Date post: | 18-May-2015 |
Category: |
Economy & Finance |
Upload: | lynda-milne |
View: | 768 times |
Download: | 0 times |
Gauging the Effectivenessof Instructional and
Institutional Development Grants
Lynda Milne
Minnesota State Colleges & Universities
Center for Teaching & Learning
POD Network Conference, Pittsburgh
October 26, 2007
Our center, like many, has a long history of awarding grants to faculty. In this session we will discuss two grant programs and the systems we developed to categorize and analyze data about the purposes, topic areas, activities, and outcomes of grant projects.
Acknowledgements
David Laverny-RafterCTL Faculty Project Specialist
Professor, Political ScienceMinnesota State University, Mankato
Thomas WortmanAssistant Director for Grant Programs
Minnesota State Colleges & UniversitiesCenter for Teaching and Learning
Why Instructional
Grants? Tradition (scholarship,
research) Foster innovation Demonstration projects/
experiments/pilots Allocate scarce resources Competition fosters
excellence …(certainly many other)
How Little We Know
Levinson-Rose & Menges, 1981– Frequency, popularity of
programs
Eble & McKeachie, 1985– Positive faculty perception
Jacobsen, 1989– Little support from faculty
Weimer & Lenze, 1991– Grants at 40% to 78%
institutions– 70% to 90% rated highly
McAlpine & Gandell, 2003– Grants as SoTL; potential
impact
How Much We Do
What teaching incentive grants do you manage?
What kinds of assessment requirements are included in your guidelines?
How do your grantees report to you?
How do you report to your campus/provost/others the benefits and outcomes of grants?
Are grants having a positive impact?
How Much We Do
What teaching incentive grants do you manage?
What kinds of assessment requirements are included in your guidelines?
How do your grantees report to you?
How do you report to your campus/provost/others the benefits and outcomes of grants?
Are grants having a positive impact?
CTL Grantmaking History since
2000 Major Bush funds initiatives focused on active learning, 1999-2005– $2M for 200+ grants
Systemwide teaching grants– $350K for 56 projects
Systemwide course redesign– $250K for 11 grants
Multiple outcomes Multi-focused summative
evaluations http://www.ctl.mnscu
.edu/programs/grants/
Minnesota State Colleges & Universities
System Merged public higher
education system (all except University of Minnesota), 1995
7 state universities 25 community/technical
colleges 240,000 students 8,000+ faculty Graduate majority of state’s
teachers, nurses, “first responders” and law enforcement professionals
2004 Legislature Targets Funds
$6M per year for “competitive compensation for initiatives to promote excellence in student learning”
2005-2007 two new programs– College Faculty Awards for
Excellence (individual)– Initiatives to Promote
Excellence in Student Learning (institutional)
Guidelines
Efforts above and beyond regular work responsibilities
Focus on student learning Alignment with strategic
goals Work plan themes/critical
targets– Reading and writing
(transitions—first year and entry into major)
– STEM outcomes– Critical thinking
Strategic Directions
Increase access and opportunity
Promote and measure high-quality learning programs and services
Serve state and regional economic needs
Innovate for current and future educational needs and efficiency
Work Plan Eliminate the achievement
gap Provide universal access from
pre-kindergarten through the first two years of college
Promote increased participation in science, technology, engineering and math, known as STEM, fields
Expand corporate learning Develop colleges and
universities for Minnesota's future
Build organizational capacity for change and innovation
2005 Faculty Development
Survey Critical thinking topic of
highest interest
Survey says…
Course Outcomes: 2004-
05 DFW Rates First-semester college writing
courses: 10% – 30% Developmental reading and
writing courses: 25%– 54% College algebra: 15% - 58% Developmental math: 15% - 64% Physical sciences: 12% – 48%
Source: Analysis of large-course (5+ sections) grade distributions, Fall 2004 – Spring 2005. Ranges across 32 institutions.
Course Outcomes:2004-05 DFW
RatesCourses with 5 or More
Sections# Students Enrolled All Sections
2-YearColleges
4-Year Univs
English and Speech
91,162 25.6% 12.1%
Mathematics
46,346 40.1 32.9
Biological/Life Sciences
18,244 27.3 19.4
Physical Sciences
11,935 20.9 20.2
Structuring Guidelines
Review the excerpts of the guidelines for each of the two programs.
Then on the “How Would You Assess These Grants?” handout, answer the questions that we faced about evaluating and reporting on these grants.
Reporting Aligned with
Purposes Outcomes Principles Strategies Dissemination Sustainability
Analyzing the Reports
Description– How many, what
proportion of grant managers
Improved learning Created new curriculum Innovated in strategic areas
Analysis– Trends– Relationships
Reporting– Impact
Outcome-Based Evaluation
Description– Inputs– Outputs– Outcomes
Analysis– Trends– Relationships
Reporting– Impact
Influences shaping our
evaluation work Scholarship Assessed NCAT Logic Model/Outcome-
Based Evaluation methods
Scholarship Assessed
Scholarship should be the outcome we measure
Pre-grant (formative assessment)– Clear goals– Adequate preparation– Appropriate methods
Post-grant (summative– Significant results– Effective presentation– Reflective critique
- Glassick, Huber, Maeroff (1997). Scholarship Assessed
NCAT Course Redesign
NCAT ‘s Program in Course Redesign showed clearly 3 big outcomes from a major grant project:
1. Improvements in learning– Higher grades– Better test scores– Assessments of learning
quality/ depth
2. Lower DIW rates
3. Lower instructional costs
Outcomes-Based Evaluation Methods
Inputs (resources) Outputs (activities, products) Outcomes (results of the
outputs, changes that occur--in learning, attitudes, behavior, etc.)
Impact (long-term benefits of the program)