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-two percent of ATE projects engaged an evaluator.
Three hundred thirty-two ATE projects had evaluators in 2021. Of the 27 PIs who said they did not have evaluators, 11 were either in their first year of funding or a no-cost extension; six experienced delays due to the COVID pandemic; and three noted they were not required to have an evaluator for their grant. Of the 332 projects with evaluators, 85% reported having an external evaluator, with 11% having both an internal and external evaluator and 5% having only an internal evaluator.
Forty-two percent of PIs reported that they interacted with their evaluators occasionally (more often than quarterly), while 22% interacted with their evaluators often (two or three times a month) and 22% interacted infrequently (once a quarter or less). Eight percent interacted continuously (at least once a week) with their evaluator, and 6% interacted with their evaluator rarely (annually or semiannually).
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=332)
Of the 295 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=274)