MSP-PE - Other Partnering Staff

MATH AND SCIENCE PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM EVALUATION (MSP-PE)

INTERVIEW INSTRUMENT FOR SITE VISITS
TO PARTNERSHIPS IN THE MSP PROGRAM
II. Interview with Other Partnering Staff
(Co-Principal Investigators and Partners)

Information from this interview will be retained by the National Science Foundation,
a federal agency, and will be an integral part of its Privacy Act System of Records in
accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974 and maintained in the Education and
Training System of Records 63 Fed. Reg. 264, 272 (January 5, 1998). These are
confidential files accessible only to appropriate National Science Foundation (NSF)
officials, their staffs, and their contractors responsible for monitoring, assessing, and
evaluating NSF programs. Only data in highly aggregated form, or data explicitly
requested as “for general use” will be made available to anyone outside of the
National Science Foundation for research purposes. Data submitted will be used in
accordance with criteria established by NSF for monitoring research and education
grants, and in response to Public Law 99-383 and 42 USC 1885c.
Submission of the requested information is voluntary. The public reporting burden
for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour including the time for
reviewing instructions. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other
aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this
burden, to Suzanne Plimpton, Reports Clearance Officer for OMB Collection 31450200, Facilities and Operations Branch, Division of Administrative Services, National
Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Blvd., Suite 295N, Arlington, VA 22230.

Conducted by:

Conducted for:

COSMOS Corporation
3 Bethesda Metro Center
Suite 700
Bethesda, MD 20814

COSMOS, November 8, 2010

National Science Foundation
4201 Wilson Boulevard
Arlington, VA 22230

C-12

OMB No. 3145-0200
Expiration Date: XX/XX/XX

INTERVIEW INSTRUMENT FOR SITE VISITS
TO PARTNERSHIPS IN THE MSP PROGRAM
II. Interview with Other Partnering Staff
(Co-Principal Investigators and Partners)
1 hour for each Co-PI or Partner
Name and Title of Respondent(s):
Institutional Affiliation:
Date of Interview:
Interviewer:
Hello, my name is ____________, and I work for the MSP-PE project team. We are
carrying out a series of site visits as part of the evaluation of the MSP Program. The evaluation,
like the program, is sponsored by the National Science Foundation (NSF).
My questions will cover the partnership and its activities in math and science education.
Overall, the interview should take no more than 1 hour. The interview will cover the
partnership’s priorities, activities, outcomes, and content. Wherever possible, please note the
timing or dates of the activities. All of your responses will be confidential.

A. PARTNERSHIPS

The first portion of the interview will cover the partnership’s priorities, activities,
outcomes, and content. Wherever possible, please note the timing or dates of the
activities.
1. Shared Partnership Vision and Priorities
a. Partners. Please identify your partnering organization and other partners in this
partnership [note: the interviewee should be a member of an organization other than the lead partner].
Within the partnership, what is (are) the main activity(ies) of your partnering organization? [Obtain any
handout about the organizational titles and persons in the partnering organization.]
b. Creation and Maintenance. To what extent has the partnership created and maintained a
common vision and set of priorities? To what extent, and why, does your partnering organization
understand and maintain the same broad vision and priorities? Can you briefly state the common vision?
What conditions have hindered or helped these processes? [Probe for awareness that a major objective is
to strengthen K-12 student performance, as well as for the partnership to be an R&D project.]
2. Pre-existing Partnerships
a. Identity. What portions, if any, of the partnership had a pre-existing relationship that dealt
with goals similar to those of the current partnership? Likewise, had key partnership leaders from different
institutions previously collaborated? [If none, skip Q.A2b and Q.A2c.]
(Continued)

COSMOS, November 8, 2010

C-13

OMB No. 3145-0200
Expiration Date: XX/XX/XX

II. Interview with Other Partnering Staff (Cont.)
b. Relationship to Partnership Startup and Implementation. Regarding the partnership’s
activity(ies) involving your partnering organization, describe how each pre-existing relationship might
have helped or hindered the startup and implementation of the activity(ies) (e.g., the length of time of the
prior relationship and its possible overlap with the time of the MSP award; sources of funding; activities;
and accomplishments).
c. Relationship to Institutional Change and Sustainability. Indicate how any pre-existing
relationships also may be contributing to institutional change and the sustainability of the present
partnership.

SKIP NEXT QUESTION (Q. A3)
3. Partnership’s Component Activities
a. Multiplicity of Activities. Defining an activity as a separate “project” or “program” with
its own distinct set of goals, resources, and timelines, and possibly locations, describe the array of
activities under the partnership (e.g., some partnerships have “sub”partnerships, which alone would be
considered separate activities).1 Is there only a single project or program, or are there two or more?
[If only one, skip Q.A3b and Q.A3c.]
b. “Project” or “Program” Priorities. What is the relationship, if any, among the multiple
projects or programs, and which have greater staffing or dollar investments?
[Probe for specific funding levels for each project or program within the partnership.]
c. Coordination of “Projects” or “Programs.” How are the multiple projects or programs
coordinated? Will the partnership’s ultimate accomplishments mainly be the sum of their
accomplishments or will they represent some greater whole, and if so, how?
4. Partnership Processes
a. Joint Activities. What kind of partnership activities involving your partnering organization
would have been impossible to carry out without the formal partnership, compared to a single partner
working alone or to more informal arrangements? [Probe for specific examples.]
b. New or Modified Institutional Arrangements. Besides joint activities, has your partnering
organization been associated with new or modified institutional arrangements with the other partners, and
if so, how? [Probe for K-16 vertical integration; cross-campus acceptance of courses for credit, at either
K-12 or undergraduate levels; joint K-16 academic appointments; and mergers or reorganizations of
departments.].
c. Explanation of Partnership Processes. What conditions have facilitated, impeded, or
otherwise influenced the partnership’s progress in pursuing your partnering organization’s activity(ies):
1) the formation and continuing maintenance of the partnership; 2) designing and implementing activities
(projects and programs), such as the recruitment and retention of the IHE faculty or the K-12 teachers
participating in the activities; and 3) striving to achieve the relevant substantive outcomes, such as
increased teacher knowledge or student performance in mathematics and science education?
[Probe for conditions within the partnership, to avoid repeating Q. A5d below.]
d. Leadership. What role does the lead partnering organization play in relation to your
organization, and how has this relationship worked?
(Continued)
1

The objective is not to list all of a partnership’s sponsored events (e.g., individual workshops) but to
understand how these events might be clustered under a coherent activity or “project” or “program” (e.g.,
summer institutes). Typical activities would therefore include a professional development institute or degree
program (preservice or inservice), a project to review and modify a district’s curriculum standards, internship
programs for K-12 teachers or students, a program to make subgrants to schools or districts for self-proposed
activities, or a program to encourage university-based research on mathematics or science education.
COSMOS, November 8, 2010

C-14

OMB No. 3145-0200
Expiration Date: XX/XX/XX

II. Interview with Other Partnering Staff (Cont.)

5. Community and Other Contextual Conditions
a. Community Support. In carrying out your partnering organization’s activity(ies), how has
the partnership engaged the local community (e.g., businesses, residents, and community organizations) in
supporting its vision and priorities?
b. Related STEM Activities with Other External Support. In what ways does (do) the
activity(ies) include or overlap with related STEM activities supported by other external sources (e.g.,
other NSF awards, ED-MSP awards, or foundation awards)? If related STEM activities exist, what is their
relationship, and how does coordination take place?
c. Family and Parental Involvement. What role does family and parental involvement play
in the activity(ies)? How has such involvement been encouraged?
d. External Policy and Other Conditions Relevant to the Partnership. How, if at all, have
external policies or other conditions influenced the activity(ies)?
[Probe for:
1) community conditions (e.g., population shifts affecting student enrollment; IHE or K-12
labor relations; fiscal conditions; and community economic conditions);
2) state and local education conditions (e.g., state standards and policies such as
curriculum, assessment, graduation, or re-certification policies; state or local court
rulings; the role of state or local school board or elected officials; changes in local
practices or policies such as new class-size restrictions; and changes in IHE
requirements or practices; and
3) federal education conditions (e.g., conflicts and complementarities related to the No
Child Left Behind Act of 2001); and
4) K-12 student conditions (e.g., continuation or influx of racial, ethnic, or ELL students.)]

SKIP SECTIONS B, C, D, AND E IN THEIR ENTIRETY
F. EXPLANATIONS REGARDING THE PARTNERSHIP’S WORK

Without repeating your earlier responses (see Qs.A4c and A4d), I would like to get
a fuller and broader view of the workings of the partnership.
1. Building and Maintaining a Math and Science Partnership
a. Influential Conditions. How would you best describe the conditions that have most
influenced the running of the partnership and its ability to support high-quality math and science education
activities? [Probe for internal and external conditions.]
b. Other Implementation Conditions. What kinds of conditions would make it easier or
harder for the partners to work together and for the implementation of its activities?
2. Rival Explanations
a. Prior Relationships. To what extent did the partnership start afresh, compared to having
had collaborative relationships between key individuals or organizations that predated the start of the MSP
award?
b. Non-MSP Relationships. To what extent have non-MSP conditions (e.g., new district,
university, state, or federal education policies) been a driving force in promoting the partnership and its
activities?
COSMOS, November 8, 2010

C-15

OMB No. 3145-0200
Expiration Date: XX/XX/XX