Evaluating NSF Programs Dr. Jennifer Giancola Carney, Abt Associates September 18, 2008

Evaluating NSF Programs

Dr. Jennifer Giancola Carney, Abt Associates

September 18, 2008

9/18/2008Abt Associates AGEP Capacity Building Meeting Presentation

Agenda

• Two NSF program evaluations (IGERT & CAREER)

– Design & findings

– Rationale for methods used

– Limitations of methods used

– Lessons learned

• Q&A discussion


Integrative Graduate Education and Research Traineeships (IGERT) Program

• Since 1998, PhD training program (DGE)

• Grants to universities who develop new IGERT-related programs (most $$ student traineeships)

• Give PhD students interdisciplinary research experiences and enhanced professional skills & perspectives

• Three phases of evaluation

• Implementation study (1999-2002)

• Impact study (2003-2005)

• Follow-up study of graduates (2006-present)


IGERT Evaluation: Began with a Logic Model

Program Characteristics

Recruitment and retention

Education for the future

Self evaluation

Funding

Institutional Characteristics

Pre-existing IGERT-related features

University/school context

Leveraged funds

Project Development and Implementation

Multidisciplinary theme

Education component

Research component

Collaborations

Ongoing assessment

1-3 Year Outputs

Successful recruitment and retention of IGERT trainees

Achievements of IGERT trainees

Institutional change

IGERT faculty growth

4-6 Year Outputs

Graduates of Program

Trainee diversity

Trainee research productivity

Institutional change

IGERT faculty growth

Final Outcomes

Success of trainees in diverse careers

Adoption of models of best practice throughout graduate education to meet needs of 21st century


IGERT Implementation Study

• Annual Monitoring: “Who? What? When?” research questions

– Who participates and why? What activities are conducted?

– Annual web survey of program participants (PIs & trainees)

– Describe the program recruitment strategies, training activities, faculty involvement

• Site Visits: “How? Why?” research questions

– What challenges have projects encountered? How have they overcome them?

– Interviews with faculty, students, chairs, administrators

– Identify common challenges and solutions project management, faculty engagement, implementing interdisciplinary education within universities


IGERT Implementation Study (cont.)

• Examine implementation across projects and over time

– Mixed methods (quantitative & qualitative data)

• Data used for GPRA reporting, program management, revisions to solicitations, sharing common solutions with IGERT PIs

• Limitations

– Little information on longer-term effects of IGERT or broader program impacts on faculty and the university

– No comparison to non-IGERT experiences to take into account overall trends in graduate education


2003 IGERT Impact Study

• Impact study: So what?” research questions

– What have been the outcomes for participating IGERT faculty and students as compared to non-participating faculty and students?

– Has there been any institutional impact of IGERT funding?

• IGERT participants (PIs, dept chairs, faculty, students, administrators) and Non-IGERT participants (comparison group)


IGERT Comparison Group

• Provide a counterfactual for what would have been had IGERT not existed. Needs to control for “academic quality” and variations among STEM disciplines

• Matched each IGERT department to a non-IGERT department with whom they compete for graduate students

– Vulnerable to selection bias: Outcomes may be due to pre-existing characteristics of IGERT students, not to IGERT program

• Examples of reported findings:

– Can say: “IGERT trainees engage in more interdisciplinary activities as graduate students than non-IGERT students.”

– Cannot say: “IGERT causes students to engage in more interdisciplinary activities.” (Maybe these students would have sought out i/d activities regardless.)


IGERT Impact Study (cont.)

• Benefits

– Examine value of IGERT for:

• Departmental recruitment

• Student preparation

• Faculty interdisciplinary involvement

• Institutional offerings and support for interdisciplinary education

– Assess against counterfactual of “traditional” graduate ed.

• Limitations

– Focused on current participants

– Tested lots of outcomes – hypothesis generating (not confirming)

– No data on longer term outcomes for graduates


2006 IGERT Follow-up Study

• Graduate study: “What?” “So what?” questions:

– Where do IGERT graduates go and what do they do? Are they any different from non-IGERT graduates? Has IGERT helped prepare them for their chosen careers?

– IGERT graduates and comparison group of non-IGERT graduates

• Presenting detailed descriptive data on IGERT graduates

• Limiting outcomes tested with comparison group to key outcomes (hypothesis confirming, though still selection bias)

• Challenge: locating graduates

– Monitoring system had info on point of contact

– Easier to find those in academic positions versus non-academic positions. Introduces sample bias into results – will conduct non-response bias during analysis.


Faculty Early Career Development (CAREER) Program

• NSF’s primary support mechanism for junior faculty members since 1995.

– Grants to individual faculty members

• Support the research and early career advancement of junior researchers

• Promote the integration of research and education:

– Individual awardees

– Changing university culture

• Most recent evaluation: 2005-2008


CAREER: Research Questions

• Descriptive questions re: perceptions of CAREER

– How do stakeholders at NSF perceive the CAREER program and its relationship to the mission of NSF?

– How do faculty members in departments that host CAREER awardee(s) view the CAREER program and its relationship to their research and educational missions?

• Impact questions

– What is the impact of CAREER on the research activities and career advancement of awardees?

– What is the impact of CAREER on the integration of research and education by faculty members?


CAREER: Methodology

• Descriptive Study

– Interviews with NSF Program Officers

– Survey of 700 department chairs

– Site visits 22 departments

– Samples representative of population in question (but no comparison group)


CAREER: Methodology (cont.)

• Quasi-experimental evaluation of impact on awardees

– CAREER Awardees

– Comparison group of Non-Awardees (same research potential and interest in integration of research and education)

• Unsuccessful CAREER applicants who won another NSF grant as PI w/in 5 years of CAREER application

• Matched using propensity scores (reduces selection bias)

• Limited outcomes tested (confirming hypotheses)


CAREER: Findings

• Description of how program goals are interpreted within and outside of NSF Inform program management

• Description of characteristics of awarded PIs NSF program reporting (GPRA, etc.)

• Assessment of grant’s impact on awardees (“Receipt of a CAREER award increases the likelihood of receiving tenure”) Inform decisions about program continuation or modification


Lessons learned

• Know thy program: Until you understand the intervention, you cannot assess outcomes

– Logic model, articulate goals

– Develop indicators / measures of program success

• Clearly define your research questions

– Prioritize - you cannot evaluate everything

– Identify data needs for reporting, decision-making

– Be realistic (ask questions that can be answered about indicators that can be measured)

• CAREER: “impact on institutional culture”


Lessons learned (cont.)

• Identifying appropriate comparison groups

– What’s the right counterfactual? Each comparison option allows you to answer different questions. Choose the option which best addresses the research questions.

• IGERT - other interdisciplinary programs? Same or different institutions? All STEM students nationwide?

– Choose right level of rigor (developing or testing hypotheses?)

– Consider risk of selection bias

– Change over time (longitudinal studies; pre/post)

– Take advantage of available data available

• National datasets

• CAREER – data available to do PS matching



• Ground each subsequent phase in findings from previous work:

– Work from exploratory / descriptive evaluation to more summative / confirmatory evaluation. Each phase can answer questions raised (or not answered) in previous phases.

• IGERT: Implementation Impact Graduate Follow-up

• Take advantage of different levels of data collection

– Qualitative versus quantitative; single versus cross-site

• IGERT: Richness of single site visits enabled future studies



• Think long term

– Begin evaluation when program begins

– Plan now for information you will need in the future

• IGERT: tracking graduates

• New study (GK-12) – building comparison group today for work in future


Questions?

Documents

Evaluating NSF Programs Dr. Jennifer Giancola Carney, Abt Associates September 18, 2008