I. INTRODUCTION

The Final Evaluation Report

Exemplary Faculty Goals, Objectives, and Outcomes

Hypotheses

Evaluation Design

Evaluation Instruments

II. YEAR THREE EVALUATION ACTIVITIES

A. Revisions to the Year Three Survey

B. Administering the Year Three Survey

C. Year Three Data Analysis

D. Formative Evaluation: Feedback to ATE Management Team

III. RESULTS

Teaching Experience of Exemplary Faculty and Comparison Faculty

• Attitudes and Beliefs
• Use of Technology
• Pedagogy
• Professional Strategies and Techniques
• Industry Partnerships
• Case Study Results

IV. CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION

A. Summary of Findings

B. Discussion

V. PLANS FOR ONGOING EF EVALUATION

A. Dissemination and Use of Exemplary Faculty Data

B. Exemplary Faculty Assessment in SC ATE Center Years Three Through Six

I. INTRODUCTION

The South Carolina Advanced Technological Education (SC ATE) Exemplary Faculty Project completed its third year in August 1998. This report documents the project’s evaluation, which was conducted by the Academy for Educational Development (AED). The report addresses findings and conclusions from the past three years and relates them to the larger SC ATE Center of Excellence, within which the Exemplary Faculty Project has operated since September 1996.

The Exemplary Faculty Project arose out of the need for educators to prepare future workers to perform in a rapidly changing environment. Employers want their employees to be able to learn, process, adapt and apply new information and techniques. Teaching students how to perform a process that has not yet been devised or to use equipment that does not exist yet is the challenge that confronts educators, particularly in the engineering technology field. Students must be trained in such a way that they can be quickly retrained when new technologies are introduced. They must learn how to work their way through complex, unfamiliar problems by employing skills such as reading, computing, reasoning, communication, and teamwork. Technological change has, in short, increased the importance of an interdisciplinary education.

To this end, SC ATE believes that faculty should be driving innovation within programs to meet the needs of students and employers. The Exemplary Faculty Project believed that reform must come first and foremost from the faculty who will implement the innovations in order to be effective and sustainable in the long run. As lifelong learners, change agents, and disseminators of systemic reform, faculty are the key to changing the way post-secondary institutions do business. Thus, SC ATE must encourage, support, and sustain faculty in seeking to reform their institutions. By creating a framework for curriculum reform, faculty training, and professional development, the Exemplary Faculty Project provided the tools for faculty to partner with students and other faculty in a learning endeavor. Exemplary Faculty were trained to be developers of curricula, disseminators of new knowledge, and leaders by example to their peers. In this way, faculty and students model the business world which engineering technology programs are intended to serve. This is the type of preparation that employers are demanding.

The Final Evaluation Report

The study was conducted to track changes in faculty attitudes and practices that resulted from participation in the Exemplary Faculty Project, as well as to evaluate the effectiveness of the project’s professional development activities in promoting the instructional, organizational, disciplinary, and career development of the South Carolina technical college faculty. It examined the hypothesis that the combination of positive attitudes toward SC ATE objectives, greater use of technology in education, increased industry involvement, enhanced professional development, and increased use of innovative pedagogical techniques promote improved academic and occupational outcomes among engineering technology (ET) students.

The Exemplary Faculty Project has provided professional development opportunities for participating faculty at 16 South Carolina technical colleges. As the professional development program evolved, AED’s evaluation of these practices also grew. Survey items, for instance, were added in the second year in order to more effectively identify and measure activities that may contribute to SC ATE goals such as faculty involvement with, and participation by, business and industry. In the third year, a section was added on outreach and impact to assess whether or not participating faculty have established new partnerships with local businesses in technology-related industries.

This report summarizes changes in faculty attitudes and practices over the course of three years. Thirty-two exemplary faculty and 24 comparison group faculty were tracked over the course of three years. This group of 56 is composed of faculty who participated in the Exemplary Faculty study from its inception to its conclusion. Comparisons are also drawn between exemplary faculty responses and comparison faculty responses. The data were analyzed to determine if differences exist between exemplary and comparison faculty in order to determine the extent to which the program impacted relevant faculty skill acquisition and application.

Exemplary Faculty Goals, Objectives, and Outcomes

As one of three main components of the SC ATE Center of Excellence, the Exemplary Faculty Project was designed to encourage inter-disciplinary teaching strategies, the use of different pedagogical techniques and technologies in the development and the delivery of instruction, and ongoing dialogue and collaboration with industry. Thus, the project seeks to improve technical college faculty members’ ability to identify, define, develop and evaluate the skills that engineering technology program graduates will need.

Hypotheses

The evaluation started from a set of broad expectations of faculty change in attitudes, practices, and professional development not only in instruction but also in professional collaboration, communication, and teamwork. A set of broad categorical questions were associated with each hypothesis, which we used as the basis for specific evaluation questions used to design the faculty surveys and interview protocols.

Hypotheses included the following:

• Faculty will adopt outcomes-oriented pedagogy.
• Reformed pedagogy will be based on the best available theories of learning and on sensitivity to variations in cultural and academic backgrounds, as well as on student learning styles.
• Student-centered learning environments will become the norm.
• Advanced assessment and instructional technologies will be used to implement the new pedagogy.
• The learning environment will extend beyond the classroom to the workplace and the community.

Evaluation Design

The Exemplary Faculty Project evaluation had three main components:

Formative Evaluation including:

• Observation and documentation of project activities;
• Evaluation and technical assistance to the SC ATE management team; and
• Faculty case studies.

Summative Evaluation including:

• Collection of longitudinal data on faculty attitudes, beliefs, practices, and future plans;
• Reporting of faculty case studies; and
• Analysis and reporting of outcome data.

Faculty Development Evaluation System including:

• Development of measures and instruments for use in ongoing program assessment beyond the NSF funding period;
• Evaluation database available for use in continuous faculty development program improvement; and
• Tested faculty development evaluation methodology for use by onsite staff and for dissemination and replication in South Carolina and nationwide.

Evaluation Instruments

The Exemplary Faculty Study employed a quasi-experimental, longitudinal design in which changes between and within groups were analyzed.

The Exemplary Faculty Project evaluation’s two main data collection instruments consisted of an annual faculty survey and a case study protocol. The annual faculty surveys were administered in the fall of each of the survey years (i.e., 1995, 1996, 1997), while interviews and secondary data were gathered during the fall, winter and the summer of each survey year.

• Annual Faculty Surveys: An annual survey of faculty knowledge, attitudes, and practices were administered to participating exemplary faculty and a matched group of peer (comparison) faculty at the 16 technical colleges. The survey covers pedagogy, technology, and faculty perceptions of student outcomes. Two versions of the survey were administered to the groups, but similar questions were asked of each group. The comparison faculty surveys did not include sections on faculty attitudes and beliefs. (See Table II-1 for details)

To capture changes in faculty attitudes and practices at the individual level, a cohort of exemplary faculty and a cohort of comparison faculty were tracked over a period of three years. Due to non-response, unmatched, or incomplete cases, the sample sizes shrank from 63 exemplary faculty and 53 comparison faculty in year one to 48 exemplary and 34 comparison faculty in year two. In year three, the sample size shrank to 32 exemplary faculty and 24 comparison faculty.

• Exemplary Faculty Case Study Protocol: A structured interview protocol was used on eight exemplary faculty members. It contained open-ended questions on faculty perception of project activities, attitudes toward SCATE reform on their campuses, and use of what faculty members have learned from the project.

Table II-1 shows changes to the survey instrument over time:

Table II-1: Annual EF Faculty and Comparison Surveys By Study Year
	1995		1996			1997
Survey Sections	EF Faculty	Comparison		EF Faculty	Comparison		EF Faculty	Comparison
Exemplary Faculty Selection Process	X
Attitudes about ATE program components	X			X			X
Use of technology inside classroom	X	X		X	X		X	X
Use of technology outside classroom	X	X		X	X		X	X
Business and Industry Involvement				X	X		X	X
Professional activities and pedagogy	X	X		X	X		X	X
ATE Student Impact							X	X

 II. YEAR THREE EVALUATION ACTIVITIES

A. Revisions to the Year Three Survey

The Third Year Exemplary Faculty survey included a new section, "VIII. Outreach and Impact," to address outcome measures. This section was designed to measure SC ATE’s effectiveness in improving the practices of participating faculty and higher-education institutions, as well as its effectiveness in increasing student achievement and academic outcomes, and in strengthening the role of local businesses within technology-related industries.

B. Administering the Year Three Survey

The third annual faculty survey was administered in person at the fall chautauqua in October 1997. A total of 56 participating faculty completed the survey. The comparison faculty survey was administered by interoffice mail in October and November 1997. SC ATE Co-PI for Faculty Development Lynn Mack sent the survey forms to each campus Chief Instructional Officer (CIO) by interoffice mail for distribution to comparison faculty. The CIOs collected the completed forms and returned them to Ms. Mack, who forwarded them to AED for analysis.

C. Year Three Data Analysis and Limitations of the Data

This third and final evaluation report presents the longitudinal results of a three-year study. Analysis of change at the individual faculty-level regarding project impact on attitudes, practices, and future plans will be presented along with their broader relation to SC ATE center objectives.

The first-year survey data were taken as a baseline against which to compare survey data from subsequent years. Analysis of the data revealed no initial significant differences between the exemplary faculty and the comparison faculty (see First-Year Evaluation Report, March 1997). In the second year, survey data were compared to identify significant differences in the two groups between the first year and the second year (see Second-Year Evaluation Report, April 1998). By the third year, the sample size of the survey had fallen to a level that precludes statistically significant findings due to non-response, unmatched, or incomplete cases. Consequently, this report focuses on nominal and substantive changes within groups as well as between groups. Thus, caution should be exercised when using the results of this study for policy-making purposes due to the limitations of the data.

D. Formative Evaluation: Feedback to ATE Management Team

AED provided feedback to the ATE management team in a variety of formats, including regular memoranda, informal feedback via e-mail, phone conversations, and formal reports. AED provided rapid response evaluation feedback to the management team based on several factors including: direct observation of meetings and other events, targeted formative studies such as focus groups of middle managers, and environmental scans on special topics in education and technology. It has also used initial findings from summative research to provide SC ATE and key decision-makers within the state system with "early results" for use in planning and revising program activities.

III. RESULTS

A. Teaching Experience of Exemplary Faculty and Comparison Faculty

The years of teaching experience of the exemplary and comparison faculty were comparable. While comparison faculty have had, on average, a couple more years of experience at their current institutions than exemplary faculty, the latter have had, on average, slightly more teaching experience. (See table V-1 for details.)

Table V-1: Faculty Experience
	Exemplary (n=32)	Comparison (n=24)
Mean years at current institution	7.75	9.75
Mean years of teaching experience	15.22	14.08

Attitudes and Beliefs

Table V-2 below summarizes the changes in the attitudes and beliefs of the exemplary faculty over the course of three years. The percentages of faculty who believe that SC ATE will have a positive impact on their students have increased. There was a noticeable increase from 38.5 percent (in the base year) to 61.3 percent (in the third year) in the percentage of faculty who believe that the Exemplary Faculty (EF) Project would reduce the number of dropouts. The percentage of exemplary faculty who believed that changes brought about by the EF Project would increase the number of women and minority students from their institutions choosing careers in engineering technology increased from 23 percent in the base year to 28 percent in the third year. The percentage of exemplary faculty who believed that changes brought about by the EF Project would increase the number of women and minority students from their institutions obtaining entry-level jobs in engineering technologies increased from 27 percent in the base year to 39 percent in the third year.

Table V-2: Exemplary Faculty Attitudes and Beliefs about ATE
Statements of Attitudes and Beliefs	Percent responding "agree" or "strongly agree"
	Year 1 (n=26)	Year 2 (n=27)	Year 3 (n=32)
Employers who would hire my students want what the SC ATE project will provide	80.8%	77.8%	87.5%
The SC ATE project will reduce the number of my students who drop out before achieving their educational objectives	38.5%	51.9%	61.3%
The SC ATE project will increase the number of women and minority students pursuing careers in ET	23.1%	22.2%	28.1%
The SC ATE project will increase the number of students from my institution obtaining entry-level jobs in ET	57.7%	55.6%	58.1%
The SC ATE project will increase the number of women and minority students from my institution obtaining entry-level jobs in ET	26.9%	37.0%	38.7%

Additionally, 78.1 percent of the exemplary faculty compared to 54 percent of the comparison faculty surveyed in the third year believed that team teaching could improve the quality of course instruction in engineering technology. While 64.3 percent of exemplary faculty indicated that they had team taught a class, only 7.1 percent of the 14 comparison faculty who responded to this item indicated that they had team taught.

In summation, attitudes toward team teaching had improved within the group of exemplary faculty. Furthermore, by the third year, a substantially greater percentage of exemplary faculty than control faculty had team taught in spite of the fact that the majority of faculty in both groups believed that team teaching improves course quality.

Use of Technology

Data from the third year survey showed that exemplary faculty were also more likely than comparison faculty to:

• Give their students computer lab assignments (64.5% vs. 58.3%);
• Make use of computer simulations or courseware (36.7% vs. 30.4%);
• Communicate via e-mail with their students (46.9% vs. 29.2%);
• Plan an internet-based class activity (29% vs. 26.1%); and
• Make use of audio/teleconferencing instruction (28.1% vs. 8.3%).

They were, however, less likely than the comparison faculty to:

• Teach with the aid of a computer in the classroom or teach in a computer lab (58.1% vs. 75%);
• Share materials from the internet with their students (51.6% vs. 58.3%);
• Make use of multimedia in class (50% vs. 62.5%); or
• Use self-paced instructional software in class (28.1% vs. 41.7%).

The 1997 Campus Computing survey, conducted annually by Dr. Kenneth C. Green of the University of Southern California, estimated that almost one-third (32.8%) of all college courses (at two- and four-year institutions) make use of e-mail, up from 25.0 percent in 1996 and 8.0 percent in 1994. One-fourth (24.8%) of all classes drew on resources available on the Internet, compared to 15.3 percent in 1996. Over an eighth (13.4%) of all college courses used some form of multimedia resources, up from 8.4 percent in 1996 and 4.0 percent in 1994 (www.campuscomputing.net).

SC ATE faculty, in comparison, are slightly more inclined to make use of technology for instructional purposes than faculty in two- and four-year institutions across the nation. Furthermore, SC ATE faculty make much greater use of multimedia than their counterparts across the nation. The rate at which these figures have increased over the past few years has also been rather dramatic.

Pedagogy

There was a steady increase in the number of exemplary faculty who frequently taught using reality-based problems or situations from the first year to the third year (42.1% of 19 respondents in year 1; 29.6% of 27 respondents in year 2; 43.8% of 32 respondents in year 3). The number of comparison faculty doing the same, in comparison, decreased from the first year to the second year (72.2% of 18 respondents in year 1 to 55.6% of 18 respondents in year 2). By the third year, the number returned to its original level in year 1 (50% of 24 respondents).

There was also a drastic increase in the number of exemplary faculty who taught interpersonal skills such as teamwork between the first year and subsequent years (26.3% of 19 respondents in year 1 to 59.3% of 27 respondents in year 2 and 46.9% in year 3).

At the end of year three, exemplary faculty were also more likely than comparison faculty to think that there needs to be:

• An increased use of instructional technology (58.1% vs. 48%);
• An increased use of student-centered learning methods (62.5% vs. 50%);
• Improved awareness of different student learning styles (50% vs. 41%);
• An increased use and integration of work-based learning experiences (56.3% vs. 36%); and
• An increased use of integrated instructional teams (53.1% vs. 14%);

However, fewer exemplary faculty than comparison faculty believed that there needs to be:

• An increased integration of academic and occupational instruction (50% vs. 55%);
• Improved professional development and career planning support for faculty (46.9% vs. 59%); and
• An increased use of distance delivery methods and technology (40.6% vs. 48%).

Table V-3 shows how the use of other instructional strategies and techniques has evolved over time within the exemplary and comparison faculty groups.

Table V-3: Exemplary and Comparison Faculty Instructional Strategies and Techniques
Instructional Strategies and Techniques Used	Percentage of faculty responding they use the following strategies or techniques in their instructional activities
	Exemplary Faculty			Comparison Faculty
	Year 1 (n=27)	Year 2 (n=27)	Year 3 (n=27)	Year 1 (n=18)	Year 2 (n=18)	Year 3 (n=24)
Group learning exercises	48.1%	88.9%	90.6%	55.6%	61.1%	79.2%
Group discussion of course content	40.7%	66.7%	68.8%	38.9%	72.2%	62.5%
Student group projects	37.0%	55.6%	68.8%	66.7%	66.7%	75.0%
Authentic assessment	25.9%	48.1%	37.5%	66.7%	61.1%	75.0%
Critical thinking exercises	29.6%	59.3%	62.5%	72.2%	72.2%	79.2%
Problem-solving exercises	51.9%	81.5%	84.4%	88.9%	83.3%	87.5%
Computer-based projects in class	33.3%	40.7%	40.6%	61.1%	66.7%	58.3%
Industry-focused, applied projects or exercises	22.2%	25.9%	28.1%	22.2%	38.9%	41.7%
Service learning	3.7%	3.7%	3.1%	5.6%	11.1%	12.5%

The results show that between years one and three there was:

A substantial increase in the use of group learning exercises in the classroom by both exemplary and comparison faculty;

An increase in the percentage of faculty from both groups using group discussion of course content, student group projects, and assessment;

A large increase in the percentage of exemplary faculty using critical thinking exercises while the percentage was fairly study for the comparison group. However, one should note that, by the end of year three, there was still a smaller percentage of exemplary faculty than comparison faculty making use of critical thinking exercises;

An increase in the percentage of exemplary faculty who make use of problem-solving exercises, to the point where they had nearly caught up with the control faculty;

An increase in the percentage of exemplary faculty who make use of computer-based learning exercises in class and a slight decrease in the percentage of control faculty doing the same. Nonetheless, a greater percentage of control faculty than exemplary faculty make use of computer-based learning;

No change in the percentage of exemplary faculty making use of service learning, while there was an increase in the number of comparison faculty doing the same.

Professional Strategies and Techniques

Table V-4 shows an upward trend in the number of exemplary faculty employing various professional strategies and techniques over the years. The number of comparison faculty using these techniques, however, has remained fairly steady.

Table V-4: Professional Strategies and Techniques
Professional Strategies and Techniques	Percentage of faculty responding they use the following strategies or techniques in their professional activities
	Exemplary Faculty			Comparison Faculty
	Year 1 (n=27)	Year 2 (n=27)	Year 3 (n=32)	Year 1 (n=18)	Year 2 (n=18)	Year 3 (n=24)
Join peer study teams with other Faculty	7.4%	25.0%****	25.0%****	11.1%	38.9%	16.7%
Conduct joint research or project with other faculty	37.0%	51.9%***	51.9%***	16.7%	27.8%	20.8%
Team teach with colleague	18.5%	20.0%***	20.0%***	0.0%	11.1%	0.0%
Team teach with colleague from another department	40.7%	24.1%Ü	24.1%Ü	0.0%	16.7%	4.2%
Teach interdisciplinary course	14.8%	7.4%***	7.4%***	16.7%	0.0% *	20.8%
Develop own course	37.0%	26.7%	26.7%	44.4%	35.3% **	37.5% *
Develop interdisciplinary curriculum	7.4%	7.1%****	7.1%****	5.6%	5.8% **	0.0% k
Train other faculty in technique	37.0%	60.7%****	60.7%****	50.0%	52.9% **	45.8% **

k n=7; * n=16; **n=17; ***n=27; ****n=28; Ü n=29

Industry Partnerships

In year three, approximately 90.3 percent of the exemplary faculty and 95.7 percent of the comparison faculty say that local business people directly communicated the skills that they wanted students who are potential employees to have. About 86.2 percent of the exemplary faculty and 100 percent of the comparison faculty said that they had planned educational programs with local business people to assess and improve responsiveness to industry needs. Approximately 57.1 percent of the exemplary faculty and 70 percent of the comparison faculty indicated that local businesses had offered in-kind services, facilities, or other forms of support to faculty and/or students.

A large percentage of faculty also indicated that their students had new or expanded career opportunities with local businesses. About 58.6 percent of exemplary faculty and 73.9 percent of comparison faculty indicated that their students had new or expanded internship opportunities; approximately 55.2 percent of exemplary faculty and 54.5 percent of comparison faculty have new or expanded apprenticeship opportunities with local businesses.

About 55.2 percent of exemplary faculty and 81.8 percent of comparison faculty indicated that businesses collaborated to create new or expanded cooperative education experiences for students.

Still, more needs to be done on the part of the exemplary faculty to catch up with comparison faculty in the area of industry partnerships, especially if an increased integration of work-based learning experiences is desired.

Institutional Trends Since September 1995 (based on the perceptions of exemplary and comparison faculty)

Much larger percentages of comparison faculty than exemplary faculty noticed improvements in student outcomes such as:

• Fewer students dropping out;
• More women and minority students choosing careers in engineering technology;
• More students obtaining entry-level jobs in engineering technology; and
• More women and minority students obtaining entry-level jobs in engineering technology.

The details of these findings are presented below:

Institutional Trends	Percent responding the following happened at institution since September 1995
	Exemplary Faculty			Comparison Faculty
	Year 1	Year 2	Year 3	Year 1	Year 2	Year 3
Fewer students dropped out before reaching their academic/vocational goals	na	7.4% (n=32)	10.0% (n=32)	na	44.4% (n=18)	46.0% (n=24)
More women and minority students chose careers in ET	na	14.8% (n=32)	13.3% (n=32)	na	27.8% (n=18)	45.8% (n=24)
More students obtained entry-level jobs in ET	na	11.1% (n=32)	3.3% (n=32)	na	38.9% (n=18)	29.9% (n=24)
More women and minority students obtained entry-level jobs in ET	na	7.4% (n=32)	3.4% (n=32)	na	72.2% (n=18)	21.0% (n=24)

Case Study Results

Interviews were conducted with eight faculty in the winter of 1996, in the fall of 1996, and again in the winter of 1998. In the winter of 1996, the majority of the faculty interviewed said that the biggest impact that the Exemplary Faculty Project will have on students is the clarification of how interconnected all their courses are. "It helps them see the relevance of communications and mathematics to engineering technology," said one faculty member. "It will force students to…find ways to apply concepts from their other classes [to a course]," said another. The second most frequently mentioned impact for both faculty and students is learning how to work in a team. According to one faculty member, "modeling team-building for students through faculty becoming more of a team will help."

A number of themes and issues emerged from the interviews conducted in the fall of 1996. These included the increased communication among faculty and the innovation that has resulted from faculty collaboration. The ATE Project had been successful in encouraging and facilitating communication among faculty of different departments and different institutions. This has encouraged the development and collaboration of new ideas and stimulated faculty to critically reflect on the role of their discipline and its relationship to the curriculum as a whole. Increased collaboration took several forms: developing new teaching techniques and materials, conceptualizing ways in which to integrate the various disciplines, and developing curricula that would allow students to gain a knowledge of how specific skills and subject matter are relevant to their current and future professions. One faculty member mentioned, for example, that she would be working with other professors on her team in developing a mathematics curriculum that integrated the use of computer software that is widely used in industry. This was done in an attempt to link instruction in abstract mathematical concepts with business and engineering technology-related applications. This type of initiative demonstrates the needs and benefits of encouraging cross-disciplinary interaction.

By 1998, the faculty believed they were already observing an improvement in student performance. "Students are showing a greater understanding of the material and are better able to retain what they learn, thanks to hands-on demonstrations. It will result in greater retention," one faculty member said. "Students will be better prepared to enter the industry work force," another said. These statements were corroborated by another faculty member, who said, "It addresses the industry’s request for teaching students how to work in teams. The technical education that students are receiving is the same, yet things are sinking in and sticking now. Students show a greater understanding of the material and are better able to retain the information they learn. Hands-on demonstrations are helping students understand the material better."

Overall, case study findings support survey findings indicating faculty belief in improved student outcomes. These findings support the hypothesis that the exemplary faculty project have increased participants’ use of student-centered learning techniques.

IV. CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION

A. Summary of Findings

The EF project was successful in changing faculty attitudes and practices in support of faculty development, and indirectly curriculum reform, objectives of the SC ATE Center of Excellence. With respect to the five original EF evaluation hypotheses, we conclude that faculty:

• Adopted outcomes-oriented pedagogy;
• Incorporated the best available theories of learning based on student learning styles;
• Implemented student-centered learning;
• Made greater use of advanced assessment and instructional technologies; and
• Did not extend the learning environment to the workplace.

It should be noted that EF project activities did not focus on providing instruction outside the classroom environment. Rather, the project focused efforts on conducting research in the workplace and adopting industry- (reality-) based activities in classroom instruction. These activities are reflected in positive findings for the first three hypotheses. Center faculty development activities will focus on extending the learning environment in coming years.

B. Discussion

Through participation in the exemplary faculty project, an interdisciplinary cadre of innovative faculty is now prepared to support Center objectives for systemic reform. Based on findings from the EF project evaluation, this cadre of faculty has benefited from an effective program of professional growth leading to changes in professional attitudes and practice enabling them to:

• Serve as campus leaders for systemic reform,
• Mentor other faculty, thereby spreading the EF innovations more broadly, and
• Continue personal professional growth and encourage system-wide faculty development programs

Thus, EF project evaluation findings suggest that faculty will be effective drivers of change over the Center’s next three years. We hypothesize that faculty will lead two key areas of Center activity: 1) Development, testing, and implementation of the Center’s Pre-ET and Core curricula; and 2) diffusion of EF project innovations system-wide. Future Center faculty development evaluation activities will measure faculty contributions and effectiveness in promoting objectives to these two areas.

V. PLANS FOR ONGOING EF EVALUATION

A. Dissemination and Use of Exemplary Faculty Data

The final report will be disseminated over the SC ATE Web site. Results and conclusions will also be used to develop SC ATE Center presentation materials and articles for publication. For instance, at the CREATE conference in July, 1998, Paul Bucci and Doug Evans presented an "Evaluation of Professional Development Lessons from the SC ATE Study," in which they spoke of developing a SC ATE Center model and of transforming the learning environment by training faculty to become early-adapting innovators and leaders.

AED evaluators and SC ATE management team members will also make several additional presentations on project and evaluation activities and outcomes. Several venues have already been identified for possible presentations:

• Other SC ATE Centers and project sites (e.g., Center Director Ms. Elaine Craft has been asked by the New Jersey ATE Center to make a presentation on student recruitment and retention research as well as on the evaluation work conducted for SC ATE);
• National education and evaluation research conferences (e.g., American Educational Research Association, American Institutional Research); and
• Practitioner-oriented conferences in systemic reform and workforce development (e.g., League for Innovation); and NSF-sponsored conferences (e.g., annual ATE project director’s meeting).

B. Exemplary Faculty Assessment in SC ATE Center Years Four Through Six

The Exemplary Faculty Project evaluation has, thus far, focused mainly on faculty development rather than on the effects of faculty development on students, institutions, and the technical college system. Attitudes, use of reform pedagogy, professional use of technology, and professional development have been examined. The study has provided in-depth answers to questions in the area of impact (effectiveness), as defined in the NSF ATE program memorandum on ATE GPRA evaluation.

Continuing faculty development evaluation under the Center will focus on diffusion of innovations fostered by the EF project. Starting in the fall of 1998, AED began a "Study of EF Diffusion," designed to track exemplary faculty participants at the SC ATE Center in 1998-2002. A new "faculty diffusion survey" was administered to faculty attending an October 1, 1998 faculty retreat. The new survey incorporated central elements of the original EF survey, including technology use and pedagogical innovation. However, the new instrument also measured faculty leadership (role as disseminator of innovation and driver of campus systemic reform).

Additionally, the Center evaluation will focus on changes in student enrollment, retention, and graduation and attempt to link changes to faculty change across the 16 campuses. After the ATE Center was awarded to South Carolina in 1996, one of the first evaluation tasks was to gain access to data from the State Tech data system. The State Tech dataset tracks student demographics, enrollment, retention, and other major variables by area of academic concentration (clusters). We have obtained access to data from 1992-1996, the four academic years preceding the establishment of the Center, and will use these as a baseline against which to compare system-wide changes from 1996-2002.