|
Session Title: Innovation Through Institutional Integration: Multiple Stakeholders and Multiple Methods of Evaluation
|
|
Panel Session 986 to be held in Salinas on Saturday, Nov 5, 2:20 PM to 3:50 PM
|
|
Sponsored by the Assessment in Higher Education TIG
|
| Chair(s): |
| M David Miller, University of Florida, dmiller@coe.ufl.edu
|
| Abstract:
This panel examines the issues and problems in evaluating a program in the university setting which has the intent of making innovations within the institution that will be sustained after grant support ends. The National Science Foundation has funded The Innovation through Institutional Integration (I-Cubed) program at the University of Florida is a five-year project funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF) to foster integration of all student-based research and training programs in STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics), including SBE (Social, Behavioral & Economics), disciplines. The papers in this symposium examine the complexities of evaluating this type of program. The papers focus on (a) defining the stakeholders and their roles, (b) survey research to examine needs, process and impact, and (c) case studies that allow an in depth examination of the mechanisms that lead to change in the institution.
|
|
Innovation Through Institutional Integration: Identifying Stakeholders and Defining Their Roles
|
| Nicola Kernaghan, University of Florida, nikkik@ufic.ufl.edu
|
|
In the first paper, we discuss the identification of the multiple stake holders in the program and their roles. The program includes a Graduate Student Advisory Council (GSAC) who bear the primary responsibility for guiding the program in defining the goals and needs of the graduate students in the STEM and SBE disciplines (the program was designed to be bottom-up); an Internal Advisory Board (IAB) comprised of faculty with NSF training grants and faculty with knowledge to help in planning and implementing the program; and an External Advisory Board (EAB) comprised of business leaders and political leaders which are involved in the STEM disciplines. Other stakeholders include the graduate students affected by the program, undergraduates and post docs, and faculty and staff. The grant also includes internal evaluators and external evaluators.
|
|
|
Innovation Through Institutional Integration: Evaluating Needs, Process and Impact
|
| Lidong Zhang, University of Florida, zhld02@gmail.com
|
| Ou Zhang, University of Florida, zhangou888@gmail.com
|
|
In this, we describe the traditional survey methods that are being used to assess the needs and the impact of the program. Using survey methods, two years of annual data have been collected to assess the needs of the graduate students funded on NSF grants (approximately 300 students surveyed per year), the faculty PIs and co-PIs on NSF grants (approximately 400 faculty surveyed per year), and the graduate coordinators in STEM and SBE disciplines (approximately 125 per year). This data has been used to inform the GSAC, IAB and EAB about the needs of the stakeholders and their participation in the program. In addition, many of the events sponsored by the project include separate survey-based evaluations to monitor the program process and impact. This paper will also discuss the results and issues in conducting these evaluations.
| |
|
Innovation Through Institutional Integration: Case Studies
|
| M David Miller, University of Florida, dmiller@coe.ufl.edu
|
|
In the final paper, third paper, we discuss the limitations of survey methods in assessing integrating programs into the institution. As a result, we have spent the last year conducting case studies to better understand the mechanisms that lead to institutional changes that will be sustained. Three case studies have been conducted and the issues in assessing institutional integration are discussed. The three case studies focus on (a) the integration of more grant writing training in STEM disciplines within the current university library structure, (b) issues and problems in sustaining the GSAC and its role in institutional change, and (c) the institutionalization of collaborative programs in STEM disciplines. Each of the case studies included multiple methods of data collection including qualitative and quantitative methods.
| |