Archives for January 2025

Mr. David Hamilton, Cumberland Gap High School Principal, Named Field Award Recipient

January 30, 2025 by Jonah Hall

Mr. David Hamilton, Cumberland Gap High School Principal, Named Field Award Recipient

Press Announcement – for Immediate Release

Mr. David Hamilton, Principal at Cumberland Gap High School in the Claiborne County School District, has been named as recipient of William J. and Lucille H. Field Award for Excellence in Secondary Principalship for the State of Tennessee.

The Field Award was established to recognize one outstanding secondary school leader each year who demonstrates leadership excellence through commitment to the values of civility, candor, courage, social justice, responsibility, compassion, community, persistence, service, and excellence. Administered by the Department of Educational Leadership & Policy Studies in the College of Education, Health, and Human Sciences at the University of Tennessee, the Field Award identifies a Tennessee secondary school principal whose life and work are characterized by leadership excellence and encourages secondary school principals to pause and reflect upon their current leadership practice and to consider their experience, challenges, and opportunities in light of the personal values that they embody.

The Field Award recipient for this year is Mr. David Hamilton, Principal at Cumberland Gap High School (CGHS) in the Claiborne County School District. Mr. Hamilton has served as the principal of CGHS since 2019, and served as the school’s assistant principal from 2003-2018. During that time, he developed and implemented a program that significantly improved student transition and retention, organized initiatives that paired students and community mentors, spearheaded fundraising efforts that raised over $20,000 for student resources and facility upgrades, and established a year-round food and hygiene pantry that ensures students have access to essential resources. Mr. Hamilton served as a high school health and physical education teacher in the Claiborne County School District from 1999-2003 and coached high school baseball teams between 2003-2006, and again between 2015-2018. Mr. Hamilton holds a Bachelor of Science degree in Health and Physical Education, and Masters of Arts and Educational Specialist degrees in Educational Administration and Supervision, all from Lincoln Memorial University. The department of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville is proud to name Mr. David Hamilton as this year’s Field Award Winner. Congratulations, Mr. Hamilton!

Grant Writing in Evaluation

January 15, 2025 by Jonah Hall

Grant Writing in Evaluation

By Jessica Osborne, Ph.D.

Jessica is the Principal Evaluation Associate for the Higher Education Portfolio at The Center for Research Evaluation at the University of Mississippi. She earned a PhD in Evaluation, Statistics, and Measurement from the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, an MFA in Creative Writing from the University of North Carolina, Greensboro, and a BA in English from Elon University. Her main areas of research and evaluation are undergraduate and graduate student success, higher education systems, needs assessments, and intrinsic motivation. She lives in Knoxville, TN with her husband, two kids, and three (yes, three…) cats.

I’ve always been a writer. Recently, my mother gave (returned to) me a small notebook within which I was delighted to find the first short story I ever wrote. In blocky handwriting with many misspelled words, I found a dramatic story of dragons, witches, and wraiths, all outsmarted by a small but clever eight-year-old. The content of my writing has changed since then, but many of the rules and best practices remain the same. In this blog, I’ll highlight best practices in grant writing for evaluation, including how to read and respond to a solicitation, how to determine what information to include, and how to write clearly and professionally for an evaluation audience.

As an evaluator, you can expect to respond to proposals in many different fields or content areas: primary, secondary, and post-secondary education, health, public health, arts, and community engagement, just to name a few. The first step in any of these scenarios is to closely and carefully read the solicitation to ensure you have a deep understanding of project components, requirements, logistics, timeline, and, of course, budget. I recommend a close reading approach that includes underlining and / or highlighting the RFP text and taking notes on key elements to include in your proposal. Specifically, pay attention to the relationship between the evaluation scope and budget and the contexts and relationships between key stakeholders. In reviewing these elements and determining if and how to respond, make sure you see alignment between what the project seeks to achieve and your (or your team’s) ability to meet project goals. Also, be sure to read up on the funder (if you are not already familiar) to get a sense of their overarching mission, vision, and goals. Instances when you may not want to pursue funding include a lack of alignment between the project scope / budget and your team’s capacity or conflicts between you and the funder’s ethics, legal requirements, or overarching vision and mission.

Grant writing in evaluation typically takes two forms: responding as a prime (or solo) author to a request for proposal (RFP) or writing a portion of the proposal as a grant subrecipient. The best practices mentioned here are relevant for either of these cases; however, if working on a team as a subrecipient, you’ll also want to match your writing tone and style to the other authors.

When responding to an RFP, your content should evidence that you know and understand:

the funder – who they are; why they exist;

the funder’s needs – what they are trying to accomplish; what they need to achieve project goals;

and most importantly, that you are the right person to meet their needs and help them achieve their goals.

For example, if you are responding to a National Science Foundation (NSF) solicitation, you will want to evidence broader impacts and meticulously detail your research-based methods (they are scientists who want to improve societal outcomes), how your project fits the scope and aims of the solicitation (the goals for most NSF solicitations are specific – be sure you understand what the individual program aims to achieve), and the background and experience for all key personnel (to evidence that you and your team can meet solicitation goals).

When considering content, be sure to include all required elements listed in the solicitation (I recommend double and triple checking!). If requirements are limited or not provided, at minimum be sure to include:

an introduction highlighting your strengths as an evaluator and how those strengths match the funder’s and / or program’s needs

a project summary and description detailing your recommended evaluation questions, program logic model, evaluation plan, timeline, approach, and methods

figures and tables that clearly and succinctly illustrate key evaluation elements

When considering writing style and tone, stick to the three C’s:

clear

concise

consistent

To achieve the three C’s, use active voice, relatively simple sentence structure, and plain language. Syntactical acrobatics containing opaque literary devices tend to obfuscate comprehension, and, while tempting to construct, have no place in evaluation writing. Also, please remember that the best writing is rewriting. Expect and plan for multiple rounds of revision and ask a colleague or team member to revise and edit your work as well.

And finally, a word on receiving feedback: in the world of evaluation grant writing, much like the world of academic publications, you will receive many more no’s than yes’s. That’s fine. That’s to be expected. When you receive a no, look at the feedback with an eye for improvement – make revisions based on constructive feedback and let go of any criticisms that are not helpful. When you receive a yes, celebrate, and then get ready for the real work to begin!

Kelchen Recognized By Education Week As Top Scholar Influencer

January 9, 2025 by Jonah Hall

Kelchen Recognized By Education Week As Top Scholar Influencer

Courtesy of the College of Education, Health, & Human Sciences

When a reporter seeks expert insight into higher education issues, it’s very likely that Robert Kelchen is at the top of their call list. Over the years, Kelchen continues to receive accolades from Education W eek as a top influencer who shape educational practice and policy. This year is no different as Kelchen is once again recognized as a Top 200 education scholar at a United States university.

Kelchen, who serves as department head in Educational Leadership and Policy Studies in the College of Education, Health, and Human Sciences at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, ranked 31 out of 200 scholars nationwide in Education Week’s Edu-Scholar Public Influence Rankings for 2025. In fact, Kelchen is the only scholar from the University of Tennessee to make this year’s list.

“In a time of declining trust in higher education, I feel that it is crucial for faculty to demonstrate how our work benefits the public good,” said Kelchen.

Each year, Education Week selects the top 200 scholars from across the U.S. (from an eligible pool of 20,000) as having the most influence on issues and policy in education. The list is compiled by opinion columnist Rick Hess, resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and director of Education Policy Studies.

The selection process involves a rigorous evaluation by a 24-member committee of university scholars representing institutions nationwide. Criteria include Google Scholar scores, book publications, Amazon rankings, mentions in the Congressional Record, and appearances in media and web platforms.

Kelchen’s reputation as a reliable and insightful source for higher education stories is well-earned. He has participated in more than 200 media interviews annually, with his expertise regularly featured in outlets such as The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, Education Week, and The Chronicle of Higher Education.

“It is a pleasure to use my scholarly expertise to help inform policy conversations and the general public on pressing issues such as college affordability, financial aid, and college closures,” said Kelchen.

Through its seven departments and 13 centers, the UT Knoxville College of Education, Health, and Human Sciences enhances the quality of life for all through research, outreach, and practice. Find out more at cehhs.utk.edu

Finding Fit: A Statistical Journey

January 2, 2025 by Jonah Hall

Finding Fit: A Statistical Journey

By: Sara Hall

As a graduate student in Evaluation, Statistics, and Measurement, I’ve learned a thing or two about fit. Not just in terms of statistical models, but in my own academic journey and beyond. Life is kind of like running one big regression on your choices – sometimes, the model explains everything and other times is all error terms and cold coffee. Somewhere in between lies the essence of goodness of fit. In this blog post I will take you through my experience of finding the right graduate program, using some statistical concepts to illustrate my process.

The Initial Model: Leadership & Decision-Making

Two years ago, I began my graduate studies in a Leadership and Decision-making program. I had been out of the academy for 10 years. I had a successful career in sales, children old enough to reach the microwave, and a supportive group of friends that could help with childcare as well as navigating graduate school. A good friend and former colleague was teaching quantitative and qualitative analysis and methodology in a Leadership program. He encouraged me to apply with the promise that we would be working together again, and I could pursue my research interests with his support. For as long as I can remember, I have wanted to teach and do research. The timing was perfect, and this seemed like the best opportunity as a non-traditional student to at least get a PhD to teach and do research, even if not exactly in my field of interest. Two things are relevant to note:

My research and career goals do not include a focus on leadership and decision-making.
My friend accepted a position (a much better fitting one, see what I did there?) at a different university a week before classes started.

In statistics, we often talk about “goodness of fit” – how well a model describes a set of observations. My program choice was a model that looked great on the spreadsheet but failed to capture the nuances of my data, in this case, my interests and career goals. I was dealing with a poor model fit. The residuals – the differences between what I expected and what I experienced, only grew larger as the months turned into years. I was determined to see through and complete my degree, but my frustration was palpable. I was trying to fit a curvilinear model to a linear relationship. My R-squared value was disappointingly low.

Example of Poor Goodness of Fit

Notice in this exaggerated example, a curve is inappropriately used to fit a clearly linear data pattern. The strong positive linear pattern of the data points suggests that as program value increases goal opportunity also increases. The fitted curve completely misses the underlying pattern, indicating poor model fit. The R-squared value indicates the model explains none of the variance and performs about 33 times worse than if the prediction was simply based on the mean.

Reassessing the Model: Searching for a Better Fit

Just as we refine our statistical models when they fail to adequately explain our data, I concluded I needed to reassess my academic path. The final straw was being told that theory was less important than application while I was working feverishly to map a theory of identity deconstruction that could be generalized to various populations for use in clinical settings. As atheoretical methodologist who values the balance of theory and action, it was a kick in the gut. Turns out it was just what I needed. I began talking to friends whose interests aligned with mine, reaching out to professors and mentors for advice, and really challenging myself to think through what I wanted to do with my scholarly pursuits and the potential consequences of leaving my current program. From there I began looking at different programs and creating my own information criteria (I heart Bayes!). In the same way residuals reflect the gap between outcomes and predictions, or expectations and experiences in my case, I wanted to minimize the residuals in my decision-making by selecting a program the most closely aligned with my personal and professional aspirations. I developed a framework, inspired by statistical concepts like Bayesian information criteria, to create four dimensions of alignment that were of critical importance to my decision to change programs (research, faculty, career, academic). I then used this information set to evaluate and compare the different programs based on how well they matched my interests, goals, and priorities. In this context, I viewed each program as a distinct model where specification defined how the four dimensions of alignment (research, faculty, career, and academic priorities) interact and contribute to program fit.

Here is a link to a tutorial providing the steps necessary to run Bayesian goodness-of-fit testing for regression models using R developed by Andres F. Barrientos and Antonio Canale.

The New Model: Evaluation, Statistics, & Measurement (ESM)

The ESM program immediately stood out to me. The classes were intriguing, the faculty profiles contained research focuses I wanted to explore, and the career options were many I could see myself enjoying. Specifically, the focus on creating applied learning experiences grounded in atheoretical foundation aligned well with my personal approach to both teaching and learning. I met with faculty who echoed my values while also piquing my curiosity for subject matter I had not previously considered exploring. I wanted to learn from them and I felt I could contribute positively to the program. After careful consideration, I chose to make the switch to ESM. The difference was immediately apparent – it was like finding a model with an excellent fit! I had a well-specified model, capturing the complexity of my academic aspirations without over or under fitting. The residuals between my expectations and experiences shrunk. The Radar Chart to the right compares the two programs across five dimensions of important considerations when choosing a Graduate program. The Evaluation program consistently scores higher across all dimensions, indicating better alignment with the important considerations than the Leadership program.

The Importance of Fit

Good statistical models strike a balance between simplicity and explanatory power. ESM provided the right balance of theory and application for me. Finding the right graduate program is a lot like fitting a statistical model. Graduate school is a continuous process of adaptation requiring careful analysis and sometimes, a willingness to start over. Changing programs can be a hard decision but we shouldn’t force ourselves to fit into programs that don’t align with our goals and expectations for our educational experience. My journey to ESM is a reminder that it is okay to reassess, to look for a better fit, and to make changes. Both life and regression analysis are iterative processes in which goodness of fit can influence the predicted outcomes. It is important to reflect on our experiences and take action when adjustments need to be considered. I encourage you to reflection how you define success in your graduate journey and ask, does your current path align with that definition? To hold yourself accountable try setting specific goals at the start of each semester and revisit them mid-way through to make modifications if necessary. In both statistics and graduate school, the end game is not just to find any fit, but to find the best fit. When you do, the adjusted R-squared of your experience will be higher and so will your confidence in achieving your vision of your future.

Whether you are just starting to consider graduate school, evaluating your goodness of fit in a current program, or just wanting to reflect, this YouTube video, Picking the Graduate Program that is Perfect for You, by Dr. Sharon Milgram is full of helpful advice and considerations.

About the Author

I am a current graduate student in the ESM program. My research interests include identity deconstruction and evaluating the use of AI in higher education. I love all things methodology and have passion for factor analysis.