skip to main content


Title: Thinking Outside the Self-Report: Using Evaluation Plans to Assess Evaluation Capacity Building

In this study, we investigated the impact of the evaluation capacity building (ECB) efforts of an organization by examining the evaluation plans included in funding proposals over a 14-year period. Specifically, we sought to determine the degree to which and how evaluation plans in proposals to one National Science Foundation (NSF) program changed over time and the extent to which the organization dedicated to ECB in that program may have influenced those changes. Independent raters used rubrics to assess the presence of six essential evaluation plan elements. Statistically significant correlations indicate that proposal evaluation plans improved over time, with noticeable differences before and after ECB efforts were integrated into the program. The study adds to the limited literature on using artifacts of evaluation practice rather than self-reports to assess ECB impact.

 
more » « less
NSF-PAR ID:
10376643
Author(s) / Creator(s):
 ;  ;  ;  ;  ;  ;  
Publisher / Repository:
SAGE Publications
Date Published:
Journal Name:
American Journal of Evaluation
Volume:
43
Issue:
4
ISSN:
1098-2140
Page Range / eLocation ID:
p. 515-538
Format(s):
Medium: X
Sponsoring Org:
National Science Foundation
More Like this
  1. Abstract

    In this paper, we present six case studies that illustrate the application of the Systems Evaluation Protocol (SEP) in different real‐world implementation conditions. The SEP is a step‐by‐step guide for how to implement Relational Systems Evaluation (RSE), accounting for the complex factors inherent in the larger systems within which a given program is embedded. We discuss the specific SEP steps used and products developed in each case study project, including an emphasis on how decisions were made to include particular SEP elements in different contexts. The six cases differ in terms of the scale of the programs involved, the nature of the SEP delivery or facilitation process, and the balance among multiple desired outcomes reflecting differential emphases on evaluation capacity building. As such, the cases reported here demonstrate that RSE, as implemented using the SEP, is a widely applicable approach to evaluation and ECB.

     
    more » « less
  2. This Work-in-Progress paper investigates how students participating in a chemical engineering (ChE) Research Experience for Undergraduates (REU) program conceptualize and make plans for research projects. The National Science Foundation has invested substantial financial resources in REU programs, which allow undergraduate students the opportunity to work with faculty in their labs and to conduct hands-on experiments. Prior research has shown that REU programs have an impact on students’ perceptions of their research skills, often measured through the Undergraduate Research Student Self-Assessment (URSSA) survey. However, few evaluation and research studies have gone beyond perception data to include direct measures of students’ gains from program participation. This work-in-progress describes efforts to evaluate the impact of an REU on students’ conceptualization and planning of research studies using a pre-post semi-structured interview process. The construct being investigated for this study is planning, which has been espoused as a critical step in the self-regulated learning (SRL) process (Winne & Perry, 2000; Zimmerman, 2008). Students who effectively self-regulate demonstrate higher levels of achievement and comprehension (Dignath & Büttner, 2008), and (arguably) work efficiency. Planning is also a critical step in large projects, such as research (Dvir & Lechler, 2004). Those who effectively plan their projects make consistent progress and are more likely to achieve project success (Dvir, Raz, & Shenhar, 2003). Prior REU research has been important in demonstrating some positive impacts of REU programs, but it is time to dig deeper into the potential benefits to REU participation. Many REU students are included in weekly lab meetings, and thus potentially take part in the planning process for research projects. Thus, the research question explored here is: How do REU participants conceptualize and make plans for research projects? The study was conducted in the ChE REU program at a large, mid-Atlantic research-oriented university during the summer of 2018. Sixteen students in the program participated in the study, which entailed them completing a planning task followed by a semi-structured interview at the start and the end of the REU program. During each session, participants read a case statement that asked them to outline a plan in writing for a research project from beginning to end. Using semi-structured interview procedures, their written outlines were then verbally described. The verbalizations were recorded and transcribed. Two members of the research team are currently analyzing the responses using an open coding process to gain familiarity with the transcripts. The data will be recoded based on the initial open coding and in line with a self-regulatory and project-management framework. Results: Coding is underway, preliminary results will be ready by the draft submission deadline. The methods employed in this study might prove fruitful in understanding the direct impact on students’ knowledge, rather than relying on their perceptions of gains. Future research could investigate differences in students’ research plans based on prior research experience, research intensity of students’ home institutions, and how their plans may be impacted by training. 
    more » « less
  3. Abstract

    In this paper, we present a comprehensive integrative approach to evaluation planning based on Relational Systems Evaluation (RSE). We describe the major implementation approaches and the tools and resources that support evaluation planning in RSE embodied in the Systems Evaluation Protocol (SEP), a step‐by‐step guide to the tasks that every evaluation should address. The SEP provides both a conceptual framework for thinking about evaluation and a set of specific methods and tools that expand awareness of the influences of multiple parts of complex systems. The SEP is implemented through a partnership approach, joining evaluators and program professionals in an iterative, phased approach to evaluation planning, which also often emphasizes evaluation capacity building (ECB) as an intentional goal. This paper provides a practice‐oriented overview of the specific steps comprising the three stages outlined in the SEP: preparation, model development, and evaluation plan development.

     
    more » « less
  4. The Engineering Research Centers (ERCs), funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF), play an important role in improving engineering education, bridging engineering academia and broad communities, and promoting a culture of diversity and inclusion. Each ERC must partner with an independent evaluation team to annually assess their performance and impact on progressing education, connecting community, and building diversified culture. This evaluation is currently performed independently (and in isolation), which leads to inconsistent evaluations and a redundant investment of ERCs’ resources into such tasks (e.g. developing evaluation instruments). These isolated efforts by ERCs to quantitatively evaluate their education programs also typically lack adequate sample size within a single center, which limits the validity and reliability of the quantitative analyses. Three ERCs, all associated with a large southwest university in the United States, worked collaboratively to overcome sample size and measure inconsistency concerns by developing a common quantitative instrument that is capable of evaluating any ERC’s education and diversity impacts. The instrument is the result of a systematic process with comparing and contrasting each ERC’s existing evaluation tools, including surveys and interview protocols. This new, streamlined tool captures participants’ overall experience as part of the ERC by measuring various constructs including skillset development, perception of diversity and inclusion, future plans after participating in the ERC, and mentorship received from the ERC. Scales and embedded items were designed broadly for possible use with both yearlong (e.g. graduate and undergraduate student, and postdoctoral scholars) and summer program (Research Experience for Undergraduates, Research Experience for Teachers, and Young Scholar Program) participants. The instrument was distributed and tested during Summer 2019 with participants in the summer programs from all three ERCs. The forthcoming paper will present the new common cross-ERC evaluation instrument, demonstrate the effort of collecting data across all three ERCs, present preliminary findings, and discuss collaborative processes and challenges. The preliminary implication for this work is the ability to directly compare educational programs across ERCs. The authors also believe that this tool can provide a fast start for new ERCs on how to evaluate their educational programs. 
    more » « less
  5. National Science Foundation (NSF) funded Engineering Research Centers (ERC) are required to develop and implement education and outreach opportunities related to their core technical research topics to broaden participation in engineering and create partnerships between industry and academia. Additionally, ERCs must include an independent evaluation of their education and outreach programming to assess their performance and impacts. To date, each ERC’s evaluation team designs its instruments/tools and protocols for evaluation, resulting in idiosyncratic and redundant efforts. Nonetheless, there is much overlap among the evaluation topics, concepts, and practices, suggesting that the ERC evaluation and assessment community might benefit from having a common set of instruments and protocols. ERCs’ efforts could then be better spent developing more specific, sophisticated, and time-intensive evaluation tools to deepen and enrich the overall ERC evaluation efforts. The implementation of such a suite of instruments would further allow each ERC to compare its efforts to those across other ERCs as one data point for assessing its effectiveness and informing its improvement efforts. Members of a multi-ERC collaborative team, funded by the NSF, have been leading a project developing a suite of common instruments and protocols which contains both quantitative and qualitative tools. This paper reports on the development of a set of qualitative instruments that, to date, includes the following: (a) a set of interview/focus group protocols intended for various groups of ERC personnel, centered around five common topics/areas, and (b) rubrics for summer program participants' verbal poster/presentations and their written poster/slide deck presentation artifacts. The development process is described sequentially, beginning with a review of relevant literature and existing instruments, followed by the creation of an initial set of interview questions and rubric criteria. The initial versions of the tools were then pilot-tested with multiple ERCs. Feedback sessions with education/evaluation leaders of those piloting ERCs were then conducted, through which further revision efforts were made. 
    more » « less