Zappe, S., & Jordan, D., & Spiegel, S., & Sanders, M., & Cutler, S. (2022, August), Lessons Learned: Findings from an External Evaluation of a STEM Teaching and Learning Center (Lessons Learned Paper #2 of 2)  Paper presented at 2022 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Minneapolis, MN. 10.18260/1-2--41150

\bibitem{asee_peer_41150}
  Zappe, S., \& Jordan, D., \& Spiegel, S., \& Sanders, M., \& Cutler, S. (2022, August), \emph{Lessons Learned: Findings from an External Evaluation of a STEM Teaching and Learning Center (Lessons Learned Paper \#2 of 2)}
  Paper presented at 2022 ASEE Annual Conference \& Exposition, Minneapolis, MN.
  10.18260/1-2--41150

Sarah Zappe, Deb Jordan, Sam Spiegel, Megan Sanders, and Stephanie Cutler.  "Lessons Learned: Findings from an External Evaluation of a STEM Teaching and Learning Center (Lessons Learned Paper #2 of 2)".  2022 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Minneapolis, MN, 2022, August.  ASEE Conferences, 2022.  https://peer.asee.org/41150 Internet.  19 Apr, 2024

\bibitem{asee_peer_41150}
  Sarah Zappe, Deb Jordan, Sam Spiegel, Megan Sanders, and Stephanie Cutler.
  "Lessons Learned: Findings from an External Evaluation of a STEM Teaching and Learning Center (Lessons Learned Paper \#2 of 2)".
  \emph{2022 ASEE Annual Conference \& Exposition, Minneapolis, MN, 2022, August}.
  ASEE Conferences, 2022.
  https://peer.asee.org/41150 Internet.  19 Apr, 2024

@INPROCEEDINGS{asee_peer_41150
author = "Sarah Zappe, Deb Jordan, Sam Spiegel, Megan Sanders, and Stephanie Cutler"
title = "Lessons Learned: Findings from an External Evaluation of a STEM Teaching and Learning Center (Lessons Learned Paper \#2 of 2)"
booktitle = "2022 ASEE Annual Conference \& Exposition"
year = "2022"
month = "August"
address = "Minneapolis, MN"
publisher = "ASEE Conferences"
note = {https://peer.asee.org/41150}
number = {10.18260/1-2--41150}
}

TY  - CPAPER
AB  - This abstract is for a Lessons Learned Paper for the Faculty Development Division. In 2020, a teaching and learning center located in the Western United States hired two consultants to conduct an external evaluation. Our co-authors who conducted the external evaluation have submitted a corresponding abstract for a parallel paper that details the approach taken for the evaluation. While that paper focuses on the methodology and approach, this paper focuses on the following: 1) the rationale for conducting the external evaluation, 2) the justification for allocating budget and resources for the external evaluation, 3) the findings from the external evaluation, 4) the value of the findings for the Center, and 5) the response the Center will make to the findings. 

The primary purpose of the evaluation was to gather perceptions about 1) the perceived roles and responsibilities of the Center, 2) the impact of the Center on the university and teaching, 3) the perceptions of effective teaching, and 4) recommendations for the Center to improve their services. As part of the evaluation, interviews were conducted with three different groups of stakeholders: university’s executive council (n=9), department heads (n=18), and a sample of faculty members (n=20). The findings were presented to the Center team in the form of a report with an executive summary. The evaluation team met with the Center multiple times to discuss the findings and how to utilize the results. 

The different stakeholder groups had varying perspectives. Overall, the executive council interviews provided the most visionary perspective about the Center, speaking to the big picture of the university and how the Center fits within that picture. Faculty provided more specific perspectives focused on the individual classroom. These participants discussed the day-to-day work of teaching and how the Center helps support them. Department heads provided a middle-ground perspective. They hear faculty perspectives and experiences, without having as much day-to-day experience themselves. They are working to provide an overall vision for their department, but don’t seem to have a complete sense of the overall vision for the University or how the Center fits within that. The middle perspective seems to have resulted with the department heads not working as closely with the Center (in many cases) and possessing the most critical perspectives. 

Across all stakeholders groups, there was a large level of appreciation for the Center and the support they provide the university as well as individual faculty. Multiple participants were very positive in their discussions of the Center and very supportive of their efforts, often contextualizing any recommendations with “they already do so much” or “this is getting really nitpicky.” The transition to remote instruction during the COVID-19 pandemic was a specific instance where all levels of stakeholders highlighted how well the Center was able to support the university to create a much smoother transition than expected.  These findings and others are discussed in more detail in the full paper. 
AU  - Sarah Zappe
AU  - Deb Jordan
AU  - Sam Spiegel
AU  - Megan Sanders
AU  - Stephanie Cutler
CY  - Minneapolis, MN
DA  - 2022/08/23
PB  - ASEE Conferences
TI  - Lessons Learned: Findings from an External Evaluation of a STEM Teaching and Learning Center (Lessons Learned Paper #2 of 2)
UR  - https://peer.asee.org/41150
DO  - 10.18260/1-2--41150
ER  -