1. Project Evaluation Don Millard John Yu dmillard@nsf.gov zyu@nsf.govdmillard@nsf.govzyu@nsf.gov March 27, 2012 Guy-Alain Amoussou Lou Everett gamousso@nsf.gov leverett@nsf.gov gamousso@nsf.gov leverett@nsf.gov March 28, 2012 Handout 1

2.  Before you leave the session please complete the assessment survey: http:// www.nsflsu.com Note: please correct this URL in your handouts

3.  Most of the information presented in this workshop represents the presenters’ opinions and not an official NSF position  Local facilitators will provide the link to the workshop slides at the completion of the webinar.  Participants may ask questions by “raising their virtual hand” during a question session. We will call on selected sites and enable their microphone so that the question can be asked.  Responses will be collected from a few sites at the end of each Exercise. At the start of the Exercise, we will identify these sites in the Chat Box and then call on them one at a time to provide their responses. 3

4.  Learning must build on prior knowledge ◦ Some knowledge correct ◦ Some knowledge incorrect – Misconceptions  Learning is ◦ Connecting new knowledge to prior knowledge ◦ Correcting misconceptions  Learning requires engagement ◦ Actively recalling prior knowledge ◦ Sharing new knowledge ◦ Forming a new understanding 4

5.  Effective learning activities ◦ Recall prior knowledge -- actively, explicitly ◦ Connect new concepts to existing ones ◦ Challenge and alter misconceptions  Active & collaborative processes ◦ Think individually ◦ Share with partner ◦ Report to local and virtual groups ◦ Learn from program directors’ responses 5

6.  Coordinate the local activities  Watch the time ◦ Allow for think, share, and report phases ◦ Reconvene on time -- 1 min warning ◦ With one minute warning, check Chat Box to see if you will be asked for a response  Ensure the individual think phase is devoted to thinking and not talking  Coordinate the asking of questions by local participants and reporting local responses to exercises 6

7. The session will enable you to collaborate more effectively with evaluation experts in preparing credible and comprehensive project evaluation plans …. it will not make you an evaluation expert. 7

8. After the session, participants should be able to:  Discuss the importance of goals, outcomes, and questions in the evaluation process ◦ Cognitive and affective outcomes  Describe several types of evaluation tools ◦ Advantages, limitations, and appropriateness  Discuss data interpretation issues ◦ Variability, alternative explanations  Develop an evaluation plan in collaboration with an evaluator ◦ Outline a first draft of an evaluation plan 8

9.  The terms evaluation and assessment have many meanings ◦ One definition  Assessment is gathering evidence  Evaluation is interpreting data and making value judgments  Examples of evaluation and assessment ◦ Individual’s performance (grading) ◦ Program’s effectiveness (ABET and regional accreditation) ◦ Project’s progress and success (monitoring and validating)  Session addresses project evaluation ◦ May involve evaluating individual and group performance – but in the context of the project  Project evaluation ◦ Formative – monitoring progress to improve approach ◦ Summative – characterizing and documenting final accomplishments 9

10.  Think about your favorite course. What types of in-class activities could be called: ◦ Assessment versus Evaluation? ◦ Formative versus Summative Evaluation?  Exercise ---- 6 min ◦ Think individually -------- ~2 min ◦ Share with a partner ----- ~2 min ◦ Report in local group ---- ~2 min  Watch time and reconvene after 6 min  Use THINK time to think – no discussion, Selected local facilitators report to virtual group  With one minute warning, check Chat Box to see if you will be asked for a response 10

11.  An in-class quiz could be called assessment.  Using the in-class quiz results to realize the students are not achieving a learning outcome is an evaluation.  Using your evaluation results to change your approach as the course progresses is a formative evaluation.  Integrating your evaluation over the whole semester to determine if you achieved your objective is summative evaluation. 11 Handout 2

12. Project Goals, Expected Outcomes, and Evaluation Questions

13.  Effective evaluation starts with carefully defined project goals and expected outcomes  Goals and expected outcomes related to: ◦ Project management  Initiating or completing an activity  Finishing a “product” ◦ Student behavior  Modifying a learning outcome  Modifying an attitude or a perception 13

14.  Goals provide overarching statements of project intention What is your overall ambition? What do you hope to achieve?  Expected outcomes identify specific observable or measureable results for each goal How will achieving your “intention” be reflected by changes in student behavior? How will it change their learning and their attitudes? 14

15.  Goals → Expected outcomes  Expected outcomes → Evaluation questions  Questions form the basis of the evaluation process  The evaluation process consists of the collection and interpretation of data to answer evaluation questions 15

16.  Read the abstract -- Goal statement removed  Suggest two plausible goals ◦ One on student learning  Cognitive behavior ◦ One on some other aspect of student behavior  Affective behavior  Focus on what will happen to the students ◦ Do not focus on what the instructor will do  Long Exercise ---- 6 min ◦ Think individually -------- ~2 min ◦ Share with a partner ----- ~2 min ◦ Report in local group ---- ~2 min  Watch time and reconvene after 6 min  Use THINK time to think – no discussion, Selected local facilitators report to virtual group 16

17. The goal of the project is …… The project is developing computer-based instructional modules for statics and mechanics of materials. The project uses 3D rendering and animation software, in which the user manipulates virtual 3D objects in much the same manner as they would physical objects. Tools being developed enable instructors to realistically include external forces and internal reactions on 3D objects as topics are being explained during lectures. Exercises are being developed for students to be able to communicate with peers and instructors through real-time voice and text interactions. The project is being evaluated by … The project is being disseminated through … The broader impacts of the project are … Two goals: one for student learning and one for student behavior Non engineers should substitute: “Organic chemistry” for “statics and mechanics of materials” “Interactions” for “external forces and internal reactions” 17

18. GOAL: To improve conceptual understanding and processing skills  In the context of course ◦ Draw free-body diagrams for textbook problems ◦ Solve 3-D textbook problems ◦ Describe the effect(s) of external forces on a solid object orally  In a broader context ◦ Solve out-of-context problems ◦ Visualize 3-D problems ◦ Communicate technical problems orally ◦ Improve critical thinking skills ◦ Enhance intellectual development 18 Handout 3

19. GOAL: To improve ◦ Self- confidence ◦ Attitude about engineering as a career 19

20.  Write SMART outcomes for your goals Specific Measurable Attainable Realistic Timely  Achieving outcomes brings you closer to your goal, e.g. ◦ Goal: My students will be life long learners ◦ Outcomes ( some of these lack SMART components ) :  reading an unassigned technical article,  attending a professional society meeting  attending a non required seminar or talk  Outcomes provide observable effects that goals are being achieved 20

21.  Write expected measurable outcomes for each of the following goals: ◦ Improve the students’ understanding of the fundamental concepts in statics (cognitive) ◦ Improve the students’ self confidence (affective)  Long Exercise ---- 6 min ◦ Think individually -------- ~2 min ◦ Share with a partner ----- ~2 min ◦ Report in local group ---- ~2 min  Watch time and reconvene after 6 min  Use THINK time to think – no discussion, Selected local facilitators report to virtual group Non engineers may substitute: “Organic chemistry” for “statics” 21

22. Understanding of the fundamentals ◦ By the end of the class, 70% of the students will be able to:  Correctly draw freebody diagrams of 2D truss structures  Correctly write Newton’s laws when given a FBD  Describe the effects on member force when one angle in a 2D truss is changed Self-Confidence ◦ By the end of the semester:  30% of the class volunteers to show the solution to any homework problem on the board  Self reported test anxiety reduces to 50% of the initial amount  80% will say the class was easier than they expected it would be  50% report they are excited about taking the follow-on course 22 Handout 4

23. Understanding of the fundamentals ◦ Are the students better able to describe the effects of changing some variable in a simple problem ◦ Are the students better able to describe the effects of changing some variable in a simple problem as a result of the intervention Self-Confidence ◦ Do the students express more confidence in their solutions ◦ Do the students express more confidence in their solutions as a result of the intervention 23

24. Questions “Hold-up your virtual hand” and you will be called upon after we unmute your mike.

25. BREAK 15 min

26. BREAK 1 min warning

27. Tools for Evaluating Learning Outcomes

28.  Surveys ◦ Forced choice or open-ended responses  Concept Inventories ◦ Multiple-choice questions to measure conceptual understanding  Rubrics for analyzing student products ◦ Guides for scoring student reports, tests, etc.  Interviews ◦ Structured (fixed questions) or in-depth (free flowing)  Focus groups ◦ Like interviews but with group interaction  Observations ◦ Actually monitor and evaluate behavior Olds et al, JEE 94:13, 2005 NSF’s Evaluation Handbook 28

29. Surveys  Efficient  Accuracy depends on subject’s honesty  Difficult to develop reliable and valid survey  Low response rate threatens reliability, validity & interpretation Observations  Time & labor intensive  Inter-rater reliability must be established  Captures behavior that subjects are unlikely to report  Useful for observable behavior Olds et al, JEE 94:13, 2005 29

30.  Use interviews to answer these questions: ◦ What does program look and feel like? ◦ What do stakeholders know about the project? ◦ What are stakeholders’ and participants’ expectations? ◦ What features are most salient? ◦ What changes do participants perceive in themselves? The 2002 User Friendly Handbook for Project Evaluation, NSF publication REC 99-12175 30

31.  Originated in physics -- Force Concept Inventory (FCI)  Several are being developed in engineering fields  Series of multiple choice questions ◦ Questions involve single concept  Formulas, calculations or problem solving skills not required ◦ Possible answers include distractors  Common errors -- misconceptions  Developing CI is involved ◦ Identify misconceptions and detractors ◦ Develop, test, and refine questions ◦ Establish validity and reliability of tool ◦ Language is a major issue 31

32.  Pittsburgh Freshman Engineering Survey ◦ Questions about perception  Confidence in their skills in chemistry, communications, engineering, etc.  Impressions about engineering as a precise science, as a lucrative profession, etc.  Validated using alternate approaches: ◦ Item analysis ◦ Verbal protocol elicitation ◦ Factor analysis  Compared results for students who stayed in engineering to those who left Besterfield-Sacre et al, JEE 86:37, 1997 32

33.  Levels of Intellectual Development ◦ Students see knowledge, beliefs, and authority in different ways  “ Knowledge is absolute” versus “Knowledge is contextual”  Tools ◦ Measure of Intellectual Development (MID) ◦ Measure of Epistemological Reflection (MER) ◦ Learning Environment Preferences (LEP) Felder et al, JEE 94:57, 2005 33

34.  Suppose you were considering an existing tool (e. g., a concept inventory) for use in your project’s evaluation of learning outcomes  What questions would you consider in deciding if the tool is appropriate?  Long Exercise ---- 6 min ◦ Think individually -------- ~2 min ◦ Share with a partner ----- ~2 min ◦ Report in local group ---- ~2 min  Watch time and reconvene after 6 min  Use THINK time to think – no discussion  Selected local facilitators report to virtual group 34

35.  Nature of the tool ◦ Is the tool relevant to what was taught? ◦ Is the tool competency based? ◦ Is the tool conceptual or procedural?  Prior validation of the tool ◦ Has the tool been tested? ◦ Is there information concerning its reliability and validity? ◦ Has it been compared to other tools? ◦ Is it sensitive? Does it discriminate between a novice and an expert?  Experience of others with the tool ◦ Has the tool been used by others besides the developer? At other sites? With other populations? ◦ Is there normative data? 35 Handout 5

36. Question s Hold up your “virtual hand” to ask a question.

38. Data suggest that the understanding of Concept #2 increased 38

39.  Data suggest that the understanding of Concept #2 increased  One interpretation is that the intervention caused the change  List some alternative explanations ◦ Confounding factors ◦ Other factors that could explain the change  Long Exercise ---- 6 min ◦ Think individually -------- ~2 min ◦ Share with a partner ----- ~2 min ◦ Report in local group ---- ~2 min  Watch time and reconvene after 6 min  Use THINK time to think – no discussion  Selected local facilitators report to virtual group

40.  Students learned the concept out of class (e. g., in another course or in study groups with students not in the course)  Students answered with what they thought the instructor wanted rather than what they believed or “knew”  An external event distorted the pretest data  The instrument was unreliable  Other changes in the course and not the intervention was responsible for the improvement  The characteristics of groups were not similar 40 Handout 6

41.  Data suggest that the understanding of the concept tested by Q1 did not improve  One interpretation is that the intervention did cause a change that was masked by other factors  Think about alternative explanations  How would these alternative explanations (confounding factors) differ from the previous list?

42. Evaluation Plan

43.  List the topics that need to be addressed in the evaluation plan (a.k.a. summarize)  Long Exercise ---- 6 min ◦ Think individually -------- ~2 min ◦ Share with a partner ----- ~2 min ◦ Report in local group ---- ~2 min  Watch time and reconvene after 6 min  Use THINK time to think – no discussion  Selected local facilitators report to virtual group 43

44.  Name & qualifications of the evaluation expert ◦ Get the evaluator involved early in the proposal development phase  Goals, outcomes, and evaluation questions  Instruments for evaluating each outcome  Protocols defining when and how data will be collected  Analysis & interpretation procedures  Confounding factors & approaches for minimizing their impact  Formative evaluation techniques for monitoring and improving the project as it evolves  Summative evaluation techniques for characterizing the accomplishments of the completed project. 44 Handout 7

45.  Workshop on Evaluation of Educational Development Projects ◦ http://www.nsf.gov/events/event_summ.jsp?cntn_id=108142&org=NSF  NSF’s User Friendly Handbook for Project Evaluation ◦ http://www.westat.com/westat/pdf/projects/2010ufhb.pdf http://www.westat.com/westat/pdf/projects/2010ufhb.pdf  Online Evaluation Resource Library (OERL) ◦ http://oerl.sri.com/  Field-Tested Learning Assessment Guide (FLAG) ◦ http://www.wcer.wisc.edu/archive/cl1/flag/default.asp  Student Assessment of Their Learning Gains (SALG) ◦ http://www.salgsite.org/  Science education literature 45

46. Identify the most interesting, important, or surprising ideas you encountered in the workshop on dealing with project evaluation  Take ---- 4 min ◦ Think individually -------- ~2 min ◦ Report in local group ---- ~2 min  Watch time and reconvene after 4 min  Use THINK time to think – no discussion, Selected local facilitators report to virtual group 46

47. Question s Hold up your “virtual hand” to ask a question. Proposal & Award Policies & Procedures Guide http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/policydocs/pappguide/nsf11001/

48.  To download a copy of the presentation- go to: http://www.nsflsu.com  Please complete the assessment survey-go to: http://www.nsflsu.com