Midterm Evaluation Sample Clauses

Midterm Evaluation. You will need to prepare answers to the following prompts before you submit your evaluation: Site Details • Rate your co-op experience so far (Excellent, Good, Average, Poor, Terrible) • Is this your first or second co-op rotation? • What is the work environment like? (In-person, Hybrid, Remote) • Have you been having regularly occurring meetings with your supervisor? • Do they have any concerns about your work performance you can address before the rotation ends? • Any additional comments or concerns you’d like to share with the co-op office? Midterm Reflection (written report, minimum of 3 pages in length) • Briefly describe the co-op experience (company, title, working environment, 1st or 2nd rotation) • Why were you initially interested in working with this employer? • What were you initially tasked with doing? • Have your responsibilities changed? (Yes, No) If yes, please describe the new responsibilities • List any accomplishments/challenges thus far You will need to prepare answers to the following prompts before you submit your evaluation: Site Details • Rate your overall experience (Excellent, Good, Average, Poor, Terrible) • Is this your first or second co-op rotation? • Where did you learn about the opportunity? • Would you recommend this employer to other students? (Yes, Maybe, No) • Are you considering working for this employer after graduation? (Yes, Maybe, No) • What was the work environment like? (In-person, Hybrid, Remote) • What has been your favorite aspect of this co-op experience? • What has been your biggest achievement? Your biggest challenge? • How would you rate your preparedness in the following career readiness areas? (sample skills will be provided) • What do you see as your most important competencies for future development? Your greatest strengths? Final Reflection (written report, minimum of 3 pages in length) • Briefly describe the co-op experience (company, title, working environment, 1st or 2nd rotation) • Why were you initially interested in working with this employer? Has that changed since this experience? • What were you initially tasked with doing? • Did your responsibilities change during the experience? (Yes, No) If yes, please describe the new responsibilities • What technical skills have you gained? How will they help you in your career? • Describe a job-related issue or struggle you experienced – how did you overcome it? • What did you learn at Pitt which helped you in your co-op experience? • What could you have...
View SourceView Similar (5)
Midterm Evaluation. First & Second Rotations Final Evaluation – First & Second Rotations Capstone Report – Second Rotation How to Complete: To complete the evaluations, access the evaluation link through your Pitt email – you should receive an alert 7 days before midterms for the midterm evaluation and 14 days before finals week for the final evaluation for each rotation. If you do not, please log-in to Handshake and navigate to the Experiences tab under Career Center. After completing the second rotation, you can upload your capstone report as an attachment in Handshake, as well as in Canvas. Co-op Site: Your co-op supervisor will be required to submit a final evaluation, which they have the option of sharing with you. If they’re unable to complete third-party forms, they must submit a letter stating completion of the experience has occurred and you should submit an internal/company final evaluation form (if possible) to the Manager of Experiential Learning for review. Deadlines: For the midterm evaluation, the student evaluation is due before the end of midterms.
View SourceView Similar (4)
Midterm Evaluation. You will need to prepare answers to the following prompts before you submit your evaluation:
View Source
Midterm Evaluation. TechnoServe will facilitate an independent external midterm evaluation of CIAP over four months from June to September 2018, in order to capture data from the third cashew season.2 The midterm evaluation is primarily intended as an internal management tool to assess project progress to date and identify needed course corrections, thereby guiding project management to achieving project objectives and the most effective use of project funding. The primary audience for this evaluation includes: project management and TechnoServe, USDA, USAID and other U.S. government agencies. If the baseline evaluation is completely to the satisfaction of TechnoServe, the same external evaluation firm who conducted the baseline evaluation will be hired to conduct the midterm evaluation. In the event that TechnoServe and USDA determine that a different firm should be selected to conduct the midterm, TechnoServe will again conduct a competitive process to select the external firm. TechnoServe will ensure that the evaluating agency has complete access to all internal and external project reports, including performance reports, M&E databases, monetization records, key correspondence with OCBD staff, and any other relevant project information that may facilitate the transparent and robust execution of the evaluation. The Midterm Evaluation will help TechnoServe and OCBD staff optimize the allocation of project funding to achieve CIAP results through the remaining implementation period, and will be consistent with the following criteria: Relevance, Effectiveness, Efficiency, Impact and Sustainability.3 TechnoServe will work closely with OCBD staff during the drafting of the Midterm Evaluation Terms of Reference, and will ensure that the evaluating agency interviews relevant OCBD staff prior to initiating field work, after preliminary conclusions are reached, and upon submission of the full evaluation report for OCBD review and comment. TechnoServe and CRS will incorporate findings and conclusions from the midterm evaluation to refine and, if necessary, adjust project activities to affect mid-course corrections required to achieve project goals and objectives, working with FAS staff as appropriate. The midterm evaluation will utilize a mixed methods approach with a quasi-experimental design of repeated cross section of respondents from both participating and non-participating households. Quantitative data will be collected through household surveys of baseline producers to assess t...
View Source
Midterm Evaluation. From July to September 2001, a Midterm evaluation was carried out on the grant with the following results. Findings regarding strengthened capacity of Project HOPE to implement successful VHB programs were that creation of an Income Generation Department, development of a common VHB methodology, and expansion of the VHB to three new countries had been accomplished fully. Diversified funding and increased sustainability of HQ technical services were on target, as was creation of a performance monitoring system. Not yet accomplished was a fully functioning impact assessment system. Findings regarding providing financial services and health education were that in four countries developing local staff to implement the VHB model had been accomplished. Improved sustainability of operations was on target, as were serving a significant population and maintaining high financial quality. Findings regarding improved income and health of VHB members were that the project was providing increased economic opportunities for thousands of rural women and some improvements in income were taking place but required more study. The quality of many health talks suffered from weaknesses that were discussed in detail. Recommendations were formulated: for HOPE HQ, more involvement from the Board of Directors, creation of a Health Educator position at HQ, and strengthening the position of Vice President of International Programs. Portfolio management, though extremely strong in financial realms, needed strengthening in health. Recommendations were offered to strengthen adult education methodology in the VHB project. Country-specific recommendations were also offered for two countries the external evaluator visited during the Midterm.
View Source

Related to Midterm Evaluation

  • Program Evaluation The School District and the College will develop a plan for the evaluation of the Dual Credit program to be completed each year. The evaluation will include, but is not limited to, disaggregated attendance and retention rates, GPA of high-school-credit-only courses and college courses, satisfactory progress in college courses, state assessment results, SAT/ACT, as applicable, TSIA readiness by grade level, and adequate progress toward the college-readiness of the students in the program. The School District commits to collecting longitudinal data as specified by the College, and making data and performance outcomes available to the College upon request. HB 1638 and SACSCOC require the collection of data points to be longitudinally captured by the School District, in collaboration with the College, will include, at minimum: student enrollment, GPA, retention, persistence, completion, transfer and scholarships. School District will provide parent contact and demographic information to the College upon request for targeted marketing of degree completion or workforce development information to parents of Students. School District agrees to obtain valid FERPA releases drafted to support the supply of such data if deemed required by counsel to either School District or the College. The College conducts and reports regular and ongoing evaluations of the Dual Credit program effectiveness and uses the results for continuous improvement.

  • JOC EVALUATION If any materials being utilized for a project cannot be found in the RS Means Price Book, this question is what is the markup percentage on those materials? When answering this question please insert the number that represents your percentage of proposed markup. Example: if you are proposing a 30 percent markup, please insert the number "30". Remember that this is a ceiling markup. You may markup a lesser percentage to the TIPS Member customer when pricing the project, but not a greater percentage. EXAMPLE: You need special materials that are not in the RS Means Unit Price Book for a project. You would buy the materials and ▇▇▇▇ them up to the TIPS Member customer by the percentage you propose in this question. If the materials cost you, the contractor, $100 and you proposed a markup on this question for the material of 30 percent, then you would charge the TIPS Member customer $130 for the materials. TIPS/ESC Region 8 is required by Texas Government Code § 791 to be compensated for its work and thus, failure to agree shall render your response void and it will not be considered. Vendor agrees to remit to TIPS the required administration fee or, if resellers are named, guarantee the fee remittance by or for the reseller named by the vendor?

  • Annual Evaluation The Partnership will be evaluated on an annual basis through the use of the Strategic Partnership Annual Evaluation Format as specified in Appendix C of OSHA Instruction CSP ▇▇-▇▇-▇▇▇, OSHA Strategic Partnership Program for Worker Safety and Health. The Choate Team will be responsible for gathering required participant data to evaluate and track the overall results and success of the Partnership. This data will be shared with OSHA. OSHA will be responsible for writing and submitting the annual evaluation.

  • TEACHER EVALUATION A. The administration will be evaluating the teacher’s performance within the time of formal responsibility. The evaluation process and form will be shared with the Association Building Representatives at the beginning of each school year. (a) Probationary teachers shall be evaluated at least two (2) times a year. The first evaluation will be completed prior to December 1st and the second prior to April 15th. Each evaluation will be based upon announced, unannounced, informal observations, on the performance of other duties and responsibilities and the goals developed in the Individualized Development Plan (IDP). The announced and unannounced observations should be a minimum of thirty (30) minutes in length. The observations may occur at anytime prior to the development of the written evaluation, but at least one of them must be planned in consultation with the probationary teacher. The results of formal observations will be discussed with the teacher in a timely manner. The information gathered during the observations will be used to write the evaluations. (b) Tenured teachers will be evaluated on a rotating schedule, but no less than once every three- (3) years. The administration reserves the right to evaluate a tenured teacher more often. The evaluation will be based upon announced, unannounced, informal observations and on the performance of other duties and responsibilities. The announced and unannounced observations should be a minimum of thirty (30) minutes in length. The observations may occur at any time prior to the development of the written evaluation, but at least one of them must be planned in consultation with the tenured teacher. The results of formal observations will be discussed with the teacher in a timely manner. The information gathered during the observations will be used to write the evaluations. 2. The administrator shall prepare and submit a written evaluation and recommendations to the teacher prior to May 30th of the year they are evaluated. The administrator shall hold a conference with the teacher to discuss the written evaluation and recommendations. 3. Upon receipt of the evaluation the teacher will sign the form indicating his/her receipt of the report. The signature on the form does not constitute his/her approval unless specifically noted. 4. Teachers involved with the instruction of Advanced Placement courses will be evaluated. This evaluation in the first year will be made part of the formal evaluation only at the request of the teacher. B. A teacher who disagrees with the content or procedure of evaluation may submit a written answer which shall be attached to the file copy of the evaluation in question and/or submit any complaints through Level 4 of the grievance procedure. C. If an administrator believes a teacher is doing unacceptable work, the reasons shall be set forth in specific terms. Included will be examples of specific ways in which the teacher is to improve and assistance may be given by the administrator and other staff members. In subsequent conferences it shall be the responsibility of the individual teacher to inquire whether adequate improvement has taken place. D. Monitoring and observation of the work performance of the teacher shall be conducted openly. The public address or audio system or similar types of communications will not be used for the purpose of evaluation. E. The Board and the Association recognize that the ability of pupils to progress and mature academically is a combined result of the school, home, economic and social environment and that teachers alone cannot be held accountable for all aspects of the academic achievement of the pupil in the classroom. Test results of academic progress of students shall not be used as the sole determinant or in isolated instances to evaluate the quality of a teacher's service or fitness for retention. F. All communications, including evaluations by Milan Administrators, commendations, and documented complaints directed toward the teacher which are to be included in the personnel file shall be made available for review of the teacher prior to placement in the file; a copy of any such communication will be provided to the teacher at this time. Pre-placement information such as confidential credentials, letters of reference from universities, individuals, or previous employers are exempt from such review. A written statement for inclusion in the personnel file may then be made by the teacher in regard to materials that were not signed by the teacher. A representative of the Association may accompany the teacher. G. Ordinarily, observations of teachers shall not be for less than a full class period or for the duration of a particular teaching lesson.

  • Self-Evaluation Each regular faculty member shall provide a self-evaluation. It shall address, among other items, the faculty member's fulfillment of professional responsibilities as referenced in Section 18.2.3 and an assessment of his or her own performance. The faculty member will share the self-evaluation with the Faculty Evaluation Committee and the first-level manager or designee. The self-evaluation will become part of the evaluation report.