Chapter 11 Evaluation
11.0.0.0.1 Each ATE project is required to have an evaluation component to assess its quality and effectiveness. Evaluation of ATE and other NSF-funded projects is intended to serve two distinct purposes: (1) Produce information that can be used to improve a project as it is being implemented and (2) Determine and document a project’s achievements (Frechtling, 2010).
11.0.0.0.2 ATE PIs were asked about their evaluators and interactions with them, as well as their projects’ use and dissemination of evaluation results.
11.1 Evaluation
11.1.0.1 Ninety-one percent of ATE projects engaged an evaluator.
Two hundred eighty-six ATE projects had evaluators in 2020. Of the 27 PIs who said they did not have evaluators, 12 were in their first year of funding. Of the 286 projects with evaluators, 86% reported having an external evaluator, with 9% having both an internal and external evaluator and 5% having only an internal evaluator.
Thirty-seven percent of PIs reported that they interacted with their evaluators continually (at least once a week) or often (two or three times a month), while 40% interacted with their evaluators occasionally (more often than quarterly) and 18% did so infrequently or rarely (once a quarter or less).
11.1.0.1.1 Almost half of ATE projects received both oral and written evaluation reports.
Figure 11.1: Types of evaluation report received by ATE projects (n=285)
Of the 243 PIs who received evaluation reports, 72% indicated their project’s evaluation caused them to make a change in implementing their project, and 40% indicated that the evaluation caused them to make a change in their project’s goals, objectives, or target audience.
11.1.0.1.2 Most projects shared their evaluation results with NSF program officers, their project advisory committee, and faculty or staff at their host institution.
Figure 11.2: Percentage of projects that shared their evaluation results with various audiences (n=232)