Blog




Blog: Increase Online Survey Response Rates with These Four Tips

Posted on April 3, 2019 by , , in Blog ()
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Molly Henschel Elizabeth Peery Anne Cosby
Researcher and Evaluator
Magnolia Consulting, LLC
Researcher and Evaluator
Magnolia Consulting, LLC
Researcher and Evaluation Associate
Magnolia Consulting, LLC

 

Greetings! We are Molly Henschel, Beth Perry, and Anne Cosby with Magnolia Consulting. We often use online surveys in our Advanced Technological Education (ATE) projects. Online surveys are an efficient data collection method for answering evaluation questions and providing valuable information to ATE project teams. Low response rates threaten the credibility and usefulness of survey findings. At Magnolia Consulting, we use proven strategies to increase response rates, which, in turn, ensures survey results are representative of the population. We offer the following four strategies to promote high response rates:

1. Ensure the survey is easy to complete. Keep certain factors in mind as you create your survey. For example, is the survey clear and easy to read? Is it free of jargon? Is it concise? You do not want respondents to lose interest in completing a survey because it is difficult to read or too lengthy. To help respondents finish the survey, consider:

      • collaborating with the ATE project team to develop survey questions that are straightforward, clear, and relevant;
      • distributing survey questions across several pages to decrease cognitive load and minimize the need for scrolling;
      • including a progress bar; and
      • ensuring your survey is compatible with both computers and mobile devices.

Once the survey is finalized, coordinate with program staff to send the survey during ATE-related events, when the respondents have protected time to complete the survey.

2. Send a prenotification. Prior to sending the online survey, send a prenotification to all respondents, informing them of the upcoming survey. A prenotification establishes survey trustworthiness, boosts survey anticipation, and reduces the possibility that a potential respondent will disregard the survey. The prenotification can be sent by email, but research shows that using a mixed-mode strategy (i.e., email and postcard) can have positive effects on response rates (Dillman, Smyth, & Christian, 2014; Kaplowitz, Lupi, Couper, & Thorp, 2012). We also found that asking the ATE principal investigator (PI) or co-investigators (co-PIs) to send the prenotification helps yield higher response rates.

3. Use an engaging and informative survey invitation. The initial survey invitation is an opportunity to grab your respondents’ attention. First, use a short and engaging subject line that will encourage respondents to open your email. In addition, follow best practices to ensure your email is not diverted into a recipient’s spam folder. Next, make sure the body of your email provides respondents with relevant survey information, including:

      • a clear survey purpose;
      • a statement on the importance of their participation;
      • realistic survey completion time;
      • a deadline for survey completion;
      • information on any stipend requirements or incentives  (if your budget allows for it);
      • a statement about survey confidentiality;
      • a show of appreciation for time and effort; and
      • contact information for any questions about the survey.

4.  Follow up with nonresponders. Track survey response rates on a regular basis. To address low response rates:

      • continue to follow up with nonresponders, sending at least two reminders;
      • investigate potential reasons the survey has not been completed and offer any assistance (e.g., emailing a paper copy) to make survey completion less burdensome;
      • contact nonresponders via a different mode (e.g., phone); or
      • enlist the help of the ATE PI and co-PI to personally follow up with nonresponders. In our experience, the relationship between the ATE PI or co-PI and the respondents can be helpful in collecting those final surveys.

 

Resources:

Nulty, D. (2008). The adequacy of response rates to online and paper surveys: What can be done? Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education33(3), 301–314.

References:

Dillman, D. A., Smyth, J. D., & Christian, L. M. (2014). Internet, mail, and mixed-mode surveys: The tailored design method (4th ed.). New York: Wiley.

Kaplowitz, M. D., Lupi, F., Couper, M. P., & Thorp, L. (2012). The effect of invitation design on web survey response rates. Social Science Computer Review, 30, 339–349.

Blog: Repackaging Evaluation Reports for Maximum Impact

Posted on March 20, 2019 by , in Blog ()
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Emma Perk Lyssa Wilson Becho
Managing Director
EvaluATE
Research Manager
EvaluATE

Evaluation reports take a lot of time to produce and are packed full of valuable information. To get the most out of your reports, think about “repackaging” your traditional report into smaller pieces.

Repackaging involves breaking up a long-form evaluation report into digestible pieces to target different audiences and their specific information needs. The goals of repackaging are to increase stakeholders’ engagement with evaluation findings, increase their understanding, and expand their use.

Let’s think about how we communicate data to various readers. Bill Shander from Beehive Media created the 4×4 Model for Knowledge Content, which illustrates different levels at which data can be communicated. We have adapted this model for use within the evaluation field. As you can see below, there are four levels, and each has a different type of deliverable associated with it. We are going to walk through these four levels and how an evaluation report can be broken up into digestible pieces for targeted audiences.

Figure 1. The four levels of delivering evaluative findings (image adapted from Shander’s 4×4 Model for Knowledge Content).

The first level, the Water Cooler, is for quick, easily digestible data pieces. The idea is to intrigue your viewer to want to learn more using a single piece of data from your report. Examples include a headline in a newspaper, a postcard, or social media post. In a social media post, you should include a graphic (photo or graph), a catchy title, and a link to the next communication level’s document. This information should be succinct and exciting. Use this level to catch the attention of readers who might not otherwise be invested in your project.

Figure 2. Example of social media post at the Water Cooler level.

The Café level allows you to highlight three to five key pieces of data that you really want to share. A Café level deliverable is great for busy stakeholders who need to know detailed information but don’t have time to read a full report. Examples include one-page reports, a short PowerPoint deck, and short briefs. Make sure to include a link to your full evaluation report to encourage the reader to move on to the next communication level.

Figure 3. One-page report at the Café level.

The Research Library is the level at which we find the traditional evaluation report. Deliverables at this level require the reader to have an interest in the topic and to spend a substantial amount of time to digest the information.

Figure 4. Full evaluation report at the Research Library level.

The Lab is the most intensive and involved level of data communication. Here, readers have a chance to interact with the data. This level goes beyond a static report and allows stakeholders to personalize the data for their interests. For those who have the knowledge and expertise in creating dashboards and interactive data, providing data at the Lab level is a great way to engage with your audience and allow the reader to manipulate the data to their needs.

Figure 5: Data dashboard example from Tableau Public Gallery (click image to interact with the data).

We hope this blog has sparked some interest in the different ways an evaluation report can be repackaged. Different audiences have different information needs and different amounts of time to spend reviewing reports. We encourage both project staff and evaluators to consider who their intended audience is and what would be the best level to communicate their findings. Then use these ideas to create content specific for that audience.

Blog: Evaluation Reporting with Adobe Spark

Posted on March 8, 2019 by , , in Blog ()
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

 

Ouen Hunter Emma Perk Michael Harnar
Doctoral Student
The Evaluation Center
Managing Director
EvaluATE
Assistant Professor of Interdisciplinary
Ph.D. in Evaluation
The Evaluation Center

This blog was originally published on AEA365 on December 28, 2018: https://aea365.org/blog/evaluation-reporting-with-adobe-spark-by-ouen-hunter-and-emma-perk/

Hi! We are Ouen Hunter (student at the Interdisciplinary Ph.D. in Evaluation Program, IDPE), Emma Perk (project manager at The Evaluation Center), and Michael Harnar (assistant professor at the IDPE) from Western Michigan University. Recently, we used PhotoVoice in our evaluation of an Upward Bound program and wanted to share how we reported our PhotoVoice findings using the cost-free version of Adobe Spark.

Adobe Spark offers templates to make webpages, videos, flyers, reports, and more. It also hosts your product online for free. While there is a paid version of Adobe Spark, everything we discuss in this blog can be done using the free version. The software is very straightforward, and we were able to get our report online within an hour. We chose to create a webpage to increase accessibility for a large audience.

The free version of Adobe Spark has a lot of features, but it can be difficult to customize the layout. Therefore, we created our layouts in PowerPoint then uploaded them to Spark. This enabled us to customize the font, alignment, and illustrations. Follow these instructions to create a similar webpage:

  • Create a slide deck in PowerPoint. Use one slide per photo and text from the participant. The first slide serves as a template for the rest.
  • After creating the slides, you have a few options for saving the photos for upload.
    1. Use a snipping tool (Windows’ snipping or Mac’s screenshot function) to take a picture of each slide and save it as a PNG file.
    2. Save each as a picture in PowerPoint by selecting the image and the speech bubble, right clicking, and saving as a picture.
    3. Export as a PNG in PowerPoint. Go to File > Export then select PNG under the File Format drop-down menu. This will save all the slides as individual image files.
  • Create a webpage in Adobe Spark.
          1. Once on the site, you will be prompted to start a new account (unless you’re a returning user). This will allow your projects to be stored and give you access to create in the software.
          2. You have the option to change the theme to match your program or branding by selecting the Theme button.
          3. Once you have selected your theme, you are ready to add a title and upload the photos you created from PowerPoint. To upload the photos, press the plus icon. 
          4. Then select Photo. 
          5. Select Upload Photo. Add all photos and confirm the arrangement.
          6. After finalizing, remember to post the page online and click Share to give out the link. 

Though we used Adobe Spark to share our PhotoVoice results, there are many applications for using Spark. We encourage you to check out Adobe Spark to see how you can use it to share your evaluation results.

Hot Tips and Features:

  • Adobe Spark adjusts automatically for handheld devices.
  • Adobe Spark also automatically adjusts lines for you. No need to use a virtual ruler.
  • There are themes available with the free subscription, making it easy to design the webpage.
  • Select multiple photos during your upload. Adobe Spark will automatically separate each file for you.

*Disclaimer: Adobe Spark didn’t pay us anything for this blog. We wanted to share this amazing find with the evaluation community!

Blog: From Instruments to Analysis: EvalFest’s Outreach Training Offerings

Posted on February 26, 2019 by  in Blog ()

President, Karen Peterman Consulting, Co.

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

Looking for a quick way to train field researchers? How about quick tips on data management or a reminder about what a p-value is? The new EvalFest website hosts brief training videos and related resources to support evaluators and practitioners. EvalFest is a community of practice, funded by the National Science Foundation, that was designed to explore what we could learn about science festivals by using shared measures. The videos on the website were created to fit the needs of our 25 science festival partners from across the United States. Even though they were created within the context of science festival evaluation, the videos and website have been framed generally to support anyone who is evaluating outreach events.

Here’s what you should know:

  1. The resources are free!
  2. The resources have been vetted by our partners, advisors, and/or other leaders in the STEM evaluation community.
  3. You can download PDF and video content directly from the site.

Here’s what we have to offer:

  • Instruments — The site includes 10 instruments, some of which include validation evidence. The instruments gather data from event attendees, potential attendees who may or may not have attended your outreach event, event exhibitors and partners, and scientists who conduct outreach. Two observation protocols are also available, including a mystery shopper protocol and a timing and tracking protocol.
  • Data Collection Tools — EvalFest partners often need to train staff or field researchers to collect data during events, so this section includes eight videos that our partners have used to provide consistent training to their research teams. Field researchers typically watch the videos on their own and then attend a “just in time” hands-on training to learn the specifics about the event and to practice using the evaluation instruments before collecting data. Topics include approaching attendees to do surveys during an event, informed consent, and online survey platforms, such as QuickTapSurvey and SurveyMonkey.
  • Data Management Videos — Five short videos are available to help clean and organize your data and to help begin to explore it in Excel. These videos include the kinds of data that are typically generated by outreach surveys, and they show step-by-step how to do things like filter your data, recode your data, and create pivot tables.
  • Data Analysis Videos — Available in this section are 18 videos and 18 how-to guides that provide quick explanations of things like the p-value, exploratory data analysis, the chi-square test, independent-samples t-test, and analysis of variance. The conceptual videos describe how each statistical test works in nonstatistical terms. The how-to resources are then provided in both video and written format, and walk users through conducting each analysis in Excel, SPSS, and R.

Our website tagline is “A Celebration of Evaluation.” It is our hope that the resources on the site help support STEM practitioners and evaluators in conducting high-quality evaluation work for many years to come. We will continue to add resources throughout 2019. So please check out the website, let us know what you think, and feel free to suggest resources that you’d like us to create next!

Blog: Using Think-Alouds to Test the Validity of Survey Questions

Posted on February 7, 2019 by  in Blog ()

Research Associate, Western Michigan University

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

Those who have spent time creating and analyzing surveys know that surveys are complex instruments that can yield misleading results when not well designed. A great way to test your survey questions is to conduct a think-aloud (sometimes referred to as a cognitive interview). A type of validity testing, a think-aloud asks potential respondents to read through a survey and discuss out loud how they interpret the questions and how they would arrive at their responses. This approach can help identify questions that are confusing or misleading to respondents, questions that take too much time and effort to answer, and questions that don’t seem to be collecting the information you originally intended to capture.

Distorted survey results generally stem from four problem areas associated with the cognitive tasks of responding to a survey question: failure to comprehend, failure to recall, problems summarizing, and problems reporting answers. First, respondents must be able to understand the question. Confusing sentence structure or unfamiliar terminology can doom a survey question from the start.

Second, respondents must be able to have access to or recall the answer. Problems in this area can happen when questions ask for specific details from far in the past or questions to which the respondent just does not know the answer.

Third, sometimes respondents remember things in different ways from how the survey is asking for them. For example, respondents might remember what they learned in a program but are unable to assign these different learnings to a specific course. This might lead respondents to answer incorrectly or not at all.

Finally, respondents must translate the answer constructed in their heads to fit the survey response options. Confusing or vague answer formats can lead to unclear interpretation of responses. It is helpful to think of these four problem areas when conducting think-alouds.

Here are some tips when conducting a think-aloud to test surveys:

    • Make sure the participant knows the purpose of the activity is to have them evaluate the survey and not just respond to the survey. I have found that it works best when participants read the questions aloud.
    • If a participant seems to get stuck on a particular question, it might be helpful to probe them with one of these questions:
      • What do you think this question is asking you?
      • How do you think you would answer this question?
      • Is this question confusing?
      • What does this word/concept mean to you?
      • Is there a different way you would prefer to respond?
    • Remember to give the participant space to think and respond. It can be difficult to hold space for silence, but it is particularly important when asking for thoughtful answers.
    • Ask the participant reflective questions at the end of the survey. For example:
      • Looking back, does anything seem confusing?
      • Is there something in particular you hoped  was going to be asked but wasn’t?
      • Is there anything else you feel I should know to truly understand this topic?
    • Perform think-alouds and revisions in an iterative process. This will allow you to test out changes you make to ensure they addressed the initial question.

Blog: PhotoVoice: A Method of Inquiry in Program Evaluation

Posted on January 25, 2019 by , , in Blog ()
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

 

Ouen Hunter Emma Perk Michael Harnar
Doctoral Student
The Evaluation Center
Managing Director
EvaluATE
Assistant Professor of Interdisciplinary
Ph.D. in Evaluation
The Evaluation Center

Hello, EvaluATE! We are Ouen Hunter (student at the Interdisciplinary Ph.D. in Evaluation, IDPE), Emma Perk (co-PI of EvaluATE at The Evaluation Center), and Michael Harnar (assistant professor at the IDPE) from Western Michigan University. We recently used PhotoVoice in our evaluation of a Michigan-based Upward Bound (UB) program (a college preparation program focused on 14- to 19-year-old youth living in low-income families in which neither parent has a bachelor’s degree).

PhotoVoice is a method of inquiry that engages participants in creating photographs and short captions in response to specific prompts. The photos and captions provide contextually grounded insights that might otherwise be unreachable by those not living that experience. We opted to use PhotoVoice because the photos and narratives could provide insights into participants’ perspectives that cannot be captured using close-ended questionnaires.

We created two prompts, in the form of questions, and introduced PhotoVoice in person with the UB student participants (see the instructional handout below). Students used their cell phones to take one photo per prompt. For confidentiality reasons, we also asked the students to avoid taking pictures of human faces. Students were asked to write a two- to three-sentence caption for each photo. The caption was to include a short description of the photo, what was happening in the photo, and the reason for taking the photo.

PhotoVoice handout

Figure 1: PhotoVoice Handout

PhotoVoice participation was part of the UB summer programming and overseen by the UB staff. Participants had two weeks to complete the tasks. After receiving the photographs and captions, we analyzed them using MAXQDA 2018. We coded the pictures and the narratives using an inductive thematic approach.

After the preliminary analysis, we then went back to our student participants to see if our themes resonated with them. Each photo and caption was printed on a large sheet of paper (see figure 2 below) and posted on the wall. During a gallery walk, students were asked to review each photo and caption combination and to indicate whether they agree or disagree with our theme selections (see figure 3). We gave participants stickers and asked them to place the stickers in either the “agree” or “disagree” section on the bottom of each poster. After the gallery walk, we discussed the participants’ ratings to understand their photos and write-ups better.

Figure 2: Gallery walk layout (photo and caption on large pieces of paper)

Figure 3: Participants browsing the photographs

Using the participants’ insights, we finalized the analysis, created a webpage, and developed a two-page report for the program staff. To learn more about our reporting process, see our next blog. Below is a diagram of the activities that we completed during the evaluation.

Figure 4: Activities conducted in the Upward Bound evaluation

The PhotoVoice activity provided us with rich insights that we would not have received from the survey that was previously used. The UB student participants enjoyed learning about and being a part of the evaluation process. The program staff valued the reports and insights the method provided. The exclusion of faces in the photographs enabled us to avoid having to obtain parental permission to release the photos for use in the evaluation and by UB staff. Having the students use cell phone cameras kept costs low. Overall, the evaluation activity went over well with the group, and we plan to continue using PhotoVoice in the future.

Blog: The Business of Evaluation: Liability Insurance

Posted on January 11, 2019 by  in Blog ()

Luka Partners LLC

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

Bottom line: you may need liability insurance, and you have to pay for it.

The proposal has been funded, you are the named evaluator, you have created a detailed scope of work, and the educational institution has sent you a Professional Services Contract to sign (and read!).

This contract will contain many provisions, one of which is having insurance. I remember the first time I read it: The contractor shall maintain commercial general liability insurance against any claims that might incur in carrying out this agreement. Minimum coverage shall be $1,000,000.

I thought, well, this probably doesn’t pertain to me, but then I read further: Upon request, the contractor is required to provide a Certificate of Insurance. That got my attention.

You might find what happened next interesting. I called the legal offices at the community college. My first question was Can we just strike that from the contract? No, we were required by law to have it. Then she explained, “Mike that sort of liability thing is mostly for contractors coming to do physical work on our campus, in case there was an injury, brick falling on the head of a student, things like that.” She lowered her voice. “ I can tell you we are never going to ask you to show that certificate to us.”

However, sometimes, you will be asked to maintain and provide, on request, professional liability insurance, also called errors and omissions insurance (E&O insurance) or indemnity insurance. This protects your business if you are sued for negligently performing your services, even if you haven’t made a mistake. (OK, I admit, this doesn’t seem likely in our business of evaluation.)

Then the moment of truth came. A decent-sized contract arrived from a major university I shall not name located in Tempe, Arizona, with a mascot that is a devil with a pitchfork. It said if you want a purchase order from us, sign the contract and attach your Certificate of Insurance.

I was between the devil and a hard place. Somewhat naively, I called my local insurance agent (i.e., for home and car.) He actually had never heard of professional liability insurance and promised to get back to me. He didn’t.

I turned to Google, the fount of all things. (Full disclosure, I am not advocating for a particular company—just telling you what I did.) I explored one company that came up high in the search results. Within about an hour, I was satisfied that it was what I needed, had a quote, and typed in my credit card number. In the next hour, I had my policy online and printed out the one-page Certificate of Insurance with the university’s name as “additional insured.” Done.

I would like to clarify one point. I did not choose general liability insurance because there is no risk to physical damage to property or people that may be caused by my operations. In the business of evaluation that is not a risk.

I now have a $2 million professional liability insurance policy that costs $700 per year. As I add clients, if they require it, I can create a one-page certificate naming them as additional insured, at no extra cost.

Liability insurance, that’s one of the costs of doing business.

Blog: How Evaluators Can Use InformalScience.org

Posted on December 13, 2018 by  in Blog ()

Evaluation and Research Manager, Science Museum of Minnesota and Independent Evaluation Consultant

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

I’m excited to talk to you about the Center for Advancement of Informal Science Education (CAISE) and the support they offer evaluators of informal science education (ISE) experiences. CAISE is a National Science Foundation (NSF) funded resource center for NSF’s Advancing Informal STEM Learning program. Through InformalScience.org, CAISE provides a wide range of resources valuable to the EvaluATE community.

Defining Informal Science Education

ISE is lifelong learning in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) that takes place across a multitude of designed settings and experiences outside of the formal classroom. The video below is a great introduction to the field.

Outcomes of ISE experiences have some similarities to those of formal education. However, ISE activities tend to focus less on content knowledge and more on other types of outcomes, such as interest, attitudes, engagement, skills, behavior, or identity. CAISE’s Evaluation and Measurement Task Force investigates the outcome areas of STEM identity, interest, and engagement to provide evaluators and experience designers with guidance on how to define and measure these outcomes. Check out the results of their work on the topic of STEM identity (results for interest and engagement are coming soon).

Resources You Can Use

InformalScience.org has a variety of resources that I think you’ll find useful for your evaluation practice.

  1. In the section “Design Evaluation,” you can learn more about evaluation in the ISE field through professional organizations, journals, and projects researching ISE evaluation. The “Evaluation Tools and Instruments” page in this section lists sites with tools for measuring outcomes of ISE projects, and there is also a section about reporting and dissemination. I provide a walk-through of CAISE’s evaluation pages in this blog post: How to Use InformalScience.org for Evaluation.
  2. The Principal Investigator’s Guide: Managing Evaluation in Informal STEM Education Projects has been extremely useful for me in introducing ISE evaluation to evaluators new to the field.
  3. In the “News & Views” section are several evaluation-related blogs, including a series on working with an institutional review board and another one on conducting culturally responsive evaluations.
  4. If you are not affiliated with an academic institution, you can access peer-reviewed articles in some of your favorite academic journals by becoming a member InformalScienceorg. Click here to join; it’s free! Once you’re logged in, select “Discover Research” in the menu bar and scroll down to “Access Peer-Reviewed Literature (EBSCO).” Journals of interest include Science Education and Cultural Studies of Science Education. If you are already a member of InformalScience.org, you can immediately begin searching the EBSCO Education Source database.

My favorite part of InformalScience.org is the repository of evaluation reports—1,020 reports and growing—which is the largest collection of reports in the evaluation field. Evaluators can use this rich collection to inform their practice and learn about a wide variety of designs, methods, and measures used in evaluating ISE projects. Even if you don’t evaluate ISE experiences, I encourage you to take a minute to search the reports and see what you can find. And if you conduct ISE evaluations, consider sharing your own reports on InformalScience.org.

Do you have any questions about CAISE or InformalScience.org? Contact Melissa Ballard, communications and community manager, at mballard@informalscience.org.

Blog: Building Research-Practice Collaborations for Effective STEM + Computing Education Evaluation Design

Posted on November 29, 2018 by  in Blog ()

Director of Measurement, Evaluation, and Learning, Kapor Center

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

 

At the Kapor Center, our signature three-summer educational program (SMASH Academy) aims to prepare underrepresented high school students of color to pursue careers in science, technology, education, and mathematics (STEM) and computing through access to courses, support networks, and opportunities for social and personal development.

In the nonprofit sector, evaluations can be driven by funder requirements, which often focus on outcomes. However, by solely focusing on outcomes, teams can lose sight of the goal of STEM evaluation: to inform programming (through the creation of process evaluation tools such as observation protocols and course evaluations) to ensure youth of color are prepared for the future STEM economy.

To keep that goal in focus, the Kapor Center ensures that the evaluation method driving its work is utilization-focused evaluation. Utilization-focused evaluation begins with the premise that the success metric of an evaluation is the extent to which it is used by key stakeholders (Patton, 2008). This framework requires joint decision making between the evaluator and stakeholders to determine the purpose of the evaluation, the kind of data to be collected, the type of evaluation design to be created, and the uses of the evaluation. Using this framework shifts evaluation from a linear, top-down approach to a feedback loop involving practitioners.

Figure 1. Evaluation Cycle of SMASH Academy

The evaluation cycle at the Kapor Center, a collaboration between our research team and SMASH’s program team, is outlined below:

  1. Inquiry: This stage begins with conversations with the stakeholders (e.g., programs and leadership teams) about common understandings of short-, medium-, and long-term outcomes as well as the key strategies that drive outcomes. Delineating outcomes has been integral to working transparently toward program priorities.
  2. Instrument Development: Once groups are in agreement about the goal of the evaluation and our path to it, we develop instruments. Instrument mapping, linking each tool and question to specific outcomes, has been a good practice to open the communication channels among teams.
  3. Instrument Administration: When working with seasonal staff at the helm of evaluation administration, documentation of processes has been crucial for fidelity. Not surprisingly, with varying levels of experience among program staff, the creation of systems to standardize data collection has been key, including scoring rubrics to be used during observations and guides for survey administration.

Data Analysis and Reporting: When synthesizing data, analyses and reporting need to not only tell a broad impact story but also provide concrete targets and priorities for the program

  1. In this regard, analyses have encompassed pre-post outcome differences and reports on program experiences.
  2. Reflection and Integration: At the end of the program cycle, the program team reflects on the data together to inform their path forward. In such a meeting, the team engages in answering three questions: 1) What did you observe about the data? 2) What can you infer about the data and what evidence supports your inference? and 3) What are the next steps to develop and prioritize program modifications?

Developing stronger research-practice ties have been integral to the Kapor Center’s understanding of what works, for whom, and under what context to ensure more youth of color pursue and persist in STEM fields. Beyond the SMASH program, the practice of collective cooperation between researchers and practitioners provides an opportunity to impact strategies across the field.

 

References

Patton, M. Q. (2008). Utilization-focused evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

 

Blog: Evaluating Educational Programs for the Future STEM Workforce: STELAR Center Resources

Posted on November 8, 2018 by  in Blog ()

Project Associate, STELAR Center, Education Development Center, Inc.

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

Hello EvaluATE community! My name is Sarah MacGillivray, and I am a member of the STEM Learning and Research (STELAR) Center team, which supports the National Science Foundation Innovative Technology Experiences for Students and Teachers (NSF ITEST) program. Through ITEST, NSF funds the research and development of innovative models of engaging K-12 students in authentic STEM experiences. The goals of the program include building students’ interest and capacity to participate in STEM educational opportunities and developing the skills they will need for careers in STEM. While we target slightly different audiences than the Advanced Technological Education (ATE) program, our programs share the common goal of educating the future STEM workforce, and to support this goal, I invite you to access the many evaluation resources available on our website.

The STELAR website houses an extensive set of resources collected from and used by the ITEST community. These resources include a database of nearly 150 research and evaluation instruments. Each entry features a description of the tool, a list of relevant disciplines and topics, target participants, and a link to ITEST projects that have used the instrument in their work. Whenever possible, PDFs and/or URLs to the original resource are included, though some tools require a fee or membership to the third-party site for access. The instruments can be accessed at http://stelar.edc.org/resources/instruments, and the database can be searched or filtered by keywords common to ATE and ITEST projects, e.g., “participant recruitment and retention,” “partnerships and collaboration,” “STEM career opportunities and workforce development,” “STEM content and standards,” and “teacher professional development and pedagogy,” among others.

In addition to our extensive instrument library, our website also features more than 400 publications, curricular materials, and videos. Each library can be browsed individually, or if you would like to view everything that we have on a topic, you can search all resources on the main resources page: http://stelar.edc.org/resources. We are continually adding to our resources and have recently improved our collection methods to allow projects to upload to the website directly. We expect this will result in even more frequent additions, and we encourage you to visit often or join our mailing list for updates.

STELAR also hosts a free, self-paced online course in which novice NSF proposal writers develop a full NSF proposal. While focused on ITEST, the course can be generalized to any NSF proposal. Two sessions focus on research and evaluation, breaking down the process for developing impactful evaluations. Participants learn what key elements to include in research designs, how to develop logic models, what is involved in deciding the evaluation’s design, and how to align the research design and evaluation sections. The content draws from expertise within the STELAR team and elements from NSF’s Common Guidelines for Education Research and Development. Since the course is self-paced, you can learn more about the course and register to participate at any time: https://mailchi.mp/edc.org/invitation-itest-proposal-course-2

We hope that these resources are useful in your work and invite you to share suggestions and feedback with us at stelar@edc.org. As a member of the NSF Resource Centers network, we welcome opportunities to explore cross-program collaboration, working together to connect and promote our shared goals.