Arlen Gullickson

Co-Principal Investigator, EvaluATE – Western Michigan University

One of four children, Arlen Gullickson was born and raised in a farming family in the state of Iowa. His education includes baccalaureate, masters, and Ph.D. degrees in mathematics, physics and education, respectively. He has 30 years of teaching experience at the high school and college levels and altogether more than 40 years of experience working in education. In the past, Arlen was the director of The Evaluation Center and Chair of the Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation. Currently, he is supposed to be retired. But he serves as a Co-Principal Investigator for EvaluATE (after serving as the PI) and fishes whenever he can.


Report: ATE Indicators of Productivity: Six-Year Trends 2000-2005

Posted on May 14, 2019 by , , in Report Archive ()

This report presents findings across six annual surveys of Advanced Technological Education (ATE) grantees conducted by The Evaluation Center at Western Michigan University from 2000 to 2005. To create this report, we selected variables for which we had data across this span of years and ones that we believe serve as best descriptors of this program. Our purpose was solely to summarize information provided by ATE grantees about their activity and productivity.

In sum, the aggregate information describes important attributes of the ATE program’s size, activities, direction, and productivity. Because our purpose was to provide feedback rather than evaluative judgments or guidance, we refrained from making inferences as to what the findings mean or what actions should be taken based on the findings. This report is intended for use by the National Science Foundation (NSF) in planning program activities, assessing program progress, and preparing annual testimony and reports. ATE grantees may use these findings to assess their own status and learn about the performance of other grantees, which may serve their own improvement needs.

File: Click Here
Type: Report
Category: ATE Research & Evaluation
Author(s): Arlen Gullickson, Carl Hanssen, Chris Coryn

Report: Final ATE Evaluation Report (2006)

Posted on May 14, 2019 by , , , in Report Archive ()

This report describes the basis from which the ATE program was created and conducted and the evaluation work that has shadowed this program for the past seven years. It traces the program’s work and reach to community colleges and others since the beginning of the ATE program. It analyzes ATE solicitations to show linkages between the program guidelines and program productivity and then describes this evaluation’s design and data collection methods to show why and how evaluative data were collected. The following evaluation findings both describe and judge the program in various respects.

Findings from the evaluation show that the program is healthy and well run. Nearly a fifth of the nation’s two-year colleges have been funded at least once by this program, and those funds have resulted in substantial productivity in funded and collaborating institutions and organizations. Major strengths of this program are evident in its materials development, professional development, and program improvement products. Large numbers of students and teachers have participated in this program—taking courses and graduating or otherwise being certified. Business and industry have collaborated with colleges in developing and conducting these programs with perceived substantial benefits from that involvement.

Multiple strands of evaluative information describe and confirm that the program produces important outcomes of good quality. Though consistently positive, these findings are highly dependent on testimony/feedback as a primary quality assurance mechanism. We believe additional project/center-based direct evidence of program effectiveness and quality would strengthen claims of quality and provide important information for program improvement. Suggestions are made that we believe will improve the ATE program; these suggestions are viewed as small changes designed for incremental improvement.

File: Click Here
Type: Report
Category: ATE Research & Evaluation
Author(s): Arlen Gullickson, Chris Coryn, Frances Lawrenz, Lori Wingate

Report: 2017 ATE Annual Survey

Posted on December 6, 2017 by , , , in Annual Survey ()

Report: Advanced Technological Education 2017 Annual Survey

This report summarizes data gathered in the 2017 survey of ATE program grantees. Conducted by EvaluATE—the evaluation support center for the ATE program, located at The Evaluation Center at Western Michigan University—this was the 18th annual ATE survey. Included here are findings about funded projects and their activities, accomplishments, and impacts during the 2016 calendar year (2016 fiscal year for budget-related questions).

File: Click Here
Type: Report
Category: ATE Annual Survey
Author(s): Arlen Gullickson, Emma Perk, Lori Wingate, Lyssa Becho

Blog: Strengthening Post Hoc Professional Development Evaluations

Posted on February 11, 2015 by  in Blog ()

Co-Principal Investigator, EvaluATE – Western Michigan University

Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

I am an educator; I’ve taught and worked in the field for more than 50 years. In recent years, much of my work has centered on dissemination of evaluation information to serve educators engaged in classroom teaching, as well as those evaluating education programs. My comments here pertain to professional development intended to enhance classroom instruction.

Results from EvaluATE’s annual surveys of ATE program grantees indicate that professional development (PD) providers within ATE do evaluate some aspects of their PD programs. However, most do not follow up to assess gains among their participants’ students. Our reflections and discussions with PIs and evaluators suggest a good reason for this shortcoming. It is costly in time and effort to do a post hoc evaluation with participants, and PIs cannot easily gain access to information about the students of PD participants. Also, the strictures on sharing student interest and achievement information are substantial. So an important question is, how can we manage our PD and evaluation to overcome these hurdles?

I think an important part of the answer involves engaging participant teachers in the assessment and evaluation processes. Such engagement requires willingness on their part, preparation and practice to develop the knowledge and skill adequate to do the work, support and encouragement to do this work, and follow up exchanges of feedback about individual and collective effects.

Here are five practices that I believe are associated with strong evaluations of PD programs intended to enhance classroom instruction. How many of these practices are part of your PD efforts? If you do not currently take these actions, give them a try. I’d appreciate your thoughts and suggestions once you try them.

At the time participants are recruited, they agree to provide post-PD feedback on:
1. the impact of the PD on their own instruction.
2. the impact of the PD on their students’ learning.

During the PD program
3. participants demonstrate what they learned during the training (not including self-report).
4. participants receive instruction on student assessment.
5. participants are provided tools, protocols etc. for both gathering and reporting information on student impacts.

Report: Assessing the Impact and Effectiveness of the ATE Program

Posted on October 9, 2014 by , , , in

This report was prepared as an analysis of the first annual status report. It was meant to help understand the ATE program, and make preparations for upcoming surveys and site visits.

File: Click Here
Type: Report
Category: ATE Research & Evaluation
Author(s): Arlen Gullickson, Frances Lawrenz, Gloria Tressler, Sharon Barbour