The primary purpose of this document is to aid Network members in their local evaluation efforts by providing evaluation resources and examples of various kinds of instruments implemented at CIRTL institutions. This report is organized into four key sections: survey instruments, interview protocols, rubrics, and additional evaluation resources.
The purpose of this document is to provide Network members with examples of local CIRTL program evaluation question stems for use in surveys (including open-ended items). Examples were generated through an examination and synthesis of current evaluation questions (n = 76 instruments) provided by CIRTL institutions and where applicable, research survey instruments. The questions stems are not intended to be prescriptive nor do they represent an exhaustive list of all potential questions that can be used in local program evaluation. Readers can extract single or multiple questions to augment existing instruments or to develop new instruments.
This semi-structured interview protocol is designed for interviews with individuals who have recently completed a Teaching-as-Research (TAR) project. The instrument was developed by the Evaluation Instrument Working Group by carefully reviewing and synthesizing interview instruments used by several CIRTL institutions and a recent interview protocol used by the Research and Evaluation Team to study high-engagement, TAR CIRTL programs. Network members can implement the rubric as is or modify to fit their local context.
This rubric was developed by the Evaluation Instrument Working Group after carefully reviewing and synthesizing several Teaching-as-Research (TAR) rubrics used by CIRTL institutions and the CIRTL TAR learning outcomes. Network members can implement the rubric as is or modify to fit their local context
This semi-structured interview protocol is intended to be used with moderate to high engagement CIRTL program participants. The instrument was developed by the Evaluation Instrument Working Group by modifying the Common Teaching-as-Research (TAR) Interview Protocol, since it contains helpful questions related to program experience and impact. Network members can implement the interview protocol as is or modify to fit their local context.
This handout outlines a few key constructs (e.g., skills and abilities, self-efficacy, attitudes and beliefs) to measure participant outcomes of teaching professional development programs. The document title may appear to be CIRTL Network-centric, but the content is widely applicable to other teaching development programs. For each construct, an example question and brief commentary on the circumstances why you might select that construct is provided. You may consider using this resource to build an instrument to measure participant outcomes or as a to generate new ideas for refreshing your existing evaluation instruments. Readers are encouraged to also review more detailed resources exploring potential survey questions, instrument examples, and additional evaluation resources.
A pre- and post-survey template for evaluating high engagement, local CIRTL programs. Contains a selection of questions from the larger CIRTL Program Evaluation Questions document and places to record program specific items. Network members can implement the surveys as is (after adding program-specific items) or modify to fit their local context.
A post-survey template for low engagement, local CIRTL programs with questions taken from the larger CIRTL Program Evaluation Questions document. Network members can implement the surveys as is (after adding program-specific items) or modify to fit their local context.
A collection of evaluation instruments that the Evaluation Instrument Working Group collected from CIRTL member institutions in 2017-2018. The spreadsheet has column variables for filtering and sorting such as instrument type, program type, and year. This resource is restricted for use by CIRTL Team members.
This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. 17266625