Research Presentation Award

Apply for the Winter 2017 RPA here.

Graduate students presenting original research at conferences or performing or displaying creative work are eligible to receive a Research Presentation Award (RPA) averaging $400. RPAs are intended to enable graduate students to travel to important conferences or events within their discipline in order to present their scholarly and creative work. RPAs are awarded two times each year and are distributed within two months after the application deadline. The application deadline is in the middle of an award period which allows students to apply who have either already presented their research/creative work or who are planning to within the specified time period. Approximately one-third of the applicants receive an award.

Students may apply for one of two types of RPA’s: research or creative work. This distinction between these award types was made to improve the review process for graduate students that intended to travel to conference and events to perform or display their creative work, or develop their talents at a workshop in their discipline. Please see the scoring rubrics for each type of award.

 

Deadlines

Term Applicant Deadlines    Recommender Deadlines Conference Date
Fall 2016 October 7th, 2016 at 5 pm October 14, 2016 at 5 pm Jul - Dec 2016
Winter 2017 February 10, 2017 at 5pm February 17, 2017 at 5pm Jan - June 2017

Submission of either the faculty or student form after 5:00PM the day of the applicable deadline will result in automatic rejection of the application. Please note that faculty endorsers will be sent a link (via the email address the student provides for them) to the necessary faculty form upon completion of the student's form. The applicant will then be notified via email when the endorser has completed and submitted the necessary form.

 

Research Presentation Award Criteria

  1. Students may only receive one RPA per academic year.
  2. Students may only submit one application per application period.
  3. Applicants must be enrolled as a student during the semester they receive the RPA award. If the applicant is not enrolled in a least 2.0 credit hours, the award will not be granted.
  4. Conferences may be national or international.
  5. Research must be performed as a graduate student. Graduate students may not submit applications on research performed or presented as an undergraduate.

 

Research Presentation Award Limitations

  1. Students who have received Stafford Loan Monies are still eligible; however, receiving an RPA could put them in an "over award" status in which case any refund would be applied directly to the loan thus reducing the amount borrowed. For more details, please see your financial aid counselor.
  2. Awards are deposited into the student's university account. There are NO exceptions. Any outstanding balances will be paid first. Funds can be accessed by going to the Cashiers Office in the ASB.

 

Review Process

Applications are reviewed in a two-step process. First, applications are reviewed by an educated, lay audience. Second, applications are reviewed by faculty endorsers.  Each application is scored based on the following two sections:

 

Research Award Type

Section 1: Significance of Conference (10 points)

Superior (8-10 pts)

Significance of the conference is clearly conveyed. The reviewer is very convinced that the conference will be valuable to the applicant’s academic and professional development.

Good (6-7 pts)

Significance of the conference is mostly clear, but there are some weak points. Reviewer is convinced of the value of the conference.

Fair (2-5 pts)

Significance of the conference is not clearly conveyed, and/or the reviewer is somewhat convinced of the value of the conference.

Poor (0-2 pts)

Significance of the conference is confusing or not explained.  The reviewer is not convinced of the value of the conference.

 

Section 2: Main Idea of Research & Significance to Discipline (20 points)

Superior (17-20 pts)

Main idea of research is very clearly conveyed and well communicated to an educated lay audience.  The reviewer is very convinced that the research makes a significant contribution to the discipline commensurate with graduate level research.

Good (13-16 pts)

Main idea of research is clearly conveyed with minor flaws. Reviewer is convinced that the research makes a significant contribution to the discipline.

Average (9-12 pts)

Main idea of research is mostly clear, but there are some weak points.  The reviewer is somewhat convinced that the research makes a significant contribution to the discipline.

Fair (5-8 pts)

Main idea of research is confusing and/or there are missing pieces.  The reviewer is slightly convinced that the research makes a significant contribution to the discipline.

Poor (0-4 pts)

Main idea of research is not explained.  The reviewer is not convinced that the research makes a significant contribution to the discipline.

 

 

Creative Work Type

Section 1: Significance to Education (10 points)

Superior (8-10 pts)

Significance of the conference/workshop is clearly conveyed. The reviewer is very convinced that the conference will be valuable to the applicant’s educational and professional development.

Good (6-7 pts)

Significance of the conference/workshop is mostly clear, but there are some weak points. Reviewer is convinced of the value of the conference.

Fair (2-5 pts)

Significance of the conference/workshop is not clearly conveyed, and/or the reviewer is somewhat convinced of the value of the conference.

Poor (0-2 pts)

Significance of the conference/workshop is confusing or not explained.  The reviewer is not convinced of the value of the conference.

 

Section 2: Significance of Conference (10 points)

Superior (8-10 pts)

Significance of the conference/workshop to applicant’s research field is clearly conveyed. The reviewer is very convinced that the conference will be of significant value to the broader field of research or commercial development.  This may be demonstrated through the size of the converence or the impact on research or professional practices.

Good (6-7 pts)

Significance of the conference/workshop is mostly clear, but there are some weak points. Reviewer is convinced of the value of the conference.

Fair (2-5 pts)

Significance of the conference/workshop is not clearly conveyed, and/or the reviewer is somewhat convinced of the value of the conference.

Poor (0-2 pts)

Significance of the conference/workshop is confusing or not explained.  The reviewer is not convinced of the value of the conference.

 

Section 3: Significance to Others (10 points)

Superior (8-10 pts)

Significance of the conference/workshop to the applicant’s ability to serve and help others. The reviewer is very convinced that the applicant will share what they learn from the conference with others (in specific ways).

Good (6-7 pts)

Significance of the conference/workshop is mostly clear, but there are some weak points. Reviewer is convinced of the applicant’s plans to share what they learn.

Fair (2-5 pts)

Significance of the conference/workshop is not clearly conveyed, and/or the reviewer is somewhat convinced of the applicant’s plans to share what they learn.

Poor (0-2 pts)

Significance of the conference/workshop is confusing or not explained.  The reviewer is not convinced of the applicant’s plans to share what they learn.