Evaluation helps project teams understand what’s working, what could be improved, and what difference their project is making. It is a systematic process of gathering and making sense of information to answer important questions about a project and support learning and improvement. Effective evaluations engage interest holders; balance questions about process and outcomes; and respond to context.
It means that evaluation provides you with meaningful and valuable information that answers questions and supports your work through research-based methods and strategies for collecting and analyzing data (for example, surveys, observations, interviews, and evaluation approaches). High-quality evaluation balances usefulness, feasibility, propriety, accuracy, and accountability.
Evaluation is about learning what works and what doesn’t, to improve your project, better serve your students, and fulfill industry needs in your community. Evaluation should help inform your decisions throughout your grant, from what to do more of, what to change, and how to proceed.
NSF requires an independent evaluation as a condition of your ATE grant. These evaluations help NSF demonstrate responsible use of federal funds to Congress.
Your evaluation generates evidence of what works, contributing to the broader technician education field. You’ll also need this evidence for future NSF proposals. The “Results from Prior NSF Support” section requires specific outcomes and metrics, drawn directly from your evaluation.
You may hear evaluation talked about as “formative” or “summative.” These are not specific evaluation approaches but ways to describe the purposes of evaluation. ATE project evaluations typically involve both formative and summative work.
Whether formative or summative, evaluation helps move beyond “What happened?” to “What does this mean for our project, and what should we do next?”
Evaluation has the power to help you:
At the end of the day, evaluation is intended to enhance the value of your work. But you don’t have to take our word for it; here’s what ATE PIs have said about their evaluations and their work with their evaluator.
Your evaluator is more than someone who collects data and writes a report at the end of your project. A good evaluator works alongside your team throughout the project and can bring a valuable outside perspective to your work. The primary beneficiary of an ATE evaluation is the project, with NSF as a secondary beneficiary. The evaluator’s role is to provide an independent perspective and help your team learn from the work as it unfolds.
They can be someone to bounce ideas off of, guide your project’s implementation and help you strategize to accomplish what you want.
Evaluators can serve as someone who provides an outside perspective on what you are doing or thinking about doing.
They are part of your work, providing you with information and help when you need it, wanting to see you and the project succeed.
This short video is for people who might be nervous, skeptical, or hesitant about engaging in evaluation. Viewers will learn what evaluation is, how evaluation can improve their project, and why they should be excited about evaluation.
Watch Video
This evidence-based resource identifies and defines essential tasks involved in planning and conducting an evaluation of an NSF ATE project. This is a great place to start to understand the steps and actions that go into a high-quality ATE evaluation.
View Essential Tasks
This webinar provides practical strategies for finding and selecting an evaluator for your proposal and what to do if your institution doesn’t allow the selection of an evaluator before your grant is awarded.
View Webinar
This webinar, designed for both non-evaluators and evaluators in the pre-award stage, introduces the basics of evaluation and provides practical guidance for developing a strong evaluation plan.
View Webinar
EvaluATE is supported by the National Science Foundation under grant number 2332143. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed on this site are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation. 
