SDSU FUERTE: Evaluation Core

评价核心-项目摘要 圣地亚哥州立大学教师统一走向卓越的研究和评价 转型参与（SDSU FUERTE）计划将测试主要假设，即一个队列和 教师招聘、赞助、持续指导和专业发展的集群设计模型， 嵌入在一个机构实施循证实践将创造一个学术文化， 包容性卓越。为了实现其承诺，SDSU FUERTE需要一个强大而严格的 评估计划。为此，SDSU FUERTE评估核心（EC）的总体目标是双重的。第一、 欧盟委员会将对战略部署特种部队燃料发动机对生产的影响进行严格的、全面的评估 随着时间的推移，SDSU教师的成功（例如，教师的进步，同行评审的出版物，以及 （赠款）校园环境。这将包括对校园的基线和后续评估 气候之前和之后的SDSU FUERTE教师队列被带到SDSU。第二，欧盟将 主要负责与第一协调和评估中心（CEC）进行沟通，并与 向AC、FDC、内部咨询委员会（IAB）提供持续的循证建议，以及 外部咨询委员会（EAB），以不断改进和完善SDSU FUERTE活动。在 为了实现对SDSU FUERTE的稳健而严格的评估，对评估方案进行了总体设计 包括多个数据源，这些数据源将使用混合方法分析和重复 测量时间。评价计划还将包括面向过程和成果的数据分析 从多个层面收集- SDSU FUERTE教师队列，其他SDSU教师，部门/学校， 整个机构。通过注重多个层面和随时间推移而发生的变化，评价计划 全面，并将提供有价值的数据，为SDSU的广泛和可持续影响提供信息 FUERTE对教师的成功成果和DEI气候。欧盟委员会的具体目标是：1）评估 SDSU FUERTE对个体的影响（即，教师），部门/学校和机构（SDSU）水平上 教师的成功（例如，进步，研究生产力）和部门/学校内的DEI气候， 使用多个数据源和混合方法跨SDSU; 2）测试假设的变化机制 (e.g.,随着时间的推移，减少了孤立感，增加了协作/团队科学），这解释了SDSU如何 FUERTE导致教师的成功成果和DEI的制度化学术文化的改善 SDSU的卓越;以及3）与FUERTE利益相关者（AC，FDC，IAB， EAB）和FIRST CEC，以促进数据驱动的解决方案，以持续改进该计划。到 为了实现这些目标，具体的数据来源将包括纵向定量调查数据（从 基线至48个月）与教师在SDSU;定性访谈数据与教师的子集， 完整的定量调查（基线和四年后）;和机构指标数据。

EVALUATION CORE – Project Summary The evaluation of the San Diego State University Faculty Unified towards Excellence in Research and Transformational Engagement (SDSU FUERTE) program will test the primary hypothesis that a cohort and cluster design model of faculty hiring, sponsorship, continual mentoring, and professional development, embedded within an institution implementing evidence-based practices will create an academic culture of inclusive excellence. In order to deliver on its promises, SDSU FUERTE requires a robust and rigorous evaluation plan. To this end, the overall goals of the SDSU FUERTE Evaluation Core (EC) are twofold. First, the EC will conduct a rigorous, comprehensive evaluation of the impact of SDSU FUERTE on producing changes over time in SDSU faculty success (e.g., faculty advancement, peer-reviewed publications, and grants) and the campus DEI climate. This will include baseline and follow-up assessments of the campus climate before and after the SDSU FUERTE Faculty Cohort are brought to SDSU. Second, the EC will be primarily responsible for communicating with the FIRST Coordination and Evaluation Center (CEC), and with providing ongoing, evidence-based recommendations to the AC, FDC, Internal Advisory Board (IAB), and External Advisory Board (EAB) for continuous improvement and refinement of SDSU FUERTE activities. In order to achieve robust and rigorous evaluation of SDSU FUERTE, the overall design of the evaluation plan includes multiple data sources that will be triangulated using mixed methods analysis and repeated measurements over time. The evaluation plan will also include process- and outcome-oriented analysis of data collected from multiple levels – SDSU FUERTE Faculty Cohort, other SDSU faculty, departments/schools, and the overall institution. By focusing on multiple levels and on changes over time, the evaluation plan is comprehensive and will provide valuable data to inform the broad-reaching and sustainable impact of SDSU FUERTE on faculty success outcomes and the DEI climate. The specific aims of the EC are to: 1) Evaluate the impact of SDSU FUERTE at the individual (i.e., faculty), department/school, and institution (SDSU) levels on faculty success (e.g., advancement, research productivity) and the DEI climate within departments/schools and across SDSU using multiple data sources and mixed methods; 2) Test hypothesized mechanisms of change (e.g., less perceived isolation, increased collaboration/team science) over time that explain how SDSU FUERTE leads to improvements in faculty success outcomes and an institutionalized academic culture of DEI excellence at SDSU; and 3) Implement ongoing feedback loops with FUERTE stakeholders (AC, FDC, IAB, EAB) and the FIRST CEC to facilitate data-driven solutions for continued improvement of the program. To meet these aims, specific data sources will include longitudinal quantitative survey data (every 12-months from baseline to 48 months) with faculty members at SDSU; qualitative interview data with a subset of faculty who complete quantitative surveys (at baseline and four years later); and institutional indicator data.