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 Final Evaluation 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? • Wh...
Sample 1Sample 2Sample 3See All (10)
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
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. Midterm Evaluation Methods 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 bas...
Sample 1
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.
Sample 1

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 xxxx 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. No response 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. Yes - No 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 00-00-000, OSHA Strategic Partnership Program for Worker Safety and Health. Xxxxxxxxx & Xxxxxx 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. All monitoring or observation of the work performance of a teacher shall be conducted openly and with full knowledge of the teacher.

  • 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.

  • TECHNICAL EVALUATION (a) Detailed technical evaluation shall be carried out by Purchase Committee pursuant to conditions in the tender document to determine the substantial responsiveness of each tender. For this clause, the substantially responsive bid is one that conforms to all the eligibility and terms and condition of the tender without any material deviation. The Institute’s determination of bid’s responsiveness is to be based on the contents of the bid itself without recourse to extrinsic evidence. The Institute shall evaluate the technical bids also to determine whether they are complete, whether required sureties have been furnished, whether the documents have been properly signed and whether the bids are in order.

  • Re-evaluation a) When a job has moved to a higher group as a result of re-evaluation, the resulting rate shall be retroactive from the date that Management or the employee has applied to the Plant Job Review Committee for re-evaluation.

  • Final Evaluation IC must submit a final report and a project evaluation to the Arts Commission within thirty (30) days after the completion of the Services. Any and all unexpended funds from IC must be returned to City no later than sixty (60) days after the completion of the Services.

  • Focused Evaluation The Focused Evaluation is used when a teacher is not evaluated using the Comprehensive Evaluation process, and will include evaluation of one of the eight state criteria (student growth impact required). If a non-provisional teacher has scored at Proficient or higher the previous year, they may be moved to Focused Evaluation. The teacher may remain on the Focused Evaluation for five (5) years before returning to the Comprehensive Evaluation. The teacher or the evaluator can initiate a move from the Focused to the Comprehensive Evaluation. A decision to move a teacher from a Focused to a Comprehensive Evaluation must occur by December 15.

  • Job Evaluation The work of the provincial job evaluation steering committee (the JE Committee) will continue during the term of this Framework Agreement. The objectives of the JE Committee are as follows: • Review the results of the phase one and phase two pilots and outcomes of the committee work. Address any anomalies identified with the JE tool, process, or benchmarks. • Rate the provincial benchmarks and create a job hierarchy for the provincial benchmarks. • Gather data from all school districts and match existing job descriptions to the provincial benchmarks. • Identify the job hierarchy for local job descriptions for all school districts. • Compare the local job hierarchy to the benchmark-matched hierarchy. • Develop a methodology to convert points to pay bands - The confirmed method must be supported by current compensation best practices. • Identify training requirements to support implementation of the JE plan and develop training resources as required. Once the objectives outlined above are completed, the JE Committee will mutually determine whether a local, regional or provincial approach to the steps outlined above is appropriate. It is recognized that the work of the committee is technical, complicated, lengthy and onerous. To accomplish the objectives, the parties agree that existing JE funds can be accessed by the JE committee to engage consultant(s) to complete this work. It is further recognized that this process does not impact the established management right of employers to determine local job requirements and job descriptions nor does this process alter any existing collective agreement rights or established practices. When the JE plan is ready to be implemented, and if an amendment to an existing collective agreement is required, the JE Committee will work with the local School District and Local Union to make recommendations for implementation. Any recommendations will also be provided to the Provincial Labour Management Committee (PLMC). As mutually agreed by the provincial parties and the JE Committee, the disbursement of available JE funds shall be retroactive to January 2, 2020. The committee will utilize available funds to provide 50% of the wage differential for the position falling the furthest below the wage rate established by the provincial JE process and will continue this process until all JE fund monies at the time have been disbursed. The committee will follow compensation best practices to avoid problems such as inversion. The committee will report out to the provincial parties regularly during the term of the Framework Agreement. Should any concerns arise during the work of the committee they will be referred to the PLMC. Create a maintenance program to support ongoing implementation of the JE plan at a local, regional or provincial level. The maintenance program will include a process for addressing the wage rates of incumbents in positions which are impacted by implementation of the JE plan. The provincial parties confirm that $4,419,859 of ongoing annual funds will be used to implement the Job Evaluation Plan. Effective July 1, 2022, there will be a one-time pause of the annual $4,419,859 JE funding. This amount has been allocated to the local table bargaining money. The annual funding will recommence July 1, 2023.

Time is Money Join Law Insider Premium to draft better contracts faster.