IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/epplan/v55y2016icp103-111.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An evaluation capacity building toolkit for principal investigators of undergraduate research experiences: A demonstration of transforming theory into practice

Author

Listed:
  • Rorrer, Audrey S.

Abstract

This paper describes the approach and process undertaken to develop evaluation capacity among the leaders of a federally funded undergraduate research program. An evaluation toolkit was developed for Computer and Information Sciences and Engineering11Computer and Information Sciences and Engineering, CISE. Research Experiences for Undergraduates22Research Experiences for Undergraduates, REU. (CISE REU) programs to address the ongoing need for evaluation capacity among principal investigators who manage program evaluation. The toolkit was the result of collaboration within the CISE REU community with the purpose being to provide targeted instructional resources and tools for quality program evaluation. Challenges were to balance the desire for standardized assessment with the responsibility to account for individual program contexts. Toolkit contents included instructional materials about evaluation practice, a standardized applicant management tool, and a modulated outcomes measure. Resulting benefits from toolkit deployment were having cost effective, sustainable evaluation tools, a community evaluation forum, and aggregate measurement of key program outcomes for the national program. Lessons learned included the imperative of understanding the evaluation context, engaging stakeholders, and building stakeholder trust. Results from project measures are presented along with a discussion of guidelines for facilitating evaluation capacity building that will serve a variety of contexts.

Suggested Citation

  • Rorrer, Audrey S., 2016. "An evaluation capacity building toolkit for principal investigators of undergraduate research experiences: A demonstration of transforming theory into practice," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 103-111.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:epplan:v:55:y:2016:i:c:p:103-111
    DOI: 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2015.12.006
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149718915001330
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2015.12.006?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hardré, Patricia L. & Slater, Janis & Nanny, Mark, 2010. "Redesigning and aligning assessment and evaluation for a federally funded math and science teacher educational program," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 33(4), pages 498-510, November.
    2. Bourgeois, Isabelle & Whynot, Jane & Thériault, Étienne, 2015. "Application of an organizational evaluation capacity self-assessment instrument to different organizations: Similarities and lessons learned," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 47-55.
    3. Campbell, Rebecca & Townsend, Stephanie M. & Shaw, Jessica & Karim, Nidal & Markowitz, Jenifer, 2015. "Can a workbook work? Examining whether a practitioner evaluation toolkit can promote instrumental use," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 107-117.
    4. Patton, Michael Quinn & Horton, Douglas, 2008. "Utilization-focused evaluation for agricultural innovation," ILAC Briefs 52533, Institutional Learning and Change (ILAC) Initiative.
    5. DeGroff, Amy & Schooley, Michael & Chapel, Thomas & Poister, Theodore H., 2010. "Challenges and strategies in applying performance measurement to federal public health programs," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 33(4), pages 365-372, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Lifshitz, Chen Chana, 2017. "Fostering employability among youth at-risk in a multi-cultural context: Insights from a pilot intervention program," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 20-34.
    2. LaVelle, John M. & Davies, Randall, 2021. "Seeking consensus: Defining foundational concepts for a graduate level introductory program evaluation course," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
    3. Melz, Heidi & Fromknecht, Anne E. & Masters, Loren D. & Richards, Tammy & Sun, Jing, 2023. "Incorporating multiple data sources to assess changes in organizational capacity in child welfare systems," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 97(C).
    4. Wingate, Lori A. & Smith, Nick L. & Perk, Emma, 2018. "The project vita: A dynamic knowledge management tool," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 22-27.
    5. Metta, Matteo & Ciliberti, Stefano & Obi, Chinedu & Bartolini, Fabio & Klerkx, Laurens & Brunori, Gianluca, 2022. "An integrated socio-cyber-physical system framework to assess responsible digitalisation in agriculture: A first application with Living Labs in Europe," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 203(C).
    6. Sobelson, Robyn K. & Young, Andrea C., 2013. "Evaluation of a federally funded workforce development program: The Centers for Public Health Preparedness," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 50-57.
    7. Arbour, Ghislain, 2020. "Teaching programme evaluation: A problem of knowledge," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 83(C).
    8. Jan Činčera & Grzegorz Mikusiński & Bohuslav Binka & Luis Calafate & Cristina Calheiros & Alexandra Cardoso & Marcus Hedblom & Michael Jones & Alex Koutsouris & Clara Vasconcelos & Katarzyna Iwińska, 2019. "Managing Diversity: The Challenges of Inter-University Cooperation in Sustainability Education," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(20), pages 1-16, October.
    9. Daigneault, Pierre-Marc, 2014. "Taking stock of four decades of quantitative research on stakeholder participation and evaluation use: A systematic map," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 171-181.
    10. Turner, James A & Guesmi, Bouali & Gil, José M. & Heanue, Kevin & Sierra, Miguel & Percy, Helen & Bortagaray, Isabel & Chams, Nour & Milne, Cath, 2022. "Evaluation capacity building in response to the agricultural research impact agenda: Emerging insights from Ireland, Catalonia (Spain), New Zealand, and Uruguay," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    11. Picciotto, Robert, 2019. "Is evaluation obsolete in a post-truth world?," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 88-96.
    12. Kupiec, Tomasz, 2022. "Does evaluation quality matter? Quantitative analysis of the use of evaluation findings in the field of cohesion policy in Poland," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 93(C).
    13. Gullickson, Amy M. & King, Jean A. & LaVelle, John M. & Clinton, Janet M., 2019. "The current state of evaluator education: A situation analysis and call to action," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 20-30.
    14. Harman, Elena & Azzam, Tarek, 2018. "Incorporating public values into evaluative criteria: Using crowdsourcing to identify criteria and standards," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 68-82.
    15. Pleasant, Andrew & O’Leary, Catina & Carmona, Richard H., 2020. "Using formative research to tailor a community intervention focused on the prevention of chronic disease," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 78(C).
    16. Bean, Corliss N. & Kendellen, Kelsey & Halsall, Tanya & Forneris, Tanya, 2015. "Putting program evaluation into practice: Enhancing the Girls Just Wanna Have Fun program," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 31-40.
    17. Purkus, Alexandra & Lüdtke, Jan, 2020. "A systemic evaluation framework for a multi-actor, forest-based bioeconomy governance process: The German Charter for Wood 2.0 as a case study," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 113(C).
    18. Bundi, Pirmin, 2018. "Parliamentarians’ strategies for policy evaluations," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 130-138.
    19. Ozeki, Satoshi & Coryn, Chris L.S. & Schröter, Daniela C., 2019. "Evaluation logic in practice," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 1-1.
    20. Zaveri, Sonal, 2020. "Making evaluation matter: Capturing multiple realities and voices for sustainable development," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 127(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:epplan:v:55:y:2016:i:c:p:103-111. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/evalprogplan .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.