1 / 11

Summary of External Evaluation Report Report by Dr. Lori Wingate Assistant Director

Summary of External Evaluation Report Report by Dr. Lori Wingate Assistant Director The Evaluation Center Western Michigan University Summary by Mike Chambers UP/Goal 4 Report-out, 1/31/13. External Evaluation Process. Each UP center/institute submitted annual report in mid-November

kert
Download Presentation

Summary of External Evaluation Report Report by Dr. Lori Wingate Assistant Director

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Summary of External Evaluation Report Report by Dr. Lori Wingate Assistant Director The Evaluation Center Western Michigan University Summary by Mike Chambers UP/Goal 4 Report-out, 1/31/13

  2. External Evaluation Process • Each UP center/institute submitted annual report in mid-November • External advisory board questionnaires sent out, results tallied • Campus visit by Dr. Wingate Dec 3-5 • Discussions with UP project leaders, senior University administrators, and Faculty Senate leaders • Dr. Wingate reviewed these materials as well as materials on UP website

  3. External Evaluation Process • Two parts to evaluation: • Narrative for each center/institute that highlights salient aspects of the project • Focuses on infrastructure issues, student impact, impact on institutional distinctiveness, external impact, sustainability, degree of interdisciplinarity, and challenges and key considerations • Use of qualitative rubric to assess impact potential and current impact of each project • Student impact, institutional distinctiveness, external impact, and sustainability

  4. Evaluation Summary • Focused on ISU’s attempt to enhance its distinctiveness through UP • Commended us for developing criteria by which to measure “institutional distinctiveness” in the early stages of the UP process • Her assessment draws heavily from our own metrics and benchmarks

  5. Evaluation Summary • Even though 2012 was implementation phase, and progress toward goals was less smooth for some projects than others, Dr. Wingate found strengths in each of the centers/institutes • She also identified challenges or issues to be addressed for each center/institute • Areas in which a center/institute can seek improvements

  6. Evaluation Summary • Student impact (based on experiential learning opportunities, new academic programs) • Strength for CSA, TCGA, CUSHCD, relative strength for CGE, CHWLE, ICS • Institutional distinctiveness (presentations, publications, grants & contracts, external attention) • Strength for CUSHCD, CSHRS, relative strength for CHWLE, ICS, TCGA, RUEDI

  7. Evaluation Summary • External impact (involvement w/ external partners, external organizations & individuals served, etc.) • Strength for RUEDI, CSA, CUSHCD, relative strength for CGE, ICS • These areas of strength or relative strength are not surprising: annual reports noted that many projects met/exceeded several of their benchmarks

  8. Evaluation Summary • Challenges or areas for growth • Infrastructure, particularly need for support staff, was identified as a challenge for some of the projects • Logistical arrangements for some projects (e.g., parking for CSA) • Increasing student impact; in some cases (e.g., CGE) is a relative strength, but need to increase # • Interdisciplinarity: is planned, but bring to fruition

  9. Evaluation Summary • Chief challenge facing UP projects: Sustainability • Plans for long-term external funding (grants, contracts, fees, philanthropy) need to be solidified • Projects need to move forward with these plans  Something to work on in 2013

  10. Evaluation Summary • Finally, report identified some areas to strengthen the UP initiative as a whole, including in terms of program administration (notes to self…) • Better sharing of ideas and knowledge • Routinization of deadlines and reporting • Improved communication to projects • Clarification of expectations for reporting data, getting more consistent data across projects

  11. Conclusion • A lot of great work has been done over the past year • We have a lot of work in front of us this year as we move from implementation phase into full operational mode

More Related