| In a 90 minute Roundtable session, the first
rotation uses the first 45 minutes and the second rotation uses the last 45 minutes.
|
| Roundtable Rotation I:
Big Money, More Scrutiny: How to Forge Evaluator-Early Childhood Education Program Partnerships in Order to Produce Clear, Relevant, and Useful Data to Inform Policy and Practice |
|
Roundtable Presentation 513 to be held in GOLIAD on Friday, Nov 12, 9:15 AM to 10:45 AM
|
|
Sponsored by the Advocacy and Policy Change TIG
and the Research on Evaluation TIG
|
| Presenter(s):
|
| Marijata Daniel-Echols, HighScope Educational Research Foundation, mdaniel-echols@highscope.org
|
| Abstract:
As public attention on the importance of early childhood education rises, so has the pressure for preschool programs to show measurable results. This focus on accountability translates into greater demand for research and evaluation projects. This larger context has lead to more opportunities for evaluators and programs to partner in ways they may not have in the past. These partnerships can be both a point of strength and a challenge. Having clear expectations of what each partner has to gain, lose, and must contribute to the evaluation process is essential. This session will use examples from Head Start and state-funded preschool evaluation projects to explore lessons learned on how to forge successful evaluator-program partnerships that produce clear, relevant, and useful data that can be used to inform both policy and practice.
|
| Roundtable Rotation II:
A Study on the Indicator of High Quality Papers: The Case of Casualty Actuarial Society (CAS) |
|
Roundtable Presentation 513 to be held in GOLIAD on Friday, Nov 12, 9:15 AM to 10:45 AM
|
|
Sponsored by the Advocacy and Policy Change TIG
and the Research on Evaluation TIG
|
| Presenter(s):
|
| Haijun Zheng, Chinese Academy of Sciences, haijzheng@casipm.ac.cn
|
| Zhongcheng Guan, Chinese Academy of Sciences, guan@casipm.ac.cn
|
| Haiyang Hu, Chinese Academy of Sciences, hyhu@cashq.ac.cn
|
| Bing Shi, Chinese Academy of Sciences, bshi@cashq.ac.sn
|
| Abstract:
The number of SCI papers is one of the most commonly used indicators in R&D evaluation. Theoretically, Papers published on journals with high impact factors (according to JCR statistic) have high quality. In the evaluation practice of CAS, the papers on top 15% SCI journals ranking by JCR are called "high quality papers". In this study, firstly, we deliberate the consistency between high citation papers and "high quality papers" in CAS, and the consistency between work with important social impact, e.g. rewards, and "high quality papers". Secondly, we describe the distribution of papers in CAS among SCI journals by JCR rank, and study how the distribution pattern changes before and after the indicator is adopted. Furthermore, we compare the pattern with that of other national research institutes. Thus, we can inspect the behavior impact on publishing papers for researchers in CAS after this indicator is adopted.
|