Outreach & Engagement Measurement Instrument (OEMI): 2011 Administration
Outreach and Engagement Measurement Instrument
2011 Administration
Report
April 2012
TTU Office of Planning and Assessment
Page 1 of 57
Outreach & Engagement Measurement Instrument (OEMI): 2011 Administration
Contents
Executive Summary....................................................................................................................................... 3
History of OEMI ............................................................................................................................................. 5
Methodology and Sample ............................................................................................................................. 5
Results ........................................................................................................................................................... 7
Area of Concern ........................................................................................................................................ 7
Form of Outreach and Engagement.......................................................................................................... 7
Concerns Addressed ................................................................................................................................. 8
Type of Initiative ....................................................................................................................................... 9
Project Duration ........................................................................................................................................ 9
Project Service Area ................................................................................................................................ 11
Project Revenue and Funding ................................................................................................................. 14
Project Participants and Partners ........................................................................................................... 16
Project Assessment ................................................................................................................................. 18
Project Outcomes ................................................................................................................................... 19
Survey Feedback ..................................................................................................................................... 21
Example Outreach & Engagement Projects ................................................................................................ 21
1. Proactive Recruitment in Introductory Science and Math (PRISM)................................................... 21
2. Girl University..................................................................................................................................... 22
3. Texas Alliance for Water Conservation (TAWC)................................................................................. 22
4. MOU with the Rehabilitation Council of India (RCI) .......................................................................... 22
5. Art Outreach to the Lubbock County Detention Center .................................................................... 22
Conclusions ................................................................................................................................................. 23
Limitations .............................................................................................................................................. 24
Appendix ..................................................................................................................................................... 25
Appendix A: Screenshots of Invitation and Survey ................................................................................. 25
Appendix B: O&E Projects by Geographical Location ............................................................................. 44
Appendix C: Open-ended Responses not Summarized in this Report.................................................... 46
TTU Office of Planning and Assessment
Page 2 of 57
Outreach & Engagement Measurement Instrument (OEMI): 2011 Administration
Executive Summary
The Outreach and Engagement Instrument (OEMI) is an online survey developed by Michigan State
University in 2003 for the purpose of increasing public understanding of a university’s outreach and
engagement efforts. This 2011 report summarizes the responses received from the TTU community.
925 TTU faculty and staff responded to the OEMI (31.1% response rate). 247 reported that they did
participate in outreach and engagement (O&E) activity FY2011. These 247 respondents reported on 389
unduplicated O&E projects. The university divisions with the most survey respondents reporting O&E
projects were the College of Arts and Sciences (53 respondents) and the College of Visual and
Performing Arts (32 respondents). The university divisions with the most reported projects were the
College of Arts and Sciences (59 projects), the Office of Institutional Diversity (51 projects), and the
College of Visual and Performing Arts (46 projects).
The survey results suggest the following about the following attributes of the reported O&E activity:
Area of Concern: the most commonly reported areas of concern addressed were “Education, PreKindergarten through 12th Grade” (26.2% of projects) and “Cultural Institutions and Programs”
(18.4% of projects).
Form of Outreach and Engagement: the most commonly reported forms of outreach were
“Engaged Research and Creative Activity” (25.4% of projects).
Other Concerns Addressed: almost half of the projects were reported to be designed to promot
diversity (48.4%). Fewer projects were reported to be focused significantly on international
development and udnerstanding (17.4%), to be primarily focused on urban issues (16.7%), and to be
primariliy focused on rural issues (17.4%).
Type of Initiative: most of the projects were reported as individual initiatives (44.3%), followed by
institutional initiatives (37.0%) and multi-institutional initiatives (18.7%).
Project Duration: the majority of projects were reported as beginning in the past 6 years (2006 –
2011; 63.2%). The majority of projects were reported as ending or expecting to end before 2015
(63.3%). Most projects were reported to be an ongoing activity (42.2%), followed by multi-year
project (29.0%) and one-time activity (28.8%).
Project Service Area: projects were reported to have an impact on geographic areas throughout
Texas, the U.S., and the World. Most of the projects that were reported for a specific county or
counties in Texas were reported for Lubbock and its surrounding counties. Most of the projects that
were reported for a specific State or States in the U.S. were reported for States in the southern
regions of the United States. Most of the projects that were reported for a specific country or
countries in the world were reported for countries in North American and Western Europe.
Project Revenue and Funding: the respondents reported revenue values as low as $450 and as high
as $6.2 million, and all the reported revenue values sum to about $35.2 million. Given the skew in
the data, the median of $28,352 is probably the best representation of the amount of revenue
generated for TTU that could be expected from the average O&E project. Most of the reported
funding was provided by “Federal Agencies” (total of $31,818,778), followed by “State Agencies”
TTU Office of Planning and Assessment
Page 3 of 57
Outreach & Engagement Measurement Instrument (OEMI): 2011 Administration
(total of $10,656,136). The most often reported source of funding was “Internal University” (45
projects), followed by “Other” (30 projects) and “Federal Agencies” (27 projects).
Project Participants and Partners: the most represented category of people involved in the
reported O&E activity was K-12 students (142,503 participants). The highest average number of
hours per person for FY2011 was reported for other 4-year institution students (average of 231
hours) and TTU staff (average of 187 hours). The most commonly reported external collaborator
role was “assisted in the planning and management” (35.0%). In 39 open-ended responses about
other collaborator roles, the most common types of other roles described were financial sponsors or
funding sources (9 projects) and event volunteers (7 projects).
Project Assessment: just under half (46.1%) of the projects were reported to have no formal
assessment. For the projects reporting a type of formal assessment, formative assessment (30.1%)
was more common than summative assessment (22.8%). In 45 open-ended responses about other
types of assessment, the most common types of assessment described were surveys or evaluations
(8 projects) and specific products created or outcomes met (7 projects). In 62 open-ended
responses given further description of any formal assessment, the most common types of formal
assessment described included reports or publications (14 projects) and participant examinations or
evaluations (10 projects).
Project Outcomes: in 368 open-ended responses describing the O&E projects’ outcomes, the most
common type of outcome description included some form of education (211 projects; e.g., direct
education of students, education of teachers or professionals, informing K-12 students about TTU
and other sources of higher education), followed by community service (68 projects; e.g., providing
resources or services for certain groups), advancing knowledge (52 projects; e.g., publication or
other form of disseminating research), business or private organizations (23 projects; e.g., providing
resources or services for a particular business or private organization), and government or public
administration (20 projects; e.g., improving administration processes at TTU or for other
government supported organization or agencies). When asked about any forms of intellectual
property created by the O&E project, almost half of the projects (43.3%) reported no form of
intellectual property created. The most commonly reported form of intellectual property was
presentations (31.9%). In 166 open-ended responses describing any scholarly impact of the project,
the most commonly reported areas of scholarly impact was teaching (85 projects), followed by an
impact on the respondent’s personal knowledge or skills (39 projects) and research (36 projects).
Survey Feedback: in 49 responses about the OEMI survey, the comments suggest that several
respondents fee like the survey is too long and that a lot of the questions do not fit the O&E projects
or activities that they were reporting. These responses seemed to relate to some other responses
suggesting that the respondents, as well as other TTU faculty and staff, did not report all of their
O&E projects or activities.
TTU Office of Planning and Assessment
Page 4 of 57
Outreach & Engagement Measurement Instrument (OEMI): 2011 Administration
History of OEMI
The Outreach and Engagement Measurement Instrument (OEMI) is an online survey developed by
Michigan State University (MSU). It captures both quantitative and qualitative data about outreach and
engagement activities, defined as “professional activities conducted for the direct benefits of audiences
external to [the respondent’s] institution” (OEMI Instrument). The OEMI was first used at MSU in 2004
and has been administered there every year since. Other universities that have used or adapted the
instrument are the Tennessee System, the University of Kentucky, the American Association of Colleges
of Pharmacy, and Kansas State University.
Methodology and Sample
In December 2011 a letter by TTU Provost, Robert Smith, was sent out via e-mail to a total of 2,971 TTU
faculty and staff members asking for their participation in the OEMI online survey. The letter sought
input from individuals regardless of whether they were currently actively involved in outreach and
engagement efforts or not. The letter provided a link to the online survey instrument. Additional
reminders about the survey went out in December 2011. A copy of the invitation and survey can be
found in Appendix A. The online survey instrument was closed in January 2012. Data received from
TTU respondents were aggregated and analyzed during the months of February and March.
925 TTU faculty and staff responded to the OEMI (31.1% response rate). Of the 925 respondents, 247
reported that they did participate in outreach and engagement (O&E) activity during the period from
September 1, 2010 to August 31, 2011 (FY2011), and 678 reported that they did NOT participate in any
O&E activity during FY2011. The 247 respondents that did participate in O&E reported on 391 O&E
projects. Two of these projects were found to be reported by two respondents, so these responses
were combined with the duplicate responses for a final total of 389 O&E projects. Table 1, Respondents
and Projects by Division, shows the number of respondents reporting any O&E activity and the number
of O&E projects reported by each TTU college, school, or administrative unit.
TTU Office of Planning and Assessment
Page 5 of 57
Outreach & Engagement Measurement Instrument (OEMI): 2011 Administration
Table 1: Respondents and Projects by Division
Division
Respondents
Projects
Academic Affairs
Administration & Finance Auxiliary Services
Athletic Director
College of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources
College of Architecture
College of Arts and Sciences
College of Education
College of Engineering
College of Human Sciences
College of Mass Communications
College of Visual and Performing Arts
Compliance
Economic Development
Honors College
Information Technology and CIO
International Affairs
Legal Council
Multidisciplinary Research Centers and Institutes
Museum and Heritage
Office of Institutional Diversity
Operations
Provost and SVP Academic Affairs
Rawls College of Business
Research
Research Services
School of Law
Senior Associate VP Enrollment Management
Student Affairs
University College
3
6
2
18
6
53
13
14
19
3
32
1
5
2
3
5
1
1
7
14
1
9
9
1
1
5
1
4
8
3
15
2
23
9
59
21
21
23
5
46
1
5
2
4
10
1
1
21
51
1
13
13
1
1
10
1
5
21
TOTAL
247
389
The divisions with the most survey respondents were the College of Arts and Sciences (53 respondents)
and the College of Visual and Performing Arts (32 respondents). The divisions with the most reported
projects were the College of Arts and Sciences (59 projects), the Office of Institutional Diversity (51
projects), and the College of Visual and Performing Arts (46 projects).
TTU Office of Planning and Assessment
Page 6 of 57
Outreach & Engagement Measurement Instrument (OEMI): 2011 Administration
Results
Area of Concern
For each reported O&E project, respondents were asked to select the area of concern that most closely
relates to their project or activity. Figure 1, Projects by Area of Concern, shows the percentage of
projects that was reported as relating to each of the listed areas of concern.
Projects by Area of Concern
Business and Economic Development
7.0%
Cultural Institutions and Programs
18.4%
Children, Youth, And Family (Non-School Related)
7.3%
Area of Concern
Community Development
8.0%
Education, Pre-Kindergarten through 12th Grade
26.2%
Food, Fiber Production, and Safety
1.3%
Governance and Public Policy
3.1%
Health and Health Care
Labor Relations, Training, and Workplace Safety
2.6%
0.5%
Natural Resources, Land Use, and Environment
Public Safety, Security, and Corrections
2.6%
1.6%
Public Understanding and Adult Learning
9.1%
Science and Technology
0.0%
12.4%
5.0%
10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0%
Percent of Reported Projects
Figure 1: Projects by Area of Concern (n=386)
As shown in Figure 1, “Education, Pre-Kindergarten through 12th Grade” (26.2%) and “Cultural
Institutions and Programs” (18.4%) were the most commonly reported areas of concern addressed by
the reported O&E projects. “Food, Fiber Production, and Safety” (1.3%) and “Labor Relations, Training,
and Workplace Safety” (0.5%) were the least commonly reported areas of concerns addressed by the
reported O&E projects.
Form of Outreach and Engagement
For each reported O&E project, respondents were also asked to select the form of outreach most
appropriate to their project or activity. Figure 2, Projects by Form of Outreach, shows the percentage of
projects that was reported for each of the listed forms of outreach.
TTU Office of Planning and Assessment
Page 7 of 57
Outreach & Engagement Measurement Instrument (OEMI): 2011 Administration
Projects by Form of Outreach
Form of Outreach
Engaged Research and Creative Activity
25.4%
Technical or Expert Assistance
12.7%
Engaged Instruction: Credit Courses and Programs
5.2%
Engaged Instruction: Non-credit Classes and…
16.6%
Engaged Instruction: Public Events and…
15.8%
Service Learning
7.5%
Service on Boards, Committees, and Commissions
Clinical Service
0.0%
15.8%
1.0%
5.0%
10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0%
Percent of Reported Projects
Figure 2: Projects by Form of Outreach (n=386)
As shown in Figure 2, “Engaged Research and Creative Activity” (25.4%) was the most commonly
reported form of outreach for the reported O&E projects. “Clinical Services” (1.0%) was the least
commonly reported form of outreach for the reported O&E projects.
Concerns Addressed
For each reported O&E project, respondents were also asked ”Did it focus significantly on international
development and understanding?”, “Did it primarily focus on urban issues?”, “Did it primarily focus on
rural issues?”, and “Was it designed to promote diversity?” Figure 3, Projects by Concerns Addressed,
shows the percentage of projects for which “yes” was selected for each of these questions.
Concerns Addressed
Projects by Concerns Addressed
Focused significantly on international
development and understanding
17.4%
Primarily focused on urban issues
16.7%
Primarily focused on rural issues
17.4%
Designed to promote diversity
0.0%
48.4%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
Percent of Projects
Figure 3: Projects by Concerns Addressed (n=386)
As shown in Figure 3, almost half of the projects were reported to be designed to promot diversity
(48.4%). Fewer projects were reported to be focused significantly on international development and
udnerstanding (17.4%), to be primarily focused on urban issues (16.7%), and to be primariliy focused on
rural issues (17.4%).
TTU Office of Planning and Assessment
Page 8 of 57
Outreach & Engagement Measurement Instrument (OEMI): 2011 Administration
Type of Initiative
Respondents were asked if each reported project represents an individual initiative (“not dependent on
any program, department, college, or university support beyond base salary”), an institutional initiative
(“a department, program, college, or the university has assumed ownership and has committed
sponsorship or support”), or a multi-indtitutional initiative (“initiative led by multiple institutions”).
Figure 4, Projects by Type of Initiative, shows the percentage of projects that was reported for each type
of initiative.
Type of Initiative
Projects by Type of Initiative
Individual Initiative
44.3%
Institutional Initiative
37.0%
Multi-Institutional Initiative
0.0%
18.7%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
Percent of Projects
Figure 4: Projects by Type of Initiative (n=386)
As shown in Figure 4, most of the projects were reported as individual initiatives (44.3%), followed by
institutional initiatives (37.0%) and multi-institutional initiatives (18.7%).
Project Duration
Three questions asked respondents about the duration of each reported project: “If the project or
activity began prior to the reporting period of 9/1/10 – 8/31/11, in what year did it begin?”, “In what
year did the project end or do you expect it to end?”, and “What was the length of this project or
activity?” Figure 5, Projects by Begin Year; Figure 6, Projects by End Year; and Figure 7, Projects by
Length of Project, summarize the responses for these questions.
As shown in Figure 5, the majority of projects were reported as beginning in the past 6 years (2006 –
2011; 63.2%). Note that this question was only answered for 234 projects. Given the wording of the
question (“If the project or activity began prior to the reporting period of 9/1/10 – 8/31/11, in what year
did it begin?”) we can assume that most of the projects that do not have a beginning year reported also
began in the past 6 years. As shown in Figure 6, the majority of projects were reported as ending or
expecting to end before 2015 (63.3%). As shown in Figure 7, most projects were reported to be an
ongoing activity (42.2%), followed by multi-year project (29.0%) and one-time activity (28.8%). Overall it
appears that most of the reported O&E projects could be described as an ongoing or multi-year project
that has begun within the last 6 years and that has ended or is expected to end within the next 4 years.
TTU Office of Planning and Assessment
Page 9 of 57
Outreach & Engagement Measurement Instrument (OEMI): 2011 Administration
Projects by Begin Year
2006 - 2011
63.2%
Begin Year
2001 - 2005
15.4%
1996 - 2000
8.1%
1991 - 1995
5.1%
1981 - 1990
5.1%
1971 - 1980
1.3%
1951 - 1970
0.9%
1931 - 1950
0.9%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
Percent of Projects
Figure 5: Projects by Begin Year (n=234)
Projects by End Year
2010 - 2015
63.3%
End Year
2016 - 2020
22.3%
2021 - 2030
2031 - 2040
4.8%
0.0%
2041 - 2050
5.1%
after 2050
4.5%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
Percent of Projects
Figure 6: Projects by End Year (n=376)
Length of Project
Projects by Length of Project
Multi-year Project
28.8%
One-time Activity
29.0%
Ongoing Activity
0.0%
42.2%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
Percent of Projects
Figure 7: Projects by Length of Project (n=386)
TTU Office of Planning and Assessment
Page 10 of 57
40.0%
50.0%
70.0%
Outreach & Engagement Measurement Instrument (OEMI): 2011 Administration
Project Service Area
Three questions asked respondents if their activity was developed with or for institutions and individuals
in particular geographic areas. Specifically, the questions asked respondents to identify the Texas
counties, the U.S. States other than Texas, and the countries other than the U.S. that were impacted by
their O&E project. Figure 8, Number of Projects by Texas Counties; Figure 9, Number of Projects by U.S.
States other than Texas; and Figure 10, Number of Projects by Countries other than the U.S., give a
summary of responses to these questions.
Figure 8: Number of Projects by Texas Counties (n=386)
As shown in Figure 8, most of the projects that were reported for a specific county or counties were
reported for Lubbock and its surrounding counties. It also appears that projects were reported for
specific counties throughout the State. Note that there were an additional 68 projects that were
reported to have an impact on all counties in Texas. See Appendix B for a table summarizing the
number of projects reported for each county in Texas.
TTU Office of Planning and Assessment
Page 11 of 57
Outreach & Engagement Measurement Instrument (OEMI): 2011 Administration
Figure 9: Number of Projects by U.S. States other than Texas (n=386)
As shown in Figure 9, most of the projects that were reported for a specific State or States were
reported for States in the southern regions of the United States. It also appears that projects were
reported for specific States throughout the country. Note that there were an additional 44 projects that
were reported to have an impact on all States in the United States. See Appendix B for a table
summarizing the number of projects reported for each U.S. State.
TTU Office of Planning and Assessment
Page 12 of 57
Outreach & Engagement Measurement Instrument (OEMI): 2011 Administration
Figure 10: Number of Projects by Countries other than the U.S. (n=386)
As shown in Figure 10, most of the projects that were reported for a specific country or countries were
reported for countries in North American and Western Europe. It also appears that projects were
reported for specific countries throughout the world. Note that there were an additional 12 projects
that were reported to have an impact on all countries in the world. See Appendix B for a table
summarizing the number of projects reported for each country.
TTU Office of Planning and Assessment
Page 13 of 57
Outreach & Engagement Measurement Instrument (OEMI): 2011 Administration
Project Revenue and Funding
The first question about project revenue and funding asked respondents for the total revenue generated
for the university by their project. Table 2, Summary Statistics of Revenue Generated for TTU, and Figure
11, Projects by Revenue Generated for TTU, give a summary of the responses to this question.
Table 2: Summary Statistics of Revenue Generated for TTU (n=386)
Number of Projects Reporting Revenue
85
Sum of Reported Revenue
$35,157,605
Mean of Reported Revenue
$413,619
Standard Deviation of Reported Revenue
$1,109,238
Minimum Reported Revenue
$450
Median Reported Revenue
$28,352
Maximum Reported Revenue
$6,200,000
Reported Revenue Generated for TTU
Projects by Revenue Generated for TTU
$1 - $1,000
$1,001 - $5,000
$5,001 - $10,000
$10,001 - $20,000
$20,001 - $30,000
$30,001 - $40,000
$40,001 - $50,000
$50,001 - $100,000
$100,001 - $200,000
$200,001 - $300,000
$300,001 - $400,000
$400,001 - $500,000
$500,001 - $1,000,000
more than $1,000,000
6
15
3
8
18
1
3
5
10
2
1
0
3
10
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
Number of Projects
Figure 11: Projects by Revenue Generated for TTU (n=85)
As shown in Table 2 and Figure 11, the respondents reported revenue values as low as $450 and as high
as $6.2 million, and all the reported revenue values sum to about $35.2 million. Half of the reported
revenues values were less than $30,000. Given the skew in the data, the median of $28,352 is probably
the best representation of the amount of revenue generated for TTU that could be expected from the
average O&E project.
TTU Office of Planning and Assessment
Page 14 of 57
Outreach & Engagement Measurement Instrument (OEMI): 2011 Administration
Following this question about revenue, respondents were asked to classify the sources of funding for
their project or activity. Table 3, Summary Statistics for Sources of Funding, and Figure 12, Total
Reported Funding by Source, summarize these responses.
Table 3: Summary Statistics by Source of Funding (n=386)
Source of Funding
n
Sum
Mean
St Dev
Min
Median
Max
Internal University
45
$3,015,620
$67,014
$330,990
$100
$3,500
$2,200,000
Private Industry
19
$3,249,400
$171,021
$361,437
$200
$24,000
$1,300,000
Private foundations
24
$565,619
$23,567
$25,679
$1,000
$11,500
$100,000
Federal Agencies
27
$31,818,778
$1,178,473
$1,817,980
$100
$310,000
$6,200,000
State Agencies
14
$10,656,136
$761,153
$1,690,749
$1,030
$68,903
$6,200,000
Local Agencies
7
$366,600
$52,371
$94,323
$600
$5,500
$250,000
Non-profit organizations
19
$3,005,700
$158,195
$321,521
$300
$3,000
$1,000,000
Event/activity fee
18
$1,208,150
$67,119
$257,888
$250
$2,625
$1,100,000
Other
30
$1,688,709
$56,290
$126,391
$50
$8,025
$500,000
None
120
-
-
-
-
-
-
Source of Funding
Total Funding by Source
Internal University
$3,015,620
Private Industry
$3,249,400
Private Foundations
$565,619
Federal Agencies
$32,107,569
State Agencies
$10,656,136
Local Agencies
$366,600
Other Non-profit Organizations
$3,005,700
Event/Activity Fee
$1,208,150
Other
$1,688,709
$0
$10,000,000
$20,000,000
$30,000,000
$40,000,000
Sum of Reported Funding
Figure 12: Total Funding by Source (n=139)
As shown in Table 3 and Figure 12, most of the reported funding was provided by “Federal Agencies”
(total of $31,818,778), followed by “State Agencies” (total of $10,656,136). The most often reported
source of funding was “Internal University” (45 projects), followed by “Other” (30 projects) and “Federal
Agencies” (27 projects).
TTU Office of Planning and Assessment
Page 15 of 57
Outreach & Engagement Measurement Instrument (OEMI): 2011 Administration
Project Participants and Partners
Respondents were asked to report the number of people involved in each activity or project and the
average number of hours per person for the whole year spent on each activity or project. These
questions related to the following participant categories: TTU undergraduate students, TTU graduate
students, TTU staff, TTU faculty, students from other 4-year institutions, faculty and staff from other 4year institutions, community college students, community college instructors and administrators, K-12
students, K-12 teachers (and/or administrators), and other. Table 4, Summary Statistics for Number of
People Involved by Participant Category, and Table 5, Summary Statistics for Average Number of Hours
per Person by Participant Category, give a summary of these responses.
Table 4: Summary Statistics for Number of People Involved by Participant Category (n=386)
Participant Category
n
TTU undergraduate students
TTU graduate students
TTU staff
TTU faculty
Other 4-year institution students
Other 4-year institution faculty and staff
Community College students
Community College instructors/administrators
K-12 students
K-12 teachers/administrators
Other
Sum
135 5,730
127 1,320
178
881
186
994
26
1,101
46
796
16
872
25
102
105 142,503
92
5,588
68 46,845
Mean
St Dev
Min
median
Max
42
10
5
5
42
17
55
4
1,357
61
689
105
17
12
13
94
58
85
3
6,749
200
3,409
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
12
4
2
2
6
5
14
4
75
6
11
1,000
132
100
100
450
400
250
15
66,692
1,232
27,000
Table 5: Summary Statistics for Average Number of Hours per Person by Participant Category (n=386)
Participant Category
TTU undergraduate students
TTU graduate students
TTU staff
TTU faculty
Other 4-year institution students
Other 4-year institution faculty and staff
Community College students
Community College instructors/administrators
K-12 students
K-12 teachers/administrators
Other
n
Sum
Mean
St Dev
Min
Median
Max
119
108
160
166
20
41
13
20
84
76
53
10,430
13,914
29,966
14,550
4,621
5,278
809
1,391
3,797
3,403
2,289
88
129
187
88
231
129
62
70
45
45
43
185
242
453
164
285
330
128
144
99
99
73
0.5
0.4
0.2
0.1
1
2
1
1
0.5
0.5
1
20
20
20
25
125
15
4
18
8
11
20
1,000
1,040
2,080
1,000
880
1,920
375
600
650
600
300
As shown in Table 4, the most represented category of people involved in the reported O&E activity was
K-12 students (142,503 participants). As shown in Table 5, the highest average number of hours per
person for FY2011 was reported for other 4-year institution students (average of 231 hours) and TTU
TTU Office of Planning and Assessment
Page 16 of 57
Outreach & Engagement Measurement Instrument (OEMI): 2011 Administration
staff (average of 187 hours). Respondents were also asked to provide names of the K-12 schools, K-12
independent school districts, community colleges, community college districts, universities, and other
partners that were involved in their O&E projects or activities. Lists of the specific partners reported for
these questions can be found in Appendix C. Related to these partners, respondents were asked to
identify the roles of collaborators and/or sponsors external to TTU. Figure 13, Projects by External
Collaborator Roles, gives a summary of the responses.
External Collaborators Roles
Projects by External Collaborator Roles
Co-Directors/Co-PI's
12.2%
Identified issues or problems addressed
25.4%
Assisted in the planning and management
35.0%
Participated in research, evaluation or teaching
15.8%
Helped with dissemination of products or practices
18.9%
Helped identify resources to support the efforts
24.9%
Other
10.4%
Does not apply
0.0%
40.9%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
Percent of Projects
Figure 13: Projects by External Collaborator Roles (n=386)
As shown in Figure 13, the most commonly reported external collaborator role was “assisted in the
planning and management” (35.0%) and the least commonly reported external collaborator role was
“Co-Directors/Co-PI’s”. Following this question, respondents were asked to describe the other roles not
listed above. Table 6, Projects by Other Roles Described, shows a summary of the types of roles
described in these open-ended responses as organized into common categories or themes.
Table 6: Projects by Other Roles Described (n=39)
Other Roles Described
financial sponsor/funding source
event volunteers
advisory board/board of directors
author/developer/performer
event speaker
recruiters
principal investigator
participants
other
Projects
9
7
6
3
3
2
2
2
5
As shown in Table 6, the most common types of other roles described were financial sponsors or
funding sources (9 projects) and event volunteers (7 projects).
TTU Office of Planning and Assessment
Page 17 of 57
Outreach & Engagement Measurement Instrument (OEMI): 2011 Administration
Project Assessment
Respondents were asked to indicate the types of formal assessment and evaluation included in their
project or activity. Figure 14, Project by Type of Formal Assessment, shows a summary of these
responses
Type of Formal Assessment
Projects by Type of Formal Assessment
Formative - assessment is an on-going review
effort/intrinsic part of the instructional process.
30.1%
Summative - assessment is given periodically to
determine outcome at a particular point in time .
22.8%
None
46.1%
Other
0.0%
11.7%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
Percent of Projects
Figure 14: Project by Type of Formal Assessment (n=386)
As shown in Figure 14, just under half (46.1%) of the projects were reported to have no formal
assessment. For the projects reporting a type of formal assessment, formative assessment (30.1%) was
more common than summative assessment (22.8%). The respondents that reported “other” for the
type of formal assessment for a project (11.7% of projects) were given the option to provide a
description of the type of assessment. Table 7, Projects by Other Types of Assessment, shows a
summary of the other types of assessment described in these open-ended responses as organized into
commonly reported categories or themes.
Table 7: Projects by Other Types of Assessment (n=45)
Other Types of Assessment
Projects
survey/evaluation
specific product created/outcome met
participant feedback/interest
publication/report
informal evaluation
number of participants
student assignments
annual review/audit
other
8
7
5
5
4
3
3
2
7
As shown in Table 7, the most common types of assessment described were surveys or evaluations (8
projects) and specific products created or outcomes met (7 projects).
TTU Office of Planning and Assessment
Page 18 of 57
Outreach & Engagement Measurement Instrument (OEMI): 2011 Administration
All respondents were also given the option to further describe the formal assessment involved with their
project. Table 8, Projects by Formal Assessment Description, shows a summary of the formal assessment
descriptions in these open-ended responses as organized into commonly reported categories or themes.
Table 8: Projects by Formal Assessment Description (n=62)
Assessment Description
Projects
report/publication
participant examination/evaluation
program audit/review
participant feedback/interest
participation/completion
specific product created/outcome met
I do not know
services provided
survey
other
14
10
8
8
7
4
3
2
2
4
As shown in Table 8, the most common types of formal assessment described included reports or
publications (14 projects) and participant examinations or evaluations (10 projects).
Project Outcomes
Related to project outcomes, respondents were first asked in general to describe the outcomes and
impacts of each project or activity. Table 9, Projects by Outcome Description, shows a summary of the
descriptions given in these open-ended responses as organized into common categories or themes.
Table 9: Projects by Outcome Description (n=368)
Outcome Description
Education
Community Service
Advancing Knowledge
Business/Private Organizations
Government/Public Administration
Other
Projects
211
68
52
23
20
26
As shown in Table 9, the most common type of outcome description included some form of education
(e.g., direct education of students, education of teachers or professionals, informing K-12 students
about TTU and other sources of higher education), followed by community service (e.g., providing
resources or services for certain groups), advancing knowledge (e.g., publication or other form of
disseminating research), business or private organizations (e.g., providing resources or services for a
particular business or private organization), and government or public administration (e.g., improving
administration processes at TTU or for other government supported organization or agencies).
TTU Office of Planning and Assessment
Page 19 of 57
Outreach & Engagement Measurement Instrument (OEMI): 2011 Administration
More specifically, respondents were asked to report the forms of intellectual property created in
relation to each project or activity. Figure 15, Projects by Form of Intellectual Property Created, shows a
summary of these responses.
Projects by Form of Intellectual Property Created
Form of Intellectual Property
Publications
18.4%
Software
2.3%
Presentations
31.9%
Reports
17.1%
Performances/exhibitions
14.2%
Training materials
16.6%
Web sites
13.2%
Inventions/patents
0.8%
Other
5.2%
None
43.3%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
Percent of Projects
Figure 15: Projects by Form of Intellectual Property Created (n=386)
As shown in Figure 15, almost half of the projects (43.3%) reported no form of intellectual property
created. The most commonly reported form of intellectual property was presentations (31.9%). The
least commonly reported forms of intellectual property were inventions/patents (0.8%) and software
(2.3%).
Respondents were also invited to provide a description of the intellectual property created. See
Appendix C for a list of these responses. Respondents were further asked if the project or activity had
an impact on their scholarly or teaching practices. 166 projects (43.0%) were reported to have an
impact on the respondent’s scholarly or teaching practices. These respondents were asked to describe
the impact. Table 10, Projects by Scholarly Impact Description, gives a summary of the descriptions
given in these open-ended responses as organized into commonly reported categories or themes.
Table 10: Projects by Scholarly Impact Description (n=166)
Scholarly Impact Description
teaching
personal knowledge/skills
research
administration
other
Projects
85
39
36
13
10
TTU Office of Planning and Assessment
Page 20 of 57
Outreach & Engagement Measurement Instrument (OEMI): 2011 Administration
As shown in Table 10, the most commonly reported areas of scholarly impact was teaching (85 projects),
followed by an impact on the respondent’s personal knowledge or skills (39 projects) and research (36
projects).
Respondents were also asked if any scholarly work was created that assesses or describes how they
went about their outreach work. 38 projects (9.8%) were reported to have such a scholarly work
created. See Appendix C for a list of the specific citations reported.
Survey Feedback
Respondents were given the option to provide any feedback about the survey in an open-ended
response. Table 11, Projects by Survey Feedback, shows a summary of the feedback offered as
organized into common categories or themes.
Table 11: Projects by Survey Feedback (n=49)
Survey Feedback
Too long
Does not fit my O&E projects
Specific suggestions for survey
Other O&E that I did not report
Was not at TTU during FY2011
Specific problems with survey
Other
Projects
17
16
8
7
6
4
4
Overall, this feedback seems to suggest that several respondents fee like the survey is too long and that
a lot of the questions do not fit the O&E projects or activities that they were reporting. These responses
seemed to relate to some other responses suggesting that the respondents, as well as other TTU faculty
and staff, did not report all of their O&E projects or activities.
Example Outreach & Engagement Projects
The following projects were selected as examples to help illustrate some of the O&E projects that TTU
faculty and staff members have been involved in recently.
1. Proactive Recruitment in Introductory Science and Math (PRISM)
As reported by two OEMI respondents, PRISM is a National Science Foundation sponsored project that
provides “research, academic, and financial opportunities that encourage 60 students to pursue and
complete degrees in the mathematical and biological sciences.” The project includes “targeted
recruiting, summer research opportunities for high school and university students, academic year
research projects, and formal and informal peer mentoring activities.” The project has been developed
and administered by “a multidisciplinary investigator team including TTU faculty from mathematics,
biological sciences, environmental toxicology and education.” The project has three reported outcome
goals: 1) “Attract high quality, diverse high school students to enroll as math and biology majors at TTU,”
TTU Office of Planning and Assessment
Page 21 of 57
Outreach & Engagement Measurement Instrument (OEMI): 2011 Administration
2) “Motivate participants to set goals for careers in the mathematical and biological sciences through
their successful completion of specially designed foundation coursework and relevant research
experiences,” and 3) “Increase the number of baccalaureate degrees earned in the mathematical and
biological sciences by students from underrepresented groups.”
2. Girl University
Girl University is an outreach event reported by the Office of Community Engagement in partnership
with the Girl Scouts. The event is for “young girls grades 8-12, and their mom or guardian.” The event
includes sessions for the girls about health/nutrition, dorm life, and healthy self-esteem. The event also
includes sessions for the moms about paying for college (financial aid, admissions), helping their
daughters succeed in college, and knowing how to take care of themselves after their children are gone.
The goal of the event is “to encourage self-discipline, self-esteem, goal setting, and the importance of
higher education.”
3. Texas Alliance for Water Conservation (TAWC)
The mission of the TAWC is “to conserve water for future generations by collaborating to identify those
agricultural production practices and technologies that, when integrated across farms and landscapes,
will reduce the depletion of ground water while maintaining or improving agricultural production and
economic opportunities.” The project involves a partnership between area producers, industries,
universities, and government agencies. The project uses “on-farm demonstrations of cropping and
livestock systems to compare the production practices, technologies, and systems that can maintain
individual farm profitability while improving water use efficiency.”
4. MOU with the Rehabilitation Council of India (RCI)
In 2010 TTU signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the RCI to “exchange knowledge and
training programs between India and TTU in the area of special education and rehabilitation.” This
collaboration included a “two-day seminar to find the existing resources, current research, needs, and
best practices in special education at the Action for Autism in New Delhi in March 2011.” Funded by RCI
and facilitated by Education faculty from TTU, the seminar was attended by “thirty Indian faculty from
several universities, national institutes on various disabilities, and NGOs who conduct special education
programs.” The outcomes of this project have included “sharing current research in special education
between USA and India, exchanging information in the area of education and special education,
facilitating faculty and student exchange, and conducting collaborative research between TTU and
Indian universities and NGOs.”
5. Art Outreach to the Lubbock County Detention Center
In fall 2010 advanced undergraduate students from the School of Art’s visual studies major spent a week
“teaching art, social skills, and ethics to inmates at the Lubbock County Detention Center.” In addition
to the service provided for the inmates, the project was an opportunity for the TTU students to become
“more insightful about the nature of teaching diverse populations.”
TTU Office of Planning and Assessment
Page 22 of 57
Outreach & Engagement Measurement Instrument (OEMI): 2011 Administration
Conclusions
For the reported O&E projects, the most commonly reported areas of concern addressed were
“Education, Pre-Kindergarten through 12th Grade” (26.2% of projects) and “Cultural Institutions and
Programs” (18.4% of projects). The most commonly reported forms of outreach were “Engaged
Research and Creative Activity” (25.4% of projects). Almost half of the projects were reported to be
designed to promot diversity (48.4%). Fewer projects were reported to be focused significantly on
international development and udnerstanding (17.4%), to be primarily focused on urban issues (16.7%),
and to be primariliy focused on rural issues (17.4%). Most of the projects were reported as individual
initiatives (44.3%), followed by institutional initiatives (37.0%) and multi-institutional initiatives (18.7%).
Regarding project duration, the majority of projects were reported as beginning in the past 6 years
(2006 – 2011; 63.2%). The majority of projects were reported as ending or expecting to end before 2015
(63.3%). Most projects were reported to be an ongoing activity (42.2%), followed by multi-year project
(29.0%) and one-time activity (28.8%).
Projects were reported to have an impact on geographic areas throughout Texas, the U.S., and the
World. Most of the projects that were reported for a specific county or counties in Texas were reported
for Lubbock and its surrounding counties. Most of the projects that were reported for a specific State or
States in the U.S. were reported for States in the southern regions of the United States. Most of the
projects that were reported for a specific country or countries in the world were reported for countries
in North American and Western Europe.
Regarding project revenues and funding, respondents reported revenue values as low as $450 and as
high as $6.2 million. All the reported revenue values sum to about $35.2 million. Given the skew in the
data, the median of $28,352 is probably the best representation of the amount of revenue generated for
TTU that could be expected from the average O&E project. Most of the reported funding was provided
by “Federal Agencies” (total of $31,818,778), followed by “State Agencies” (total of $10,656,136). The
most often reported source of funding was “Internal University” (45 projects), followed by “Other” (30
projects) and “Federal Agencies” (27 projects).
The most represented category of people involved in the reported O&E activity was K-12 students
(142,503 participants). The highest average number of hours per person for FY2011 was reported for
other 4-year institution students (average of 231 hours) and TTU staff (average of 187 hours). The most
commonly reported external collaborator role was “assisted in the planning and management” (35.0%).
In 39 open-ended responses about other collaborator roles, the most common types of other roles
described were financial sponsors or funding sources (9 projects) and event volunteers (7 projects).
Regarding project assessment, just under half (46.1%) of the projects were reported to have no formal
assessment. For the projects reporting a type of formal assessment, formative assessment (30.1%) was
more common than summative assessment (22.8%). In 45 open-ended responses about other types of
assessment, the most common types of assessment described were surveys or evaluations (8 projects)
and specific products created or outcomes met (7 projects). In 62 open-ended responses given further
description of any formal assessment, the most common types of formal assessment described included
reports or publications (14 projects) and participant examinations or evaluations (10 projects).
In 368 open-ended responses describing the O&E projects’ outcomes, the most common type of
outcome description included some form of education (211 projects; e.g., direct education of students,
TTU Office of Planning and Assessment
Page 23 of 57
Outreach & Engagement Measurement Instrument (OEMI): 2011 Administration
education of teachers or professionals, informing K-12 students about TTU and other sources of higher
education), followed by community service (68 projects; e.g., providing resources or services for certain
groups), advancing knowledge (52 projects; e.g., publication or other form of disseminating research),
business or private organizations (23 projects; e.g., providing resources or services for a particular
business or private organization), and government or public administration (20 projects; e.g., improving
administration processes at TTU or for other government supported organization or agencies). When
asked about any forms of intellectual property created by the O&E project, almost half of the projects
(43.3%) reported no form of intellectual property created. The most commonly reported form of
intellectual property was presentations (31.9%). In 166 open-ended responses describing any scholarly
impact of the project, the most commonly reported areas of scholarly impact was teaching (85 projects),
followed by an impact on the respondent’s personal knowledge or skills (39 projects) and research (36
projects).
In 49 responses about the OEMI survey, the comments suggest that several respondents fee like the
survey is too long and that a lot of the questions do not fit the O&E projects or activities that they were
reporting. These responses seemed to relate to some other responses suggesting that the respondents,
as well as other TTU faculty and staff, did not report all of their O&E projects or activities.
Limitations
The most significant limitation of the results in this report is the low response rate (31.1%) of TTU faculty
and staff reporting their O&E projects or activities. This response rate and some of the open-ended
comments suggest that many TTU faculty and staff did not respond to the survey, and that many that
did respond to the survey did not report all of their O&E projects or activities because of the length and
detail of the survey. It is likely that the O&E projects and activities reported in this administration of the
OEMI significantly underestimate all of the O&E projects and activities being conducted by TTU faculty
and staff. Another limitation of the results in this report is the difficulty of designing a survey that
adequately captures the pertinent information for the diverse types of O&E projects and activities that
might be reported by TTU faculty and staff. The potential lack of congruence between the current
survey and some O&E projects or activities may help to explain some of the O&E projects and activities
that are not reported. This may also mean that some of the O&E projects and activities that are
reported are not adequately represented with this survey. Some of the open-ended comments suggest
that this might be the case.
TTU Office of Planning and Assessment
Page 24 of 57
Outreach & Engagement Measurement Instrument (OEMI): 2011 Administration
Appendix
Appendix A: Screenshots of Invitation and Survey
TTU Office of Planning and Assessment
Page 25 of 57
Outreach & Engagement Measurement Instrument (OEMI): 2011 Administration
TTU Office of Planning and Assessment
Page 26 of 57
Outreach & Engagement Measurement Instrument (OEMI): 2011 Administration
TTU Office of Planning and Assessment
Page 27 of 57
Outreach & Engagement Measurement Instrument (OEMI): 2011 Administration
TTU Office of Planning and Assessment
Page 28 of 57
Outreach & Engagement Measurement Instrument (OEMI): 2011 Administration
TTU Office of Planning and Assessment
Page 29 of 57
Outreach & Engagement Measurement Instrument (OEMI): 2011 Administration
TTU Office of Planning and Assessment
Page 30 of 57
Outreach & Engagement Measurement Instrument (OEMI): 2011 Administration
TTU Office of Planning and Assessment
Page 31 of 57
Outreach & Engagement Measurement Instrument (OEMI): 2011 Administration
TTU Office of Planning and Assessment
Page 32 of 57
Outreach & Engagement Measurement Instrument (OEMI): 2011 Administration
TTU Office of Planning and Assessment
Page 33 of 57
Outreach & Engagement Measurement Instrument (OEMI): 2011 Administration
TTU Office of Planning and Assessment
Page 34 of 57
Outreach & Engagement Measurement Instrument (OEMI): 2011 Administration
TTU Office of Planning and Assessment
Page 35 of 57
Outreach & Engagement Measurement Instrument (OEMI): 2011 Administration
TTU Office of Planning and Assessment
Page 36 of 57
Outreach & Engagement Measurement Instrument (OEMI): 2011 Administration
TTU Office of Planning and Assessment
Page 37 of 57
Outreach & Engagement Measurement Instrument (OEMI): 2011 Administration
TTU Office of Planning and Assessment
Page 38 of 57
Outreach & Engagement Measurement Instrument (OEMI): 2011 Administration
TTU Office of Planning and Assessment
Page 39 of 57
Outreach & Engagement Measurement Instrument (OEMI): 2011 Administration
TTU Office of Planning and Assessment
Page 40 of 57
Outreach & Engagement Measurement Instrument (OEMI): 2011 Administration
TTU Office of Planning and Assessment
Page 41 of 57
Outreach & Engagement Measurement Instrument (OEMI): 2011 Administration
TTU Office of Planning and Assessment
Page 42 of 57
Outreach & Engagement Measurement Instrument (OEMI): 2011 Administration
TTU Office of Planning and Assessment
Page 43 of 57
Outreach & Engagement Measurement Instrument (OEMI): 2011 Administration
Appendix B: O&E Projects by Geographical Location
Number of Projects by Texas Counties
Anderson
1
Collin
3
Gillespie
8
Johnson
1
Nacogdoches
1
Somervell
2
Andrews
3
Collingsworth
2
Glasscock
1
Jones
6
Navarro
1
Stephens
3
Archer
4
Comanche
1
Gray
2
Kaufman
3
Nolan
7
Sterling
1
Armstrong
3
Concho
2
Hale
25
Kendall
2
Nueces
1
Stonewall
5
Austin
4
Cottle
3
Hall
1
Kent
4
Ochiltree
2
Swisher
5
Bailey
7
Crane
1
Hamilton
1
Kerr
2
Oldham
1
Tarrant
8
Bandera
1
Crosby
16
Hansford
1
Kimble
3
Orange
1
Taylor
7
Bastrop
1
Culberson
1
Hardeman
1
King
4
Palo Pinto
3
Terrell
1
Baylor
2
Dallam
2
Hardin
1
Kleberg
1
Parker
3
Terry
12
Bexar
3
Dallas
12
Harris
6
Knox
3
Parmer
2
Throckmorton
4
Blanco
2
Dawson
8
Hartley
1
Lamar
1
Pecos
2
Tom Green
1
Borden
5
Deaf Smith
2
Haskell
6
Lamb
13
Polk
1
Travis
12
Brazoria
1
Denton
3
Hays
3
Liberty
1
Potter
7
Upton
1
Brewster
4
Dickens
9
Hemphill
3
Lipscomb
1
Presidio
1
Uvalde
2
Briscoe
2
Dimmit
1
Henderson
1
Llano
3
Rains
1
Van Zandt
1
Brown
2
Donley
2
Hidalgo
1
Lubbock
207
Randall
8
Ward
1
Burnet
7
Eastland
3
Hill
1
Lynn
18
Reagan
1
Wheeler
2
Callahan
4
Ector
6
Hockley
30
Martin
2
Reeves
2
Wichita
3
Cameron
1
El Paso
5
Hood
2
Mason
3
Roberts
1
Wilbarger
4
Carson
1
Ellis
1
Houston
4
Menard
1
Rockwall
3
Williamson
3
Castro
3
Erath
3
Howard
3
Midland
11
Runnels
4
Winkler
1
Chambers
1
Fisher
4
Hudspeth
1
Mills
1
San Jacinto
1
Wise
2
Childress
1
Floyd
14
Hunt
1
Mitchell
4
San Patricio
1
Yoakum
5
Clay
1
Foard
1
Hutchinson
1
Montague
1
San Saba
1
Young
2
Cochran
7
Fort Bend
2
Jack
1
Montgomery
2
Scurry
10
ALL COUNTIES
68
Coke
2
Gaines
8
Jeff Davis
2
Moore
2
Shackelford
3
Not Applicable
69
Coleman
4 Garza
16 Jefferson
2
Motley
7
Sherman
Note: Counties for which no projects were reported are not included in the table
TTU Office of Planning and Assessment
Page 44 of 57
1
Outreach & Engagement Measurement Instrument (OEMI): 2011 Administration
Number of Projects by U.S. States other than Texas
Alabama
8
Illinois
9
Montana
2
Rhode Island
0
Alaska
0
Indiana
4
Nebraska
1
South Carolina
5
Arizona
7
Iowa
2
Nevada
4
South Dakota
4
Arkansas
6
Kansas
6
New Hampshire
1
Tennessee
8
California
11
Kentucky
5
New Jersey
3
Utah
6
Colorado
7
Louisiana
6
New Mexico
23
Vermont
0
Connecticut
1
Maine
0
New York
8
Virginia
10
Delaware
0
Maryland
2
North Carolina
6
Washington
3
District of Columbia
5
Massachusetts
4
North Dakota
2
West Virginia
1
Florida
9
Michigan
6
Ohio
4
Wisconsin
5
Georgia
8
Minnesota
2
Oklahoma
12
Wyoming
3
Hawaii
0
Mississippi
7
Oregon
2
ALL STATES
44
Idaho
3
Missouri
4
Pennsylvania
4
Not Applicable
289
Number of Projects by Countries other than the U.S.
Afghanistan
2
Czech Republic
3
India
4
Nigeria
1
Spain
6
American Samoa
1
Djibouti
1
Indonesia
2
Norway
1
Sri Lanka
1
Argentina
1
Dominica
1
Iran
2
Pakistan
2
Sweden
2
Australia
8
Dominican Republic
1
Iraq
2
Papua New Guinea
1
Switzerland
3
Austria
3
Ecuador
1
Ireland
1
Paraguay
1
Taiwan
3
Azerbaijan
1
Egypt
4
Israel
2
Peru
3
Tanzania
1
Bahrain
2
El Salvador
1
Italy
3
Philippines
3
Thailand
3
Bangladesh
1
Estonia
1
Japan
4
Portugal
2
Turkey
3
Belgium
3
Ethiopia
1
Jordan
1
Puerto Rico
1
Uganda
2
Brazil
5
Finland
1
Kenya
1
Qatar
1
Ukraine
2
Bulgaria
1
France
5
Korea, South
5
Russia
3
United Arab Emirates
1
Burkina Faso
2
Germany
9
Kuwait
1
Samoa
1
United Kingdom
6
Cambodia
2
Ghana
2
Malaysia
2
Saudi Arabia
1
Venezuela
3
Canada
11
Guam
1
Mali
2
Senegal
1
Vietnam
5
Chile
2
Guatemala
2
Mexico
10
Singapore
1
Virgin Islands
1
China
4
Guinea
1
Nepal
1
Slovakia
1
Zimbabwe
2
Costa Rica
2
Hong Kong
1
Netherlands
2
Slovenia
2
ALL
12
Cote d'Ivoire
1
Hungary
2
Netherlands Antilles
1
Somalia
1
Not Applicable
326
Croatia
4
Iceland
1
Niger
1
South Africa
2
Note: Countries for which no projects were reported are not included in the table
TTU Office of Planning and Assessment
Page 45 of 57
Outreach & Engagement Measurement Instrument (OEMI): 2011 Administration
Appendix C: Open-ended Responses not Summarized in this Report
Number of Projects Reporting Specific Partners: K-12 Schools
Abilene HS
1 Early Child Intervention
1 Kingdom Prep Acad
4 Ramirez Elem.
1
AC Jones
1 Eden Elem.
1 Kress Elem.
1 Ron Jackson State School
1
Al Price State JC
1 Estacado HS
6 LaMesa Elem.
1 Roosevelt Elem.
1
All Saints Episcopal Schools
4 Eunice HS
1 Lamesa HS
1 Roscoe Wilson Elem.
4
Amherst Elem.
1 Evans MS
4 Laura Bush MS
1 Rush Elem.
2
Ash Elem.
1 Evins Regional JJC
1 Levelland
1 Scoggins
1
ATEMS HS
1 Forsan HS
1 Littlefield Primary Sch
1 Shallowater Elem.
1
Atkins MS
3 Fredericksburg MS
1 Lovington HS
1 Shallowater HS
2
Bennett Elem.
1 Frenship HS
5 Lubbock Christian Sch
3 Shallowater MS
2
Borden County HS
1 Frenship MS
3 Lubbock HS
7 Southcrest Christian School
2
Calvery Kindergarten
1 Friona Elem.
1 MacKenzie MS
2 St. Luke's Preschool
1
Carr MS
1 Ft. Worth YW Leader Acad
1 Madison MS
1 Sundown Elem.
1
Casa Grande Union HS
1 Gainesville State School
1 Maedgen Elem.
1 Sundown MS
1
Cavazos MS
2 Giddings State School
1 Mann MS
1 Talkington School for YWL
5
Centennial Elem.
2 Guadalupe Elem.
1 Mason
1 Tatum HS
1
Christ the King Schools
3 Hale Center HS
1 Mayfield
1 Terra Vista Elem.
1
Clack MS
1 Harmony Science Academy
1 McLennen County JJC
1 Terra Vista MS
1
College Hill Elem.
1 Harvey Elem.
1 McWhorter Elem.
1 TX School for the Blind/VI
1
Cooper HS
2 Harwell Elem.
2 Memphis
1 Thunderbird Elem.
1
Cooper North Elem.
1 Haynes Elem.
1 Menard MS
1 Trinity Christian School
3
Cooper South Elem.
1 Heritage MS
2 Monterey HS
5 TTU Outdoor School
1
Cooper West Elem.
1 Hobbs HS
1 Mary Deshazo Elem.
1 Vandegrift
1
Coronado HS
4 Holy Spirit PDO
1 Muleshoe HS
1 Victory Field JCC
1
Corsicana RTC
1 Home School
2 Murfee Elem.
3 Walatowa Charter HS
1
Craig MS
1 Honey Elem.
1 Nat Williams Elem.
1 Waters Elem.
1
Crestview Elem.
1 Houston YW Coll Prep Acad
1 New Deal HS
1 Watson Jr High
1
Crockett State School
1 Hutch MS
1 New Deal MS
1 Wayland Baptist Academy
1
Crosbyton Elem.
1 Hutchinson MS
4 Nimetz HS
1 West Texas State School
1
Crosbyton HS
1 Idalou Elem.
1 Northridge Elem.
2 Westminster Presb PreSch
1
Culver Academies
1 Idalou HS
1 Oakridge Elem.
1 Westwing Elem.
1
CY Falls
1 Iles Elem.
2 O'Donnel Elem.
1 Wheatley Elem.
2
Cyfair
1 Irons MS
1 OL Slaton MS
4 Whiteside Elem.
1
Dekaney HS
1 Jackson Elem.
1 Petersburg Elem.
1 Wright Elem.
1
Dewitt Perry
1 Jal HS
1 Plainview HS
1 Zuni HS
1
Dillman Elem.
1 Johnson City
1 Preston Smith Elem.
1 Not Answered
Dunbar College Prep Acad
1 Kelton
1 Rakov Academy
1
Dunbar MS
1 Kerrville
1 Ralls HS
1
TTU Office of Planning and Assessment
Page 46 of 57
323
Outreach & Engagement Measurement Instrument (OEMI): 2011 Administration
Number of Projects Reporting Specific Partners: K-12 Independent School Districts
Abernathy ISD
1
Frisco ISD
1
Menard ISD
1
Abilene ISD
2
Fort Worth ISD
4
Mesquite ISD
1
Alief ISD
1
Garland ISD
1
Morton ISD
1
Allen ISD
1
Grapevine-Colleyville ISD
1
Muleshoe ISD
2
Amarillo ISD
1
Gulf Coast Consolidated ISD
1
New Deal ISD
3
Anton ISD
1
Hale Center ISD
2
North Forest ISD
1
Austin ISD
1
Hemphill ISD
1
North Side ISD
1
Barbers Hill ISD
1
Hitchcock ISD
1
Parker County Co-op
1
Beeville ISD
1
Hobbs ISD
1
Plains ISD
1
Bishop Consolidated ISD
1
Houston ISD
3
Plainview ISD
1
Boerne ISD
1
Hutto ISD
1
Ralls ISD
2
Borden Co. ISD
1
Idalou ISD
4
Richardson ISD
1
Borger ISD
1
Irving ISD
3
Robstown ISD
1
Bovina ISD
1
Jal ISD
1
Roosevelt ISD
3
Brenham ISD
1
Katy ISD
1
Ropesville ISD
1
Brownsville ISD
1
Keller ISD
1
Royal ISD
1
Carrollton ISD
1
Kelton ISD
1
Sanger ISD
1
Clint ISD
1
Lamar Consolidated ISD
1
Shallowater ISD
5
College Station ISD
1
Lamesa ISD
1
Slaton ISD
1
Comal ISD
1
Leander ISD
1
Stanton ISD
1
Conroe ISD
1
Leon ISD
1
Sweetwater ISD
2
Corpus Christi ISD
1
Levelland ISD
2
Tahoka ISD
2
Cypress-Fairfield ISD
1
Lewisville ISD
1
Tatum ISD
1
Dallas ISD
3
Littlefield ISD
2
Texas Youth Commission
1
Del Valle ISD
1
Lockney ISD
1
Tulia ISD
1
Denton ISD
1
Lorenzo ISD
2
United ISD
1
Denver City ISD
1
Lovejoy ISD
1
Victoria ISD
1
Duncanville
1
Lovington ISD
1
Waco ISD
1
Eagle Mountain Saginaw ISD
1
Lubbock ISD
Wharton ISD
1
Eden ISD
1
Lubbock-Cooper ISD
7
White House ISD
1
Eunice ISD
1
Mansfield ISD
1
Willis ISD
1
Fairfield ISD
1
Marble Falls ISD
1
Wilson ISD
1
Floydada ISD
2
Mayfield ISD
1
Wolfforth ISD
1
2
11
Meadow ISD
Memphis ISD
1
1
Not Answered
329
Fredericksburg ISD
Frenship ISD
33
TTU Office of Planning and Assessment
Page 47 of 57
Outreach & Engagement Measurement Instrument (OEMI): 2011 Administration
Number of Projects Reporting Specific Partners: Community Colleges
Amarillo Coll
1
Midland Coll
3 Tarrant County Coll – South
1
Austin Comm Coll
3
Navarro Coll
1 Texas State Tech Coll - Waco
1
Brookhaven Coll
1
New Mexico Junior Coll
1 Tulsa Comm Coll - NM
1
Cisco Coll
2
Odessa Coll
4 Vernon Coll
2
Clarendon Coll
2
Ranger Coll
1 Weatherford Coll
1
Dona Ana Comm Coll
2
Richland Coll
1 West Texas
2
Eastfield Coll
1
San Jacinto Coll - North
1 Western Texas Coll
2
El Centro Coll
2
San Jacinto Coll - South
1 ALL
1
El Paso Comm Coll
2
South Plains Coll
9 Not Applicable
2
Frank Phillips Coll
1
Tarrant County Coll
1 Not Answered
362
Howard Coll
1
Tarrant County Coll - Northeast
1
Lamar State Coll-Port Arthur
1
Tarrant County Coll - Northwest
1
Number of Projects Reporting Specific Partners: Other Universities
Angelo State University
2 Texas State University
2
Baylor University
1 University of Alabama
1
Dominica State College
1 University of Edinburgh, Scotland
1
George Mason University
1 University of Houston
2
Georgia Southern University
1 University of Mississippi
1
Kansas State University
1 University of Nebraska
2
Kennesaw State University
1 University of New Hampshire
1
Kent State University (Taiwan)
1 University of Plymouth
1
Lamar University
1 University of Sciences & Arts - Chickasha, OK
1
Lubbock Christian University
1 University of South Carolina - Beaufort
1
National Taichung Inst. of Tech. (Taiwan)
1 University of Tasmania
1
Penn State University
1 University of Texas - Permian Basin
2
Tarleton State University
2 Vanderbilt University
1
Texas A&M University - Corpus Christi
1 West Texas A&M University
5
TTU Office of Planning and Assessment
Page 48 of 57
Outreach & Engagement Measurement Instrument (OEMI): 2011 Administration
Number of Projects Reporting Specific Partners: Other Partners
2011 Texas Biennial
1
Louise H. Underwood Cetner for the Arts
3
Abilene Chamber of Commerce
1
Lubbock Arts Alliance
2
Aboe & Beyond Pet Care Hospital and Resort
1
Lubbock CEO Roundtable
1
ACT testing
1
Lubbock Chamber of Commerce
2
Ad Astra Scheduling Software
1
Lubbock Cotton Exchange
1
Afterimage: The Journal of Media Arts
1
Lubbock County Detention Center
1
Alderson Enterprises
1
Lubbock County Judicial System
1
American Academy of Diplomacy
1
Lubbock County Juvenile Justice Center
1
American Association for Family and Consumer Sciences
1
Lubbock Lions Club
1
American Association of Museums
1
Lubbock Master Gardeners
1
American Chemical Society
1
Lubbock Medical Examiner's Office
1
American College of Trust and Estate Counsel
1
Lubbock Memorial Arboretum Foundation
2
American Culinary Federation
1
Lubbock Sheriff's Department
1
American Foreign Service Association
1
Lubbock Symphony Orchestra
2
American Red Cross
1
Lubbock Vet Center
2
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM)
1
Lubbock Women's Club
1
American Society of Hispanic Economists
1
Ludlum Measurements
1
American State Bank
2
Maggie Trejo Supercenter
1
Animal Health Industry
1
Marble Falls Economic Development Corporation
1
Archives of the Big Bend
1
Maternal & Family Health Services
1
Art Institute of Dallas
1
Meadows Center (University of Texas)
1
Art Lies
1
Midland Opera
1
ASEM Board Officers
1
Mississippi Deafblind Project
1
ATI testing
1
Monday Study Club (Lubbock)
1
Ballet Lubbock
1
Montana School for the Deaf and Blind
1
Bayer Crop Science
1
1
Bernard Harris Foundation
1
National Archives
National Association of College & University Food
Services
Best Buy Management
1
National Cattlemen's Beef Association Foundation
1
Big Spring Symphony Orchestra
1
National Park Service
1
Body Works
1
National Radio Astronomy Observatory
1
Boeing
1
National Restaurant Association
1
Boy Scouts of America
4
2
Boys & Girls Club of Lubbock
1
National Science Foundation (NSF)
Natural Resources Conervation Service (NRCS,
USDA)
Buckner's Children's home
1
Net Simplicty
1
Buddy Holly Center
1
New Mexico School for the Deaf
1
Bureau of Land Management
1
New Orleans Center for the Creative Arts
1
C. L. Sonnichsen Special Collections at UTEP
1
North Texas Small Business Devleopment Center
1
Cabinet Magazine
1
NRHC volunteers
1
Career and Technical Association of Texas
1
Office of National Drug Control Policy
1
Carlok Building, Inc.
1
Organization for Tropical Studies
1
TTU Office of Planning and Assessment
Page 49 of 57
2
1
Outreach & Engagement Measurement Instrument (OEMI): 2011 Administration
Carver Learning Center
1
P-20 Council
1
Castle testing
1
Partnership Training Institute Network
1
Catholic Church, Amarillo
1
Pastoral Associate Listening (PAL) Team
1
Catholic Family Services
1
Petal Pushers Garden Club
1
Center for Land Use Interpretation
1
Plains Cotton Cooperative Association
1
Center for the Future of Museums
1
Plains Cotton Growers Association
1
Center for Transportation Research, UTA
1
Plainview Public Library
1
Central Business District TIF Board
1
Ports-to-Plains Alliance
1
CH Foundation
2
Povidence Presbyterian Church
1
Chinati Foundation
1
Program for Rural Health (TTUHSC)
1
City of Lubbock
3
PYCO Companies
1
City of Lubbock Task Force on Homelessness
1
Q Ave Press
1
City of Lubbock Traffic Engineer
1
Region 17 Service Center
4
Columbus Historical Society
1
Rehabilitation Council of India
1
Communities In Schools
1
Rob A. Brown Ranches
1
Cotton Council International
1
Rotary Clubs
1
Cotton Incorporated
1
Sam's Club
1
Court Appointed Special Advocate Association (CASA)
1
Sandia National Laboratory
1
Covenant Health System
4
Science Spectrum
1
Cyprián Majerník Gallery, Bratislava, Slovak Republic
1
Seasoned With Love Caterers
1
Dell
1
Service Title Company
1
Department of Assistive and Rehabilitative Services
1
Si Se Puede Radio Show
1
Department of Education
2
1
Deployment Specialist
1
Social Security Administration
South Plains Department of Assistive and
Rehabilitative Services
Development Corporation of Abilene
1
South Plains Food Bank
4
Dia Art Foundation
1
South Plains Plant Society
1
Diplomatic Security (Regional Security Office)
1
South Plains Retired Teacher Association
1
Dollar Western Wear
1
South Plains TechPrep
1
Dolph Briscoe Center of American History
1
Southeast Texas Museum of Art, Beaumont
1
Dom of Halberstadt
1
Special Olympics
1
Dorothy Lomax Center
1
Spoil Me Rotten
1
Dowden Associates
1
Spur Ranch Headquarters
1
DSM Nutritional Products, Inc.
1
St. Benedicts Kithen
1
Economic Research Service USDA
1
St. Joseph Health System, Orange, CA
1
Elmbrook Estates (Lubbock)
1
State Bar of Texas
1
ETS testing
1
State Energy Conservation Office
1
Exxon Mobil
1
State of Texas
1
Facuded de Artes, University of Chile
Family and Community Sciences Teachers Association of
Texas
1
State University Interscholastic League (UIL)
3
1
Stiftskirche, Quedlinburg
1
Family Promise of Lubbock
1
1
Family, Career, and Community Leaders of America
1
Strategic Studies Institute
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services
Administration
TTU Office of Planning and Assessment
Page 50 of 57
1
1
Outreach & Engagement Measurement Instrument (OEMI): 2011 Administration
Farmers in Hale and Floyd Counties
1
SunGard
1
Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta
1
Susan G. Komen Foundation
2
Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas
1
Susan Polger Foundation
1
First Baptist Church
1
Sysco West Texas
1
Flatland Dance Theatre
1
TEEX Southwest Research Institute
1
Food Safety Cooperation Forum (FSCF)
1
Texas Agrilife Extension
4
Food2Kids
1
Texas Cotton Association
1
Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS/USDA)
1
Texas Deafblind Project
1
Fort Worth Museum of Science and History
1
Texas Department of Transportation
4
Frauenkirche, Dresden
1
Texas Education Agency
4
Friends of the Library
1
Texas Governs Office
1
G2 Performance Horses
1
Texas Healthy Adolescent Initiative
1
Garrison Institute on Aging (TTU HSC)
1
Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board
2
GEAR Robotics
1
Texas Instruments
1
Geological Society of America
1
Texas Public Radio
1
Gillespie County Economic Development Center
1
Texas Rangers
1
Girl Scouts of America
2
Texas Tech Club
1
Goodwill Industries
1
Texas Wine & Grape Growers Association
1
Habitat for Humanity
2
Texas Youth Commission
1
Harry Ransom Center
1
TexPREP state office at UTSA
1
Harvey Phillips Foundation
1
The 20th Century Club
1
Haven Animal Shelter
1
The JT and Margaret Talkington Foundation
1
Healing Choice
1
The Lubbock Optimist Club
1
Hear of Lubbock Neighborhood Association
1
The Mineralogical Society of America
1
Helen Jones Foundation
1
Trinity River Audubon Center
1
High Point Village
1
TUBACHRISTMAS International
1
Hill Country Alliance
1
U.S. Army War College
1
Hispanic Scholarship Fund
1
U.S. Census Bureau
1
Hockley County Literacy Council
1
U.S. Department of Commerce
1
Hope Community of Shalom
1
U.S. Department of Defense
1
Hospitality Administration Alumni
1
U.S. Department of Energy
1
Hospitality Educators Association of Texas
1
U.S. Department of State
1
Institute of Electrical and Electonics Engineers (IEEE)
1
U.S. Embassy Baghdad
1
Internal Revenue Service
1
U.S. Forces - Iraq
1
International Atomic Energy Agency
1
U.S. Small Business Administration
1
International Cotton Advisory Committee
1
Udawg Graphics
1
International Council of Museums (ICOM)
International Foundation for Retirement Education
(InFRE)
1
UH Small Business Development Center
1
1
Ukraine's International Radioecology Laboratory
1
Internationl Committee for Documentation (CIDOC)
1
United Supermarkets
4
Iraq Ministry of Environment
1
United Way
1
Iraq Ministry of Higher Education
1
US Department of Education
1
Iraq Ministry of Industry and Minerals
1
UTSA Small Business Development Center
1
TTU Office of Planning and Assessment
Page 51 of 57
Outreach & Engagement Measurement Instrument (OEMI): 2011 Administration
Iraq Ministry of Science and Technology
1
Veteran Adminstration
1
J. F. Maddox Foundation
1
Veterans Resource Coordination Group
1
JC Penney
1
Vietnamese Ministry of Education and Training
1
Journal of Social Work Education
1
VistaCare Hospice (Lubbock)
1
Judd Foundation
1
Wal-Mart Scholars, Inc.
1
Kaiser Wilhelm Gedachtniskirche, Berlin
1
West Texas Association for Infant Mental Health
1
Kirche of Wachau
1
Wolfforth Public Library
1
Laguna Pueblo
1
Women's Protective Services
1
LEARN, Inc.
1
Workforce Board of Abilene
1
Legal Aid of Northwest Texas
2
World Affairs Council
1
Light up the World
1
Wyoming Department of Education
1
Lorenzo de Zavala Texas State Archives
1
X-FAB
1
Los Angeles Museum of Contemporary Art
1
YWCA of Lubbock
1
TTU Office of Planning and Assessment
Page 52 of 57
Outreach & Engagement Measurement Instrument (OEMI): 2011 Administration
Descriptions of Intellectual Property Created from O&E Projects or Activities
3 text books
A formal evaluation of the project was conducted during one long semester which resulted in this publicaton:
Lowe, L.A. & Medina, V. (2010). Service learning collaboration: A formula for reciprocity. Families in Society,
91(2).doi:10.1606/1044-3894.3970 I have made several presentations on campus about the project. Every
semester, the students exhibit the life history products they create for their assigned citizen.
A play script that will be performed in May, 2012 and that will be presented or discussed in subsequent
professional conferences.
A presentation was made on diversity efforts to improve the teaching of diversity in the College of Education.
The College and Career Fair was cited as a case study, as part of a bigger effort to better prepare future teachers
to be culturally responsive educators.
Advice to faculty and staff to enhance the program of study and support learning outcomes.
Aided us in creating Hospitality Services Healthy Eating initiative and website.
All information was based on college preparation.
Articles in Journal
Course modules for online courses.
Curriculum
Data available on the USDA Soil Web
Developed assignments based on information in text, and situations portrayed in the engineering ethics videos.
Developed assignments based on information in text, and situations portrayed in the engineering ethics videos.
Developed curricula for both the middle school and 9th grade innovative course -developed training manual for
teachers -presented at The National Wellness Conference
Developed PowerPoint presentations and handout materials tailored to each seminar
Display board.
DVDs containing the movie and a 24-page study guide.
Each participant prepared a written manuscript of their research and made an oral presentation.
Employer and parent handbooks about transition and workplace solutions were developed. Several publications
and presentations have been developed. Continue dissemination will occur in the near future. A report on
quality workplaces was developed for the Texas Workforce Commission.
Enriching students, faculty and staff lives with green spaces on campus and an attractive campus to all.
Examination
http://www.depts.ttu.edu/weweb/mmls/mmlecture.php
http://www.orgs.ttu.edu/lhfsa/
I performed two solo double bass recitals and several master classes at the University of Chile. I also performed
as concerto soloist with the National Orchestra of Chile. I also created a Spanish translation of my Simandl-Plus
Workbook, a pedagogical work for double bass which is now available on my website, asodb.com.
I produced a booklet titled 'International Taxation in the Caribbean Context'
I provide handouts and give background information on the various films being shown each month.
In addition to straight performances, the group stages lecture recitals and concerts featuring compositions by
TTU and other local composers.
Instead of a description, I will simply state that my research publications and consulting activities have been
intertwined with this effort for 28 yers. The effort will continue after my retirement.
JCCP published excellent research on clinical psychology.
map
Masters students were able to gather and interpret real data in a real research effort. They normally implement
TTU Office of Planning and Assessment
Page 53 of 57
Outreach & Engagement Measurement Instrument (OEMI): 2011 Administration
scenario applications of research techniques. They were able to do real research with a purpose in cohort so that
they benefitted from each other’s' work and were able to support the efforts of the K-12 Outreach Program in
the process.
My research paper for my Masters of Ag Degree was to identify bulls in the Santa Gertrudis Breed that were the
most profitable.
New demonstrations were developed for the show.
Not applicable.
Organization website, journal, conferences
Original scenic design
Other - Various forms for incident reporting
Peer reviewed articles in a scientific journal
PowerPoints and handouts for the students
Present to all customers fun, excitement, profit for support of our program.
Presentations on the project at the Texas T-STEM Best Practices Conference 2012, Reports will be written for the
T-STEM report for the Texas Education Agency and NSF, and computational training materials were developed
for the teacher training workshop.
presentations were put together, development for gifts
Published material must be reviewed and approved prior to public dissemination.
Qualitative Research Study and written manuscript. Presented at MIT Research Conference. Submitted for
publication.
Reflection papers
Some products to make for educational programs, along with directions, resources, lesson plans, etc.
Subaward templates for use with Federal sponsored programs. Please see www.thefdp.org, drill to 'Subaward
Templates'
Texas Super Star Website and local newspaper ads.
The Commoditization of IT: Evidence from a Longitudinal Text Mining Study
The project was invited to present at the State P-16 Institute in Austin as well as the Annual STEM Conference in
San Antonio.
The project will be submitted to International Design Competitions and is publishable once finalized.
The study is incomplete at this time but will hopefully garner publications, presentations, and training materials
for teachers of singing and young singers dealing with vocally issues such as singing a legato line.
The TTU faculty in charge published two articles in the fields professional literature and has presented on this
project at professional conferences.
This resulted in one presentation for the church and another for a local Classical and Christian Schooling
organization. I hope to transition it into other presentations and possible publication.
Tutors were asked to prepare a reusable power point presentation as a support for their modules. These
presentations each contain a study plan, expected outcomes and pedagogical notes intended for use by tutors.
When modules are delivered at future session of the Summer School, the presentations can be revised and
improved in the light of feedback received. In this way we hope to put in place a process of continuous quality
control. It is our intention to translate all teaching modules into the three main ICOM languages: English, French
and Spanish.
Various presentations have been prepared and presented.
WE have an official GED webpage. We also developed our own TTUISD GED Testing Brochure, and Resource
Information Sheet
we will present our results at the final conference of the COIL team
While engaged in the project, it was agreed that I would not publish. After returning to Texas Tech in Fall 2011, I
have one peer reviewed paper published (coauthored with University of Texas researchers) two submitted for
TTU Office of Planning and Assessment
Page 54 of 57
Outreach & Engagement Measurement Instrument (OEMI): 2011 Administration
peer reviewed publication consideration (coauthored with Texas Tech and University of Kentucky researchers)
and two that should be ready for submission prior to February 1, 2012. It is planned that four more manuscripts
will be written this spring with researchers involved in this project for submission to peer reviewed journals.
Wrote final report of evaluation study to present to board of directors. Made presentation to board of
directors. Submitted presentation of study and findings for peer-reviewed conference. Submitted manuscript
of study and findings to peer-reviewed journal.
Helps with developing a grant proposal in addition to publications.
Project culminates in a 40-mintue performance by the full ensemble of participants. 2011 performance was
attended by over 150. Performance is free and open to the public and is advertised throughout the community,
including on KOHM.
Video clips of alumna were created and are being posted at the Hospitality Administration Website on a rotating
basis. The suggestions from the focus groups will be shared with the faculty this spring semester.
TTU Office of Planning and Assessment
Page 55 of 57
Outreach & Engagement Measurement Instrument (OEMI): 2011 Administration
Citations of Published Works/Presentations
Eric Levy, Mangnan (George) Tan, Richard Gale, Tanja Karp, and Alan Barhorst. Af- fordable K-12 Robotics
Programs. In proceedings of the 41st ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, October 12-15, 2011, Rapid
City, South Dakota.
Land Arts of the American West (Austin: University of Texas Press, 2009)
Presented at the 2011 TTU Diversity Summit in the process of writing an article
Publication in HortTechnology in 2011.
2012 International Sustainability Conference in Vancouver, publication not finalized until February 2012.
We have a written a grant and submitted to United States India Education Foundation, New Delhi, India for
$250000.
Gary S. Elbow, “A Human Well-Being Approach to Human Geography,” National Council for Geographic
Education annual meeting, Oklahoma City, OK, October 20, 2007.
Morrow, H. (2011) Integrating Deliberative Justice Theory into Social Work Policy Pedagogy. Journal of Social
Work Education, Vol 47, No. 3, 389-401.
'Effect of Hail Impact on Galvanized Steel Roofing Panels', presented at the 2012 National Academy of Forensic
Engineers Conference, Jan. 6-8, 2012, Miami, FL.
Also under review for publication in the NAFE Journal.
Lowe, L.A. & Medina, V. (2010). Service learning collaboration: A formula for reciprocity. Families in Society,
91(2).doi:10.1606/1044-3894.3970
Afterimage: The Journal of Media Arts and Cultural Criticism (38:3)
“TxDOT and Electric Power Transmission Lines,” Nash, Phillip T., Hood, John, Hutson, Nathan, Knipstein, Ben,
Loftus-Otway, Lisa, Smith, Doug, Sober, Joseph C., Walker, Richard P., and Welch, Ben, Final Report, Research
Project 0-6495-1, Texas Department of Transportation, October 2010. “Proposed TxDOT Strategic Research
Program,” Persad, Khali, Weatherby, Cynthia, Nash, Phil, Machemehl, Randy, Stockton, Bill, and Cleveland,
Theodore, Final Report, Research Project 0-6661, Texas Department of Transportation, May, 2011.
I recently (1/12/12) presented at the T-STEM Best Practices Conference in Galveston, TX about incorporating
ethics in STEM education.
Affordable K-12 Robotics Programs; Eric Levy, Mangnan (George) Tan, Richard Gale, Tanja Karp, and Alan
Barhorst, Texas Tech University; ASEE Frontiers in Education 2011.
Chesser, R.K., M. Bondarkov, B.E. Rodgers, and C. J. Phillips. 2010. Status of Nuclear Facility Dismantlement and
Nonproliferation Efforts in Iraq, 2005 – 2010. Applied Science and Analysis Newsletter, 140:1+9-11. Chesser,
R.K., B.E. Rodgers, M. Bondarkov, E. Shubber, and C.J. Phillips. 2009. Piecing together Iraq’s nuclear legacy.
Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. May/June 2009, pages 19 - 33. Iraq’s Nuclear Sites Briefing Book. For US
Department of State ISN/NESS. November, 2010. Science, Higher Education, and the Iraq Nuclear Facilities
Dismantlement and Disposal Project (ISN/NESS). A TTU Progress Report on the New Higher Education Initiative.
To Department of State ISN/NESS. February, 2011. Briefing on Iraq’s Outlying Uranium Enrichment Facilities.
For US Department of State, Iraq Desk. March, 2011. Report on the Status of the Al Tuwaitha Nuclear Research
Center and Recommended Future Actions. For US Department of State ISN/NESS. March, 2011. Report on the
Status of the Rashidiya Nuclear Site and Recommended Future Actions. For US Department of State ISN/NESS.
March, 2011. Report on the Status of the Djerf Al Naddah Nuclear Site and Recommended Future Actions. For
US Department of State ISN/NESS. March, 2011. Report on the Status of the Al Jesira Nuclear Site and
Recommendations for Dismantlement and Disposal. For US Department of State ISN/NESS. March, 2011.
Report on the Status of the Adaya Nuclear Site and Recommendations for Health and Risk Assessment. For US
Department of State ISN/NESS. March, 2011. Report on the Survey of the Adaya Nuclear Site and Health
Assessment of the Village of Tall ar Ragrag. For US Department of State ISN/NESS. June, 2011. Report on the
Status of the Al Qa’im Fertilizer Plant and Former Uranium Extraction Site and Recommendations Remediation
Actions. For US Department of State ISN/NESS. June, 2011. Information for the Secretary. Memo (by request)
on Japan’s nuclear disaster and potential impacts. For Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton. March 30, 2011.
Presentations at national conferences and at the Office of Special Education's annual Conference. Case, D. E.
(Presenter & Author), Davidson, R. (Presenter & Author), Northern Rockies AER, 'Distance Delivered University
Programs in Sensory Impairments: Project CSI,' Jackson, WY. (October 2010). Davidson, R., Northern Rockies
TTU Office of Planning and Assessment
Page 56 of 57
Outreach & Engagement Measurement Instrument (OEMI): 2011 Administration
AER, 'Expanded Core Curriculum for Children with,' Jackson, WY. (October 2010). Davidson, R., Laman, O.,
OSEP Project Directors Meeting, 'Children with sensory impairments (CSI),' U.S. Department of Education,
Washington, D.C.. (July 2010).
Andrew Tubb and Sanjaya Senadheera, 'LABORATORY INVESTIGATION OF THE INFLUENCE FROM AGGREGATE
AND CLIMATE ON STIFFNESS DEVELOPMENT IN A SEAL COAT EMULSION,', Proceedings, 90th Annual Meeting of
the Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington DC, January 2011.
Sanjaya Senadheera and William D. Lawson, 'Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Ultra High Pressure (UHP) Water
Cutter to Treat Flushed Asphalt Pavements,' Proceedings of the 91st Annual Meeting of the Transportation
Research Board, National Research Council, Washington DC, January 2012. William D. Lawson, Darlene Goehl
and Sanjaya Senadheera, 'TREATMENT OF FLUSHED CHIP SEALS USING THE ULTRA HIGH PRESSURE WATER
CUTTER: PRODUCTION AND COST EFFECTIVENESS,' Proceedings of the 91st Annual Meeting of the
Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington DC, January 2012.
Ladkin, N., Johnson, E., Baker, R. J., and Chatterjee, S. 2010. The use of collections in research and teaching at
the Museum of Texas Tech University. University Museums and Collections Journal, 3: 129-137.
Beason, W. Lynn and Norville, H.S. (1990). 'Development of a new glass thickness selection procedure,' Journal
of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, Elsevier Science Publishers, 36, October, 1135-1144.
Norville, H.S. and Minor, J.E. (2000). “A simplified window glass design procedure,” Journal of Architectural
Engineering, ASCE, 6(4), 105-115. Norville, H.S. and Conrath, E.J. (2001). “Considerations for blast resistant
glazing design,” Journal of Architectural Engineering, ASCE, 7(3): 80-86. El-Shami, M.M., and Norville, H.S.
(2002). “Development of design methodology for rectangular glass supported on three sides to resist lateral
uniformly distributed loads,” The Use of Glass in Buildings, ASTM Stock Number 1434, 66-78. Norville, H.S., and
Conrath, E.J. (2002). “Design procedure for blast resistant laminated glass,” The Use of Glass in Buildings, ASTM
Stock Number 1434, 159-170.
1. T. Karp and A. Schneider. Evaluation of a K-8 LEGO Robotics Program. IEEE/ASEE Frontiers in Education
Conference, pp. T1D 1-6, Rapid City, SD, USA, October 2011. 2. T. Karp. Teaching a Service Learning Introductory
Engineering Course - Lessons Learned and Improvements Made. IEEE/ASEE Frontiers in Education Conference,
pp. F1E 1-5, Rapid City, SD, USA, October 2011. 3. E. Levy, M. Tan, R. Gale, T. Karp, and A. Barhorst. Affordable
K-12 Robotics Programs. IEEE/ASEE Frontiers in Education Conference, pp. S1D 1-5, Rapid City, SD, USA, October
2011.
Arsuffi, T.L. 2011. Educating the public on complex water issues to improve water literacy using expert panels,
rotating venues, diverse partnerships and Texas Public Radio. World Lake Conference. Invited. Austin, TX.
Publications related to engaged scholarship presented at APLU national and summer conferences, and NOSC
2010 and 2011 conferences.
TTU Office of Planning and Assessment
Page 57 of 57