SDSU FUERTE: Evaluation Core

评价核心--项目摘要 圣地亚哥州立大学教师联盟在研究和研究方面的卓越表现 转型参与(SDSU Fuerte)计划将测试主要假设，即队列和 教师聘用、赞助、持续指导、专业发展的集群设计模式， 嵌入实施循证实践的机构将创造一种学术文化 包罗万象的卓越。为了兑现承诺，SDSU Fuerte需要一个稳健和严格的 评估计划。为此，SDSU Fuerte评估核心(EC)的总体目标是双重的。第一, 欧共体将对SDSU Fuerte对生产的影响进行严格、全面的评估 SDSU教员成就随时间的变化(例如，教员晋升、同行评审的出版物和 奖助金)和校园神灵的气候。这将包括对校园的基线和后续评估 SDSU Fuerte教员队列被带到SDSU之前和之后的气候。第二，欧共体将是 主要负责与第一协调和评价中心(CEC)以及与 向咨询委员会、FDC、内部咨询委员会(IAB)提供基于证据的持续建议，以及 外部咨询委员会(EAB)，以不断改进和完善SDSU Fuerte的活动。在……里面 为了实现SDSU Fuerte稳健严谨的评估，对评估方案进行了总体设计 包括将使用混合方法分析和重复进行三角测量的多个数据源 随着时间的推移进行测量。评价计划还将包括面向过程和结果的数据分析 收集自多个层面-SDSU Fuerte学院队列、其他SDSU教职员工、部门/学校和 整个机构。通过关注多个层次和随时间的变化，评估计划是 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 富尔特谈教员成功的结果和神灵的氛围。欧共体的具体目标是：1)评估 SDSU Fuerte在个人(即，教职员工)、部门/学校和机构(SDSU)层面的影响 教职员工的成功(例如，进步、研究效率)以及部门/学校和 跨SDSU使用多个数据源和混合方法；2)测试假设的变化机制 (例如，感觉到的孤立性减少，协作/团队科学增加)，这解释了SDSU 富尔特领导着教员成功结果的改善和Dei的制度化学术文化 SDSU的卓越表现；以及3)与Fuerte利益相关方(AC、FDC、IAB、 EAB)和第一个CEC，以促进数据驱动的解决方案，以继续改进计划。至 为实现这些目标，具体数据来源将包括纵向定量调查数据(每12个月从 基线为48个月)，对SDSU的教职员工进行了定性访谈；对部分教职员工进行了定性访谈 完成量化调查(基线调查和四年后调查)；以及机构指标数据。

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.