Review Criteria FY26

Justification of Need

How well-described is the proposed experiential learning activity?
How well-reasoned and well-organized are the plans for carrying out the proposed activities?
Are the proposed goals meaningful and achievable within the given context and timeframe?
Does the proposal demonstrate why this specific course or workshop is needed and how it provides unique, innovative hands-on learning experiences at Stanford?
How well does the proposal align with the goals and missions of the participating shared platforms, departments, programs, or other relevant stakeholders?

How impactful will the proposed hands-on learning experience be in advancing our understanding in basic sciences and/or applied technologies?
How broadly will the proposed course or workshop impact students across different disciplines?
How impactful are the expected outcomes, and is there a sound proposed method for measuring success?
If external participants are included, how well are the needs of Stanford students and/or researchers being served?
How well does this proposal encourage sustained student engagement and support diverse and underserved populations?
How substantive and valuable is the contribution of Shared Platforms to the hands-on experience?
How well does the proposal address the integration of new instruments and technologies into experiential learning? Are assets acquired through C-ShaRP funding involved, and if so, how well will the activity promote their use?

C-ShaRP funds only cover costs incurred at participating shared platforms for the intended experience. Have all likely costs been accounted for?
Are these costs of the proposed activities well-justified and reasonable?
Does the budget exclude salary payments from C-ShaRP funds? Is all salary support covered by departments, programs, shared platforms, or other sources?
If durable teaching equipment/software is requested, is it well justified and within the $5K limit?
How realistic are plans, if any, for cost-sharing during the funding period to ensure the financial viability of the proposed experience?
Can the proposed experience be well sustained in future after the C-ShaRP funding period? Consider anticipated cost-sharing and/or registration income as applicable.

How well has the adequacy of resources at proposer's home unit and shared platforms for project success been demonstrated?
To what extent are the space considerations well-planned to ensure that all students or participants have adequate room to engage in hands-on activities?
How realistic are contingency plans to accommodate larger cohorts?

How well does the proposal demonstrate the necessity and potential impact of the new experiential learning course?
How innovative is the proposed new course?

How well does the proposal demonstrate the necessity and potential impact of introducing these new experiential learning elements?
How innovative is the addition of hands-on components to the existing lecture-based course?

How thoroughly does the proposal articulate specific enhancements that will be made to existing experiential learning courses?
How significant are the expected benefits of the enhancements for students?
Given the development history of the course, how reasonable is the current request for C-ShaRP funding?

How well does the proposal demonstrate the necessity and potential impact of the new experiential learning activity?
How innovative is the proposed new activity?

How effectively does the proposal outline the objectives and expected outcomes of the activity?
How well-defined and necessary is the proposed experiential learning activity for the target audience?
Given the development history of the activity, how reasonable is the current request for C-ShaRP funding?

Reviewer-designated overall score (not necessarily a weighted average of section scores)
Please summarize your score-driving factors of this proposal, ideally as a bulleted list of strengths and weaknesses.