total Score

/30

Overall Comment for Organization:

OCC-Workforce Advancement Branch – Training Proposal Evaluation Rubric

Page 5 of 9

CONTENT

CRITERIA

SCORE

Training Title is strength-based

and appropriately refers to the

subject(s) of the training.

Training title is not

strength-based.

Training title uses

strength-based

language but does very

little to appropriately

refer to the subject(s) of

the training.

Training title uses

strength-based language

and somewhat

appropriately refers to

subject(s) of the training.

Training title uses

strength-based

language and

appropriately refers to

the subject(s) of the

training.

Comments:

Training Description clearly

explains the content of the

training, the need for the

training, and the benefits to the

participants.

Training description

does not explain the

content of the training,

the need for the

training, and the

benefits to the

participants.

Training description

somewhat explains the

content of the training,

the need for the

training, and the

benefits to the

participants.

Training description

explains the content of

the training, the need for

the training, and the

benefits to the

participants.

Training description

clearly explains the

content of the training,

the need for the

training, and the

benefits to the

participants.

Comments:

Training proposal provides

clearly sufficient information

specific to training content and

objectives.

Training proposal does

not provide sufficient

information specific to

training content and

objectives.

Training proposal

provides somewhat

sufficient information

specific to training

content and objectives.

Training proposal

provides sufficient

information specific to

training content and

objectives.

Training proposal

provides clearly

sufficient information

specific to training

content and objectives.

Comments:

OCC-Workforce Advancement Branch – Training Proposal Evaluation Rubric

Page 6 of 9

Incorporates learning objectives

and methods to measure

learning.

Less than 50% of the

learning objectives and

methods to measure

learning are addressed

in the content.

At least 50% of the

learning objectives and

methods to measure

learning are addressed

in content.

At least 75% of the

learning objectives and

methods to measure

learning are addressed in

content.

All the learning

objectives and methods

to measure learning are

addressed in content.

Comments:

Addresses special needs such as

adaptations, modifications,

inclusionary practices, person

first language, and ADA

guidelines for both the

participants and the population

they serve.

Training content does

not address special

needs such as

adaptations,

modifications,

inclusionary practices,

person first language,

and ADA guidelines.

Special needs such as

adaptations,

modifications,

inclusionary practices,

person first language,

and ADA are addressed

in 5% of the content

and is explained in the

trainer notes.

Special needs such as

adaptations,

modifications,

inclusionary practices,

person first language,

and ADA are addressed

in 10% of the content

and is explained in the

trainer notes.

Special needs such as

adaptations,

modifications,

inclusionary practices,

person first language,

and ADA are addressed

in 20% of the content

and is explained in the

trainer notes.

Comments:

Addresses cultural sensitivity

and diversity for both the

participants and the population

they serve.

Training content does

not address cultural

sensitivity and

diversity.

Cultural sensitivity and

diversity are addressed

in 5% of the content

and are explained in the

trainer notes.

Cultural sensitivity and

diversity are addressed

in 10% of the content

and are explained in the

trainer notes.

Cultural sensitivity and

diversity are addressed

in 20% of the content

and are explained in

the trainer notes.

Comments:

Addresses housing insecurity

for both the participants and

the population they serve.

Training content does

not address housing

insecurity for both the

participants and the

population they serve.

Housing insecurity is

addressed in 2% of the

content and is explained

in the trainer notes.

Housing insecurity is

addressed in 5% of the

content and is explained

in the trainer notes.

Housing insecurity is

addressed in 10% of the

content and is

explained in the trainer

notes.

OCC-Workforce Advancement Branch – Training Proposal Evaluation Rubric

Page 7 of 9

Comments:

Addresses the targeted Core of

Knowledge area(s).

Content does not

match the targeted

Core of Knowledge

area(s).

At least 50% of the

content addresses the

targeted Core of

Knowledge area(s).

At least 75% of the

content addresses the

targeted Core of

Knowledge area(s).

All of the content

addresses the targeted

Core of Knowledge

area(s).

Comments:

Reflects current national

standards/guidelines, COMAR

regulations, best practices for

early care and education, and is

appropriate to content and

learning objectives.

Content does not

reflect current national

standards/guidelines,

COMAR regulations,

best practices for early

care and education,

and is appropriate to

content and learning

objectives.

(Must meet 5 in this

area)

(Must meet 5 in this

area)

Content reflects current

national

standards/guidelines,

COMAR regulations,

best practices for early

care and education,

and is appropriate to

content and learning

objectives.

Comments:

Content Category Total Score

/45

Overall Comment for Content:

OCC-Workforce Advancement Branch – Training Proposal Evaluation Rubric

Page 8 of 9

PRESENTATION

CRITERIA

SCORE

Provides quality materials and

handouts that are appropriate,

“user-friendly,” and include

reference information.

Training

materials/handouts are

inappropriate,

unprofessional, not

“user-friendly,” and

lacks reference

information.

Training

materials/handouts are

somewhat appropriate,

“user-friendly,”

professional but do not

have appropriate

reference information.

Most of the training

materials/handouts are

appropriate, “user-

friendly,” professional,

and include reference

information.

All the training

materials/handouts

are appropriate,

“user-friendly,”

professional, and

include reference

information.

Comments:

Content and methods of the

presentation are clearly

appropriate for the topic and

length of the training (example: the

number of PowerPoint slides and

amount of information contained

in each slide).

Content and methods

of the presentation are

not appropriate for the

topic and length of the

training.

Content and methods

of the presentation are

somewhat appropriate

for the topic and length

of the training.

Content and methods

of the presentation are

appropriate for the

topic and length of the

training.

Content and methods

of the presentation

are clearly

appropriate for the

topic and length of

the training.

Comments:

Presentation and/or PowerPoint

slides include the objectives and

summary/wrap-up.

Presentation and/or

PowerPoint slides do

not include the

objectives and

summary/wrap-up.

(Must meet 5 in this

area)

(Must meet 5 in this

area)

Presentation and/or

PowerPoint slides

include the objectives

and summary/wrap-

up.

Comments:

OCC-Workforce Advancement Branch – Training Proposal Evaluation Rubric

Page 9 of 9

Training content clearly connects to

practical application and meets the

needs of participants.

Practical application is

not linked to content

and does not meet the

needs of participants.

Practical application is

somewhat linked to

content and the needs

of participants.

Practical application is

linked to content and

the needs of

participants.

Practical application is

clearly linked to

content and meets

the needs of

participants.

Comments:

Methods of delivery clearly reflect

a variety of learning styles, are

appropriate for adult learners, and

promote active learning.

Delivery methods do

not reflect a variety of

learning styles, are not

appropriate for adult

learners, and do not

promote active

learning.

Delivery methods

somewhat reflect a

variety of learning

styles, are somewhat

appropriate for adult

learners, and

somewhat promote

active learning.

Delivery methods

reflect a variety of

learning styles, are

appropriate for adult

learners, and promote

active learning.

Methods of delivery

clearly reflect a

variety of learning

styles, are

appropriate for adult

learners, and

promote active

learning.

Comments:

Presentation Category Score

/25

Overall Comment for Presentation: