Community College
Review
http://crw.sagepub.com/
Identifying the Local Impacts of National ATE Centers on Their Host
Institutions: An Exploratory Study
Charles Henderson, Herb Fynewever, Heather Petcovic and Andrea Bierema
Community College Review 2012 40: 3
DOI: 10.1177/0091552112436678
The online version of this article can be found at:
http://crw.sagepub.com/content/40/1/3
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
On behalf of:
North Carolina State University
Additional services and information for Community College Review can be found at:
Email Alerts: http://crw.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts
Subscriptions: http://crw.sagepub.com/subscriptions
Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav
Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Citations: http://crw.sagepub.com/content/40/1/3.refs.html
>> Version of Record - Feb 24, 2012
What is This?
Downloaded from crw.sagepub.com at Calvin College & Seminary on September 13, 2013
436678
Henderson et al.Community College Review
crw40110.1177/0091552112436678
Articles
Identifying the Local
Impacts of National ATE
Centers on Their Host
Institutions: An
Exploratory Study
Community College Review
40(1) 3­–24
© The Author(s) 2012
Reprints and permission:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0091552112436678
http://crw.sagepub.com
Charles Henderson1, Herb Fynewever2, Heather
Petcovic1, and Andrea Bierema1
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to identify the local impacts of national advanced
technological education (ATE) centers on their host institutions. A sample of
three mature, national ATE centers are chosen, with each center serving as a case
for a mixed-methods, collective case study research design. Results, drawn from
interviews and surveys, indicate that national ATE centers create a variety of direct
local impacts (i.e., impacts related to improving education in the targeted technology
field) and indirect local impacts (i.e., impacts on the host institution that are beyond
the targeted technology field). Direct impacts are created by a depth of focus on
and connections to the targeted technology field, whereas indirect impacts are
created by diversification within the host institution through collaborations with
other projects on campus. The organizational structure and physical location of a
center are also found to be important factors affecting the types of impacts created.
In addition, characteristics such as strong center–industry partnerships, leadership
qualities of the center directors, and a culture that promotes grant getting at the
host institution are found to contribute to both types of impacts. The authors
suggest that local impacts can be sustained through development and articulation of
an ATE center’s core competencies.
1
Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, MI, USA
Calvin College, Grand Rapids, MI, USA
2
Corresponding Author:
Charles Henderson, Western Michigan University, 1903. W. Michigan Ave., Kalamazoo, MI,
49008-5252, USA
Email: charles.henderson@wmich.edu
Downloaded from crw.sagepub.com at Calvin College & Seminary on September 13, 2013
4
Community College Review 40(1)
Keywords
advanced technological education centers, program effectiveness, program outcomes,
college-program relationship, core competencies
The purpose of the Advanced Technological Education (ATE) program is to increase
the number and quality of U.S. scientific and technological workers through improvement of technology-related student programs. The ATE program is part of the National
Science Foundation (NSF) and has funded nearly 900 projects since its inception in
1992 (NSF, 2010). As of February 2011, there were about 45 centers and 370 projects
active across the nation (NSF, n.d.). These centers and projects are hosted primarily by
2-year colleges. Centers, which may be either regional or national, are much larger in
size and scope than projects. National centers are usually funded for 4 years (typically
around US$3 million) and then are eligible for a competitive 4-year renewal. In order
to enhance technological education, centers create and disseminate educational materials such as course modules or curricula, provide professional development for faculty members and instructors, develop collaborations with industry, and create
technology career pathways in a specifically targeted technology field.
Why Document Local Impacts?
National ATE centers, unlike regional ATE centers and ATE projects, are designed to
have a national impact on technical education in their fields of focus. There is substantial evidence of these national-level impacts from national centers (Germuth,
Gullickson, Lawrenz, & Hanssen, 2006; Patton, 2008) as well as regional-level impacts
from regional centers (Reid, Jacobs, Ivanier, & Morest, 2007). Little is known, however, about the local impacts of the national centers. For our purposes, we define local
impacts as those that derive from the center and primarily affect the host institution.
The goal of the study reported in this article was to document the types of local impacts
that national ATE centers can have on their host institutions. These impacts could
extend beyond the parts of the institution that are directly involved in the ATE efforts.
For example, ATE efforts could influence administrators, other faculty members, policies, pedagogies, curricula, budgets, institutional structures, campus culture, image,
and so forth. In this study, we also explored the extent to which such impacts on ATE
host institutions occur and the mechanisms that may facilitate these impacts.
Understanding these local impacts is important. Although hosting a national ATE
center generates a significant influx of new resources to an institution, it also requires
the expenditure and realignment of existing resources. For example, the campus infrastructure (office space, computer capabilities, etc.) can be stressed by the presence of
a national center. And, even though a center will likely bring new employees, it is
common for some center employees to be existing employees at the institution who
have a portion of their time allocated to the center. This split in job responsibilities for
existing employees could be synergistic (leading to benefits to both the center and the
Downloaded from crw.sagepub.com at Calvin College & Seminary on September 13, 2013
5
Henderson et al.
institution), or it could be a drain of energy away from the institution toward the
national project. Thus, choosing to house a national ATE center represents a significant institutional commitment and should be carefully and deliberately considered.
Knowing about likely local impacts can help in this decision-making process.
Similarly, existing and future national ATE centers can acknowledge the potential
local impacts and develop strategies that maximize the positive and potentially permanent impacts. Finally, we suggest that understanding local impacts is important for the
ATE program itself. We suggest that ATE centers with strong local impacts are likely
to be more successful in their national mission and are more likely to have core center
activities and products institutionalized or sustained once ATE support ends.
What Is Already Known About Local Impacts?
The most commonly mentioned local impacts of ATE projects and centers cited by
prior work (i.e., Bailey, Matsuzuka, Jacobs, Morest, & Hughes, 2003, 2004; Goodson,
Ezell, & Miertschin, 2000; Patton, 2003; Reid et al., 2007) are (a) improving the quality of the targeted technology program, (b) creating relationships with industry, and
(c) producing high-quality curricular materials. Other commonly cited local impacts
include providing faculty professional development and increasing student recruitment activities (Bailey et al., 2003, 2004; Goodson et al., 2000; Reid et al., 2007).
Improving transfer arrangements to 4-year colleges is another potential impact of an
ATE grant. Although some prior work has identified transfer agreements as an important impact (Reid et al., 2007; Zinser & Hanssen, 2006), other studies have found that
facilitating transfer agreements is not often a priority of ATE centers and projects
(Bailey et al., 2003, 2004; Wingate, Westine, & Gullickson, 2010).
When discussing the types of local impacts found in prior studies, it is important to
note that many studies explicitly asked participants to consider the specific types of
impacts that the NSF expects ATE grants to provide (Bailey et al., 2003, 2004; Goodson
et al., 2000; Zinser & Hanssen, 2006). For instance, the NSF-ATE program solicitation
requires centers to improve the targeted technology program, improve curriculum,
provide faculty professional development, and encourage transfer agreements with
4-year institutions (NSF, 2010). Therefore, the reason that the above-mentioned local
impacts were most commonly found may be because they were the most frequently
asked about.
Other local impacts have also been described in the literature, albeit less frequently.
For instance, ATE centers and projects may improve the external reputation of the
program and help the program gain more external funding (Bailey et al., 2003, 2004;
Patton, 2003). ATE centers and projects may enhance the ability of departments within
an institution to network with each other (Bailey et al., 2003, 2004; Goodson et al.,
2000; Patton, 2003). Finally, centers may contribute to the increasing percentage of
minority students within a targeted technology program (Patton, 2003).
The study described here differs from prior work in two key ways. First, in order to
identify the widest variety of local impacts, the present study did not begin with an a
Downloaded from crw.sagepub.com at Calvin College & Seminary on September 13, 2013
6
Community College Review 40(1)
priori list of potential impacts. We further explain this in the Methods section. Second,
most of the prior work has examined fairly broad populations, such as ATE projects
and centers combined (e.g., Bailey et al., 2003, 2004; Zinser & Hanssen, 2006) or
regional and national centers together (e.g., Goodson et al., 2000; Patton, 2003).
Although this allows for a broad understanding of the potential impacts of the ATE
program, important phenomena of more specific populations may have been missed.
For instance, although all of the above-mentioned studies had national ATE centers
within their sample, they also included other types of ATE-funded projects and, as a
consequence, may have missed important patterns related to national ATE centers.
Thus, the current study is able to make a unique contribution to the literature by focusing, in depth, on national centers.
Method
Research Design
We chose a mixed-methods, collective case study design (e.g., Creswell, 2007; Stake,
1995; Yin, 2003) for this research. A case study design is appropriate in that our purpose was to develop an in-depth understanding of a single issue of interest: the
impacts of ATE centers on their host institutions. Because national ATE centers are
varied in terms of their targeted technology focus, their size and scope, and the characteristics of their host institutions, we chose a multicase approach to best capture the
breadth of potential impacts, and we purposefully selected three cases (centers) with
different characteristics. Although the overall research design falls within a qualitative
paradigm, the data collected within each case include dominantly qualitative sources
(stakeholder interviews) and secondary quantitative sources (numerical responses on
a written survey). Most of the data were collected during site visits to each center.
During data analysis, we used a concurrent triangulation design (e.g., Creswell, Plano
Clark, Gutmann, & Hanson, 2003) in which both qualitative and quantitative data sets
are merged into an overall interpretation of each case. We then qualitatively compared
interpretations across the three cases.
Cases and Case Selection Process
Based on information from the ATE 2008 Evaluation Survey (obtained through personal communication with the Western Michigan University Evaluation Center) we
initially identified 13 national centers that met the two specific selection criteria for
this study: (a) status as a national ATE center, and (b) maturity. Because local impacts
may take time to manifest, we considered centers to be mature if they were at least 4
years old. From these 13, we selected 3 centers with a diversity of geographic locations and targeted technology fields. Center principle investigators (PIs) were first
contacted and invited to participate in the study by email and then, if no response, by
telephone. Of the first three centers we contacted, one center declined to participate
Downloaded from crw.sagepub.com at Calvin College & Seminary on September 13, 2013
7
Henderson et al.
Table 1. Characteristics of the Three Participating Centers and Their Host Institutions
Center 1
Center characteristics
Age of center About 10 years
Types of
Curriculum
activities
development
Faculty professional
development
Capacity building
Major external Other colleges,
partners
industry
Host institutions’ characteristics
Campus type
Single institution
Setting
Rural
About 15,000 students
Sizea
Diversity
About 80% White
Center 2
Center 3
About 15 years
Curriculum
and program
development
Faculty professional
development
Grant development
Trade organizations
About 15 years
Curriculum
development
Faculty professional
development
Industry collaborations
Capacity building
Industry
Single institution
Urban
About 25,000
students
About 70% White
Multiinstitution
Urban/suburban
About 250,000 students
About 60% White
a
Enrollment figures represent unduplicated annual enrollment in both credit and noncredit courses.
in the project, citing recent changes in institutional administration that would likely
lead to changes in center operations. An additional center was then selected and contacted. During these initial contacts, dates were set for site visits by the research team;
each site visit lasted approximately one and a half days.
All the three participating centers and their host institutions varied in their characteristics (Table 1). All centers engaged to varying extents in activities typical of ATEfunded centers, including curriculum development, faculty professional development,
and building capacity in the targeted technology field. The three centers each focused
on a different technology field. Both Centers 1 and 2 were hosted by a single-campus
community college, whereas Center 3 was hosted by a multiinstitutional system comprised of individually accredited community colleges. Due to the small number of
national ATE centers involved in the study, we are unable to provide additional details
about center characteristics without compromising confidentiality.
Data Sources and Collection Procedures
Qualitative and quantitative data sources for this project included publicly available
information about each center and its host institution, semistructured interviews with
center staff members and other stakeholders at the host institution, and written surveys
of center staff members and stakeholders. Center staff members played a key role in
identifying stakeholders who should be included in the interview and survey process.
The majority of interviews were conducted during each site visit, and surveys were
Downloaded from crw.sagepub.com at Calvin College & Seminary on September 13, 2013
8
Community College Review 40(1)
administered to all interviewees before each site visit whenever possible, so that
responses could be discussed during the interviews. The same data sources and procedures were replicated at each site (as recommended by Yin, 2003).
The survey, which we called the interaction form, asked participants to estimate the
percentage of stakeholders (faculty members, administrators, staff members, and students) at their host institution who were familiar with the center and its operations as
well as to name anyone from the host institution with whom they regularly interacted
regarding the center. The initial semistructured interview protocol was largely derived
from impact indicators noted by Eckel and Kezar (2003) and was slightly modified
after the first site visit to better probe for emerging themes. The research team specifically asked interviewees to describe (a) the most important overall impacts the center
had on the host institution, (b) the major structural impacts (e.g., changes to the curriculum and pedagogies, changes in policies, and changes in budgets), and (c) the
major attitudinal and cultural impacts (e.g., changes in the ways groups or individuals
interact with one another and new relationships with stakeholders). This approach not
only allowed the interviewees to speak freely about what they perceived as the most
significant impacts but also allowed the researchers to probe for possible impacts
across multiple categories. The protocol did not include explicit reference to local
impacts identified in prior research (e.g., Bailey et al., 2003, 2004; Goodson et al.,
2000; Patton, 2003; Reid et al., 2007) or desired impacts of the NSF-ATE program.
Interviewees were also asked to discuss their responses to the questions on the interaction form and to give their opinion on what made the center successful.
The study of each case (center) began with a telephonic interview with the center PI,
as it was not possible to visit each site twice. This typically occurred about 1 month prior
to the site visit. The goal of this semistructured interview was for the research team to
develop a better understanding of the center and its organization. The interviews also
provided an opportunity for the center PI to understand more about the study.
Each center was asked to identify potential stakeholders on their campus and to
arrange an interview schedule for the site visits. Funding was available to compensate
the center for this use of staff time. Site visits were completed in May, July, and
September of 2009, and three members of the research team participated in each site
visit. At each site, approximately 16 stakeholders were interviewed (Center 1, n = 18;
Center 2, n =13; Center 3, n = 17). Most participants were interviewed individually,
but occasionally pairs of participants were interviewed together. Interview participants
included the center PI, other center staff members, campus administrators (e.g., deans,
the provost, and the president), other campus faculty members (e.g., those in the targeted technology program, those from other programs, and part-time faculty members), and other campus staff members (e.g., those in the grants office).
Prior to the interview, each participant was contacted via email and asked to complete the interaction form. Each interview was led by one member of the visiting
research team and typically lasted between 45 minutes and 1 hour. During the majority
of the interviews, a second member of the visiting research team observed the interview and took notes. In order to avoid overwhelming the interviewees, all three visiting
Downloaded from crw.sagepub.com at Calvin College & Seminary on September 13, 2013
9
Henderson et al.
research team members did not participate in any given interview together. Each interview was audio recorded. If important stakeholders were not available during the site
visits, interviews were conducted by telephone within 1 month after each visit
occurred; one or two interviews at each site were conducted in this manner.
Data and Case Analysis
Publicly available information about each center and its host institution (e.g., NSFATE publications, center and host institution websites, other publicity materials) were
used to develop a narrative describing the history, focus, activities, and organizational
structure of each center, as well as to summarize host institution characteristics. This
enabled us to generate a detailed description of each case (e.g., Stake, 1995; Yin,
2003). Quantitative data from the interaction forms were summarized, and means
were calculated for each group of stakeholders at each center.
The interview audio recordings were transcribed and analyzed using emergent coding methods (e.g., Creswell, 2007; Wolcott, 1994). Themes were largely emergent but
were likely influenced by the categories of impacts included in the interview protocol.
The qualitative analysis proceeded in four major steps: (a) developing an initial set of
analysis themes based on the first site visit, (b) iterative coding and revising of the
codes and themes until a finalized version was reached, (c) applying codes and themes
to all interview data, and (d) checking of each theme document by multiple researchers. First, three researchers read all of the interview transcripts from the first site visit
and then met to identify potential themes related to the project goals. Through discussion, a preliminary set of analysis themes emerged. The PIs then used these initial
themes to analyze a subset of the interviews. Through several iterations, a final set of
analysis themes emerged that guided the rest of the data analysis. An analysis themes
document was completed for each interviewee. One researcher who was not present
during the interview checked the theme document, and any disagreements were
resolved via discussion. Once a themes document had been developed for each of the
interviews, a summary table was created, and a narrative summary of each case,
themes, and salient findings was produced. This procedure was repeated for each site.
The narrative summary was sent to the center PI for feedback, which was incorporated
into the final narrative. Once all three case studies were complete, the research team
compared themes and findings across the cases and explored the different types of
impacts and relationships between various center variables and the types of impacts.
These findings are discussed below.
Local Impacts
The primary focus of this study was to identify the types of local impacts that a
national ATE center can have on its host institution. In our analysis, a clear distinction
emerged between direct and indirect local impacts. We define direct impacts as those
related to the center goals of improving technical education in the targeted technology
Downloaded from crw.sagepub.com at Calvin College & Seminary on September 13, 2013
10
Community College Review 40(1)
Table 2. Most Commonly Cited Direct Local Impacts at Each Site
Number of interviewees identifying
the impact
Description of impact
Improving the quality of programs in the targeted
technology field
Creating partnerships with industry or professional
societies
Providing faculty professional development
Aiding in acquiring additional external funding
Increasing the number of students
Improving instructional technology
Assisting in transfer arrangements with 4-year institutions
Producing high-quality curricular materials
Improving external reputation of program
Creating a new degree program
Center 1a Center 2b Center 3c
14
8
15
5
2
13
5
5
8
7
3
—
3
—
2
1
1
1
1
4
—
2
10
8
4
2
5
13
2
—
Note: Impacts are ordered based on the number of centers at which that impact was identified and then
on the number of interviewees who mentioned the occurrence of that impact. Impacts are not listed if
they were only mentioned by one interviewee across all three of the centers.
a
Total number of interviewees in Center 1 is 18.
b
Total number of interviewees in Center 2 is 13.
c
Total number of interviewees in Center 3 is 17.
field. Indirect impacts are those that occur beyond this goal of improving technical
education in the targeted technology field.
Direct Local Impacts
Table 2 identifies the most commonly cited direct impacts. Here we briefly describe
the nature of these impacts that were present at more than one institution.
Improving program quality in the targeted technology field. Centers were often credited
with bringing together instructors from across the targeted technology field, cognate
areas, and contacts in related industry. This made the program unified in its approach
to training students, aligning cognate and target curricula with the preparation students
need for industry.
Creating partnerships with industry or professional societies. Often faculty members
would visit or be temporarily employed by local industry. These faculty members
returned to the college with a new set of experiences that informed program development and instruction in the targeted technology field. Other direct partnerships with
industry and professional society representatives helped the colleges revise their
Downloaded from crw.sagepub.com at Calvin College & Seminary on September 13, 2013
11
Henderson et al.
programs to meet the changing needs of industry. A faculty member in the targeted
technology field at Center 1 described how the ATE center helped local industry
become aware of the potential for partnering with the host college: “I think [a benefit
is] the awareness because of [the Center] being here, [the Center] has now the specific
contacts to partner [with industry] and to do a lot more partnering than ever.”
Providing faculty professional development. The centers trained the faculty through workshops, seminars, and the provision of scholarships for external professional development
activities. Among other areas, professional development focused on using new curriculum materials, developing effective curriculum, and using effective teaching practices.
Acquiring additional external funding. Additional external federal, nonfederal, and
internal funds were secured for the targeted technical area by the centers directly or
with the aid of the center. These funds supported further development in the targeted
technical area.
Increasing the number of students. All centers had intentional projects to recruit high
school students into the targeted technical area and to retain enrolled students. This was
quantified as either a net gain in students or, in the case of programs experiencing enrollment declines at other institutions nationwide, holding the number of students steady.
Improving instructional technology. The centers, often through the establishment of contacts with local industry in the targeted technical area, were able to incorporate cuttingedge technology into instruction so that students could gain hands-on experience.
Transfer arrangements with 4-year institutions. Centers led the way in forging articulation agreements and working with nearby 4-year universities to develop a smooth transition for students seeking a 4-year degree in the targeted technology field. A leader at
Center 2 with a faculty appointment at a local university described it this way:
So if you [a student] choose to pursue a 2-year degree at [the host college], we
look upon you as a possible 4-year degree student at [the local university]. . . .
But when you go there [the host college] you are actually treated as a [local
university] student also. So I’ll bring you into the [the local university], talk to
you, . . . get your ID set up, things like that. But you are actually taking classes
at [the host college].
Producing high-quality curricular materials. By staying in close contact with industry,
the centers kept curriculum current and relevant to changing industry needs. Some
interviewees also mentioned that the curriculum materials developed by the centers
successfully increased student learning, that students found them interesting, and that
they were classroom ready. A project manager for Center 3 described this:
These things are not in textbooks in any great extent, these were modules. So
faculty, if they needed to teach [in the target technical area], they could very
quickly go to the site, open that module up, look at the resources and grade what
is done. They can call up [materials] off of their computer . . . if it is hooked to
Downloaded from crw.sagepub.com at Calvin College & Seminary on September 13, 2013
12
Community College Review 40(1)
the Internet . . . [and] up the PowerPoint presentation. Put [it] . . . right up on
the screen and start using it. It was that simple.
Improving external reputation of program. The presence of a center associated with the
host institution increased the external reputation of the college within the target technology field. This led to increased student numbers and an influx of external resources.
Collectively, these direct impacts can produce what we call a spiral of success. This
spiral occurs when the center directly improves the overall quality of the technology
program by creating new curricula, providing professional development for faculty,
and having up-to-date equipment. Because of the increased quality of the specific
technology program, its external reputation with other institutions, industry, students,
and funders improves. Due to its enhanced reputation, the program can increase its
resources (e.g., more and stronger industry partnerships, more students, and more
external funding), which in turn continues to enhance the targeted technology program. Therefore, although we primarily described each direct local impact individually, they are typically related to one another.
All of the direct impacts described in Table 2 have been observed in at least one of
the previous studies on ATE grant impacts (Bailey et al., 2003, 2004; Goodson et al.,
2000; Patton, 2003; Reid et al., 2007; Zinser & Hanssen, 2006), including improving
the quality of the overall program, providing partnerships with industry, and producing
high-quality curricular materials (e.g., Bailey et al., 2003, 2004; Goodson et al., 2000;
Patton, 2003). Our findings are also consistent with the findings of Reid et al. who
studied only regional centers (n = 8). However, Reid et al. did not discuss whether any
of the regional centers improved the external reputation of the program or aided in
acquiring additional external funding. Further research would have to be completed in
order to conclude that these impacts are unique to national centers.
Indirect Local Impacts
Table 3 identifies the most commonly mentioned indirect local impacts from each
center. Here we briefly describe the nature of these impacts that were present at more
than one institution.
Contributing to host institution’s ability to obtain other grants. The center at each host
institution helped those outside of the targeted technology field secure funding by
serving as a coauthor, as a model, as a source of expertise in producing grant proposals, and even simply as a source of a positive reputation for the host institution. For
example, at Center 1, a faculty member in a cognate department spoke of how that
department indirectly benefitted from the presence of the ATE center: “I know a couple of years ago we submitted a grant for different types of equipment for training
curriculum, and the only reason we could submit that grant was because we were an
ATE associated [college].”
Increasing the prestige of the host institution and enhancing its reputation. Interviewees
mentioned that the institution’s ability to host a national center was seen as evidence
Downloaded from crw.sagepub.com at Calvin College & Seminary on September 13, 2013
13
Henderson et al.
Table 3. Most Commonly Cited Indirect Local Impacts at Each Site
Number of interviewees
identifying the impact
Description of impact
Contributing to host institution’s ability to obtain
other grants
Increasing the prestige of the host institution and
enhancing its reputation
Having a positive impact on nontechnical curriculum
Enhancing nontechnical programs’ ability to network
and create relationships with outside groups
Improving working condition policies for “soft-money”
employees
Center 1a
Center 2b
Center 3c
8
9
9
11
7
4
—
—
10
4
4
5
—
—
2
Note: Impacts are ordered based on the number of centers at which that impact was identified and then
on the number of interviewees who mentioned the occurrence of that impact. Impacts are not listed if
they are only mentioned by one interviewee across all three of the centers.
a
Total number of interviewees in Center 1 is 18.
b
Total number of interviewees in Center 2 is 13.
c
Total number of interviewees in Center 3 is 17.
of the quality of the institution in general. This opens doors for networking, partnerships, and (as mentioned above) further funding and resources even to those outside of
the target technology field.
Having a positive impact on nontechnical curriculum. The centers often were credited
with developing a system of professional development or curriculum development
that was adopted across the host institution. Interviewees cited several specific examples of how the center set a precedent for increasing activity-based learning, developing cross-curricular themes, reducing class size, and reducing the number of students
per piece of equipment.
Enhancing the ability of programs outside of the targeted technical field to network and
create relationships with external groups. Other departments, programs, and centers
within the host institution often looked to the ATE Center as a resource and model for
how to expertly create the external connections necessary for success. For example, at
the host institution for Center 3, we interviewed a director of a different center on the
same campus. This person emphasized the use of Center 3 as a resource and model:
But I will say [the Center 3 director] was invaluable with introducing me to NSF
people, to other center directors. . . . [The director] definitely helped especially
our office be introduced to the right people and be part of conversations when
we’re exploring new directions for the district. . . . [The center director is] there
as a resource and when needed [he or she is] always there.
Downloaded from crw.sagepub.com at Calvin College & Seminary on September 13, 2013
14
Community College Review 40(1)
Table 4. Intensity of Indirect and Direct Impacts of Each Center on Its Host Institution
Type of impact
Intensity of indirect impacts
Intensity of direct impacts
Center 1
Center 2
Center 3
Low
High
Medium
Medium
High
Medium
Few indirect impacts were mentioned in the previous studies. One exception is
Patton’s (2003) informal study of indirect local impacts of ATE centers, both regional
and national. Through interviews with community college presidents, she identified
all of the same impacts listed in Table 3, except for improving working-condition policies for soft-money employees. Because only one of the centers in the present study
mentioned this impact, it may be unique to that particular center, and not a typical
impact of national centers. Bailey et al. (2003), who studied national ATE centers and
ATE projects, found only two of the impacts listed in Table 3: contributing to the host
institution’s ability to obtain other grants, and enhancing networking abilities outside
of the targeted technology field. Goodson et al. (2000) also found external networking
as an impact. On the basis of the consistency of our results with the limited prior work,
we suggest that Table 3 represents a reasonably comprehensive set of potential indirect
local impacts of a national ATE center.
Correlations With Impacts
In our three case studies we found varying intensities of local impacts (see Table 4).
Some centers were very well connected with other groups or entities at the host institution and had impacts throughout the campus (i.e., high-intensity indirect impacts)
whereas others were well connected to one particular department or program and
made a large impact on that program (i.e., high-intensity direct impacts).
It is important to note that our assessment of impact intensity is based not only on
the number of interviewees who noted a particular impact (the more and wider variety
of interviewees who noted an impact, the greater its intensity is likely to be) but also
on what was said about the impact. For example, at both Center 1 and Center 3, similar
numbers of respondents (14 and 15, respectively) noted that the center had improved
the quality of programs in the targeted technology field. At Center 1, however, respondents gave many specific and compelling examples of improvement, whereas at Center
3 respondents tended to speak in more general terms. Thus, on the basis of our assessment of this direct impact, along with similar attention to the details of the other direct
impacts, we rated Center 1 as high and Center 3 as medium on their intensity of direct
impacts.
While conducting the analysis of direct and indirect impacts, we also developed an
emerging list of center characteristics that interviewees felt contributed to these
impacts (Table 5). There were two main types of characteristics: diversification, and
Downloaded from crw.sagepub.com at Calvin College & Seminary on September 13, 2013
15
Henderson et al.
Table 5. Center Characteristics That Correlate With Direct and Indirect Impacts
Characteristics
Center 1
Organizational placement Department within
of center
academic division
Who does the center
director report to?
Center 2
Department within Department within
academic division service-oriented
division
Dean of the
Vice-president of
academic division the division
Dean of the academic
division (who, until
recently, was the
cofounder of the center)
Yes
Yes
Center structurally
connected to a particular
technology field?
Diversification
Low
Center 3
Medium
No
High
organizational location of the center. The correlations of these characteristics with
center impacts will be discussed below.
Diversification
Diversification refers to the degree to which center activities extended beyond the
targeted technology field. Interviewees were specifically asked about center activities
within and outside of the targeted technology field. Thus, we obtained substantial
information about the range of center activities.
Within each site, there was a direct relationship between the degree of diversification and the intensity of indirect impacts. Diversification is related to indirect impacts,
as both include activities of the center that go beyond efforts to improve education in
the targeted technology field. Much of the diversification identified in this study took
the form of collaborative projects, and many of these projects were externally funded.
The more collaborations that a center has, the more opportunities it has to create indirect impact. However, the connections and relationships that lead to these collaborations do not happen by themselves. The degree of diversification is directly related to
each center’s active efforts to build connections and relationships.
Center 3 was highly diversified. All interviewees from Center 3 mentioned that the
center facilitates networking within the host institution system to beneficial ends. This
includes acting as a model and as a resource to help others secure funding and coauthoring grant proposals that have been funded. One interviewee mentioned that Center
3 is so influential that it has changed the way that the grants office in the host institution works. Several mentioned that the center staff is seen by other departments as a
resource for advice on managing funded projects and interacting with the NSF.
Interviewees identified a large number of programs that had benefitted from collaborative activities with Center 3. These include workforce development, bioscience,
Downloaded from crw.sagepub.com at Calvin College & Seminary on September 13, 2013
16
Community College Review 40(1)
teacher education, nanotechnology, nursing, and several science and mathematics disciplines outside of the center’s targeted technology field.
Center 2 had a moderate level of diversification. The center had diversified its
activities beyond its initial focus on improving postsecondary education within its
targeted technology field. Through funding from the state department of education,
Center 2 had expanded its activities to include middle- and high-school teacher professional development. Much of the diversification within the host institution related to
dissemination of the curricular model developed by the center to other disciplines as
well as to collaborations concerning grant management. Interviewees mentioned collaborative projects undertaken with faculty members in a number of disciplines to
develop content within the center’s curricular model. Interviewees also noted that
Center 2, like Center 3, collaborated with other groups on campus in developing and
managing externally funded projects. For example, Center 2 collaborated with other
grants at the host institution to provide secretarial support and assistance with grant
management, writing, and reporting. Many interviewees felt that this had increased the
ability of the host institution to obtain external funding.
In contrast to Centers 2 and 3, Center 1 had a low level of diversification yet also
had the largest direct local impacts. For example, in contrast to the other two centers,
interviewees were able to point to numerous concrete examples of how Center 1 had
improved the targeted technology programs at its host institution. All interviewees
thought of the center as strictly related to the targeted technology field and said that
there had been little interaction between the center and parts of the institution outside
of the program that housed the targeted technology field. Several interviewees noted
that there were unrealized opportunities for Center 1 to be more diversified. The two
interviewees who elaborated the most about how this could happen were involved
with the grants office. They advocated a model in which the center would be structurally and physically connected with another large national center at the host institution.
They saw opportunities for synergies and additional grants. The interviewees stated
that this collaboration had not yet developed because of the difficulty in developing
communication between funded projects. Thus, we speculate that the low level of
diversification at Center 1 may be due in part to its focus on the targeted technology
field and building connections nationally. Although it seems theoretically possible for
a center to be both highly diversified and highly focused on the targeted technology
field (which would lead to high indirect and high direct impacts), it is not clear from
our data or from other studies that this is actually possible in practice.
Because of the increased availability of resources afforded by diversification, we
expect that the most diversified centers will be more likely to maintain their identity and
some core activities after their NSF-ATE funding expires. We do, though, suspect that an
optimal level of diversification exists. In the cases analyzed here, even the most diversified center (Center 3) had a clear vision of what products and services it had to offer. In
business language, Center 3 had developed a set of core competencies that it could use
in collaboration with other entities on campus. In using these core competencies (such as
their expertise in webinars), the center’s staff were able to develop collaborative projects
Downloaded from crw.sagepub.com at Calvin College & Seminary on September 13, 2013
17
Henderson et al.
Table 6. Interviewee Estimates of the Percentage of Groups at Each Host Institution Who
Knew at least a Little About the Center
Groups
Administrators
Faculty
Staff
Students
Center 1
(%)
Center 2
(%)
Center 3
(%)
83
34
35
8
91
34
32
6
51
23
9
7
Note: Percentages represent the average of the percentages indicated by all interviewees at each center.
that both benefited other parts of the campus and provided resources for the center,
which in turn actually strengthened the core competencies of the center. Center 2 did this
to a lesser extent. It had developed some collaborations with, and lent its expertise to,
other grant-funded projects at the institution. Center 1 did not do this at all.
In all three case studies, additional connections with other parts of the campus and
additional diversification were seen by interviewees as desirable. For example, at
Center 1’s host institution, the head of grants and contracts was working toward collaborations between Center 1 and another grant-funded center. The administration
viewed this as a way to build on the strengths of both centers and also to diversify the
grant funding base of the institution. As another example, at the host institution for
Center 2, the upper administration had asked grant PIs, including the ATE center PI, to
develop a network designed to increase communication and collaboration among
grants and centers at the institution.
At all institutions, we noted that interviewees perceived a generally low level of
awareness of the center and its activities (see Table 6). The interviewees perceived that
awareness of the center and its activities was highest among administrators and lower
among faculty members, staff members, and especially students. We suggest that
efforts to increase local branding and raise the profile of the center and what it has to
offer could lead to increased collaboration and diversification. Interviewees at all three
institutions mentioned efforts by the center staff and PIs to promote the center and its
activities on campus (e.g., by a web presence, e-newsletters, etc.). Overall, however,
interviewees at all three centers perceived that they were much better recognized
nationally than locally.
Organizational Location
The placement of the center within the host institution’s organizational structure may
also contribute toward both the types of local impacts and the mechanisms that
facilitate these impacts. Center characteristics related to the organizational location
include placement of the center on the organizational chart, who the center director
Downloaded from crw.sagepub.com at Calvin College & Seminary on September 13, 2013
18
Community College Review 40(1)
Figure 1. Simplified chart showing the location of each center in its host institution’s
organizational structure
reports to, and connections between the center and a particular technology field. As
can be seen on Table 5, Center 1 and Center 2 had similar characteristics related to
organizational location, which differ from those of Center 3. These differences are
also highlighted in Figure 1.
Center 3 was higher on the organizational chart than the other two centers. Center
3 was located in the Academic and Student Affairs division and reported to the vicepresident in charge of this division. In contrast, the other two centers were considered
equivalent to departments within an instructional division that included the targeted
technology field. Directors of Centers 1 and 2 reported to the deans of their respective
divisions, and in both cases the dean reported to the vice-president of instruction. We
speculate that the location of Center 3 on the organizational chart helped it to diversify
because it was not structurally associated with a particular technology field or instructional division. Also, its higher location on the organizational chart provided better
access to other parts of the institution that were at a similarly high level. Creating
programs in collaboration with leaders of these other high-level units provided opportunities to impact lower levels throughout the organization.
The physical location of the center may affect diversification as well. Center 1 was
located in a building that housed a single academic program, Center 2 was located in
a building that housed several other programs and an affiliated workforce development center, and Center 3 had recently moved to its own building located some distance from other buildings of the college (it had previously been housed in the same
building with the other district offices). In all three cases, this isolation from the rest of
the campus was seen as a problem by some interviewees. The significance of the organizational and physical placement of the center in regard to the host institution was
also observed by Bailey et al. (2003) in their study of ATE centers and projects.
Downloaded from crw.sagepub.com at Calvin College & Seminary on September 13, 2013
19
Henderson et al.
Why Is a Center Successful?
Based on the direct and indirect impacts identified in this study, as well as on their
strong external reputations, it can be argued that all three of the centers were quite
successful. In addition to center characteristics (discussed previously) that differ
between the three centers and that are related to the type of impact, interviewees identified common characteristics of the centers and host institutions that were related to
the overall success of the centers. Three characteristics were frequently mentioned as
being important at each institution: industry connections, strong leadership, and an
innovative host institution.
Industry connections. All three centers had strong partnerships with industry (either
directly or through professional societies) that served several important purposes, such
as providing a source of additional income and access to new ideas and equipment.
Although the income from industry partnerships was a small part of the overall center
budget in each case, interviewees recognized that it was nonetheless helpful. More
important than their direct financial support, however, was that industry partnerships
helped to keep the centers up to date with the latest technology and trends in the targeted industry. Partnerships also helped the centers align their instructional materials
with industry needs, thus keeping their programs up to date. For example, at Center 3,
faculty members were temporarily employed in externships within industry and then
used the experience to inform curriculum changes. In some cases, centers benefitted
from the donation of equipment. For example, Center 1 received the latest technology
systems from their industry partners. Industry also benefited because their future
workers will be more qualified for their positions. Prior work also supports our conclusions related to the importance of industry partnerships with ATE centers (e.g., Bailey
et al., 2003, 2004; Reid et al., 2007).
Leadership. A second important characteristic that interviewees attributed to center
success consists of the particular qualities of the center leaders (i.e., PIs and directors),
such as having the ability to communicate, network, lead, collaborate, and manage. All
of these were key traits that interviewees associated with the leaders of Center 3. Similar traits were perceived as contributing to the success of Center 2, such as the collaborative effort of many individuals and the outstanding leadership of the previous and
current center PIs; the leadership of the grants office director was cited as well. At
Center 1, the founders were seen by interviewees as visionaries who embraced the
pioneering mindset of the host institution. Overall, interviewees from all three centers
attributed at least part of the centers’ success to their leaders.
The host institution. Many interviewees also acknowledged the culture of the host
institution as contributing to each center’s success. For instance, the reason most frequently cited for Center 1’s success was that the host institution’s culture supports
innovation, risk taking, and grant getting. Having a culture that supports obtaining
grants was also one of the most common reasons cited as contributing toward Center
2’s success. The host institutions of all three centers were among the 19 board-member
Downloaded from crw.sagepub.com at Calvin College & Seminary on September 13, 2013
20
Community College Review 40(1)
colleges of the League for Innovation in the Community College; board-member colleges are those that are headed by presidents who serve on the league’s board of directors. Thus, there is also some external recognition of each host institution as being
innovative and dynamic.
Discussion and Recommendations
Developing a national ATE center requires a considerable investment of time and
money. Running a center requires considerable development of physical resources
(e.g., curricular modules, new degree programs, etc.) as well as intellectual resources
(e.g., improved skills of staff members, personal connections with industry, etc.).
Local and national impacts during the funding period are generally strong. However,
a key unsolved problem for the ATE program is finding ways to leverage these
resources so that, at a minimum, some of these impacts are maintained after funding
ends. The ATE program solicitation suggests two ways of maintaining this impact:
institutionalization and sustainability (NSF, 2010).
Institutionalization refers to maintaining local aspects of the center activities as part
of the ongoing activities of the college. At each site visit, we found ATE center program products or activities, including new programs, new curricula, and new pedagogy, that had either already become institutionalized or were likely to become
institutionalized. For example, the modular curriculum architecture developed by
Center 2 has been adopted across three of the six academic divisions at the college.
However, as noted by one interviewee at Center 2, a danger inherent in institutionalization may be the loss of the association between the institutionalized products and
the center that created them:ss
If you go out right now and you say, “. . . modular curriculum design, course
design . . . [is] that in association to [Center 2]?” And I would probably say no,
because we’re institutionalized. . . . [T]he body of knowledge, the work that has
been done early on . . . is a part of our culture now.
The activities of Center 3 promoting improvements in benefits for soft-money
employees could also be an example of institutionalized center activities. Overall,
activities that can become institutionalized continue to have a positive local impact but
in most cases do not continue to develop new improvements.
According to NSF (2010), sustainability refers to maintaining major center activities after the end of the funding period. However, although each center will certainly
have some lasting impacts due to institutionalized practices, we found no major activities that would clearly be sustained after ATE funding expired. For example, all sites,
at one point, had either attempted or envisioned selling their curricular products to
generate revenue. Although, in principle, this would seem an excellent way to maintain sustainability after NSF-ATE funding expired, in practice the potential revenues
were nowhere near those required to sustain any core center activities. In addition, Welch
Downloaded from crw.sagepub.com at Calvin College & Seminary on September 13, 2013
21
Henderson et al.
and Gullickson (2006), in their study of ATE centers and projects, found that many program activities were not continued after NSF-ATE funding ended. Therefore, Bailey et al.
(2003, 2004) and Lawrenz and Keiser (2002) may have been correct to point out that NSF
needs to be clearer about its expectations for reaching sustainability.
In addition to the concepts of institutionalization and sustainability, we propose a
third way to conceptualize how to maintain and even increase the impacts of an ATE
center once center funding ends. We propose that centers identify and purposely
develop their core competencies, which centers can then apply to other projects that
benefit their host institutions and also serve national needs within the targeted technology field. Core competencies are the tacit and explicit learning that has accumulated
in the center during its operation (Fiol, 2001; Javidan, 1998; Prahalad, 1993).
There was evidence of significant core competencies at each of the three national
ATE centers. In many cases, these competencies were already being leveraged in new
projects. Some examples of core competencies we saw were curriculum development,
professional development, outreach related to technical careers, event management,
and grantsmanship. It is not common for an organization to articulate its core competencies. But doing so is an important way to identify appropriate new opportunities
(Prahalad & Hamel, 1990). When identifying core competencies, a center should think
about what it does well that is widely applicable, makes a significant contribution in
its area of applicability, and involves a hard-to-find combination of knowledge and
skills (Prahalad & Hamel, 1990). Once identified, a center can strategically identify
new projects that both use and enrich/extend these competencies. These additional
projects may be funded by NSF (but not necessarily by ATE) or other federal, state, or
private funding sources. This is not unlike how traditional research and development
programs operate within research-oriented institutions.
Center 3 has largely taken this approach. In partnership with several other collaborating units at its host institution, Center 3 has initiated and currently houses several
funded projects that build on the core competencies of the organization. Altogether,
these projects represent approximately US$5.5 million beyond the NSF-ATE center
funds. Some of these projects directly build on and expand the database of curricular
materials initiated as part of the ATE center funding. Other projects build on other
center competencies, such as developing educational webinars or having extensive
contacts with local technical industries.
Although Center 2 does not appear to have consciously developed its core competencies, some of its activities can be seen in this light. The ATE center grant was one
of the first large grants obtained by the host institution. Thus, at least locally, one of the
core competencies of the center is related to grantsmanship—the ability to write and
manage grants. Most of the interviewees pointed to the collaborations that Center 2
has developed with other groups on campus in order to develop and manage externally
funded grants. Activities at Center 2 have also led to networking and relationships with
outside groups (e.g., NSF, professional societies, industry partners, and other colleges).
These can also be seen as core competencies and have been used to help other groups
on campus obtain external funds. An important difference between Center 2 and Center
Downloaded from crw.sagepub.com at Calvin College & Seminary on September 13, 2013
22
Community College Review 40(1)
3, though, is that many of these additional funds obtained with the assistance of Center
2 were not really collaborative projects with other groups on campus. Rather, they were
projects in which Center 2 would contract out some of its expertise as needed. This
helped to support Center 2 because some staff members were paid to work on these
other grants, but it did not serve to concentrate expertise in the core competencies.
Center 1 had made no efforts to identify or expand its core competencies locally.
One competency that it did mention was its national network of faculty members and
industry within its targeted technology field. This network and the reputation of the
center within its field were seen as assets of the center that could possibly be maintained and that would fit our definition of a core competency. It was the grants office
staff, rather than the center staff, who were most articulate about the importance placed
by Center 1 on working toward collaborative relationships with other organizations on
campus. One core competency that was mentioned was the center’s expertise with a
particular computer technology. This technology was seen to have significant applications in many other parts of the institution.
Conclusions
National ATE centers have many valuable local impacts on their host institutions.
Local impacts can be both direct (e.g., significantly improving the quality of programs
in the targeted technology field) and indirect (e.g., contributing to the institution’s
ability to obtain other grants). The items in Tables 2 and 3 can be considered to be
impacts that might be expected from an appropriately planned national ATE center.
Furthermore, the results of this study suggest ways that national ATE centers can
increase their local impacts. For example, in order to increase the intensity of direct
local impacts, the center should increase its depth of focus on and connections to the
targeted technology field. This may include, for example, connecting the center more
closely to instructional programs in the targeted technology field (either physically or
organizationally) or developing more or stronger industry partnerships. To increase
indirect local impacts, higher diversification through collaborations with other projects on campus is essential. Moving the center higher in the host institution’s organizational structure may also increase indirect impacts. Finally, it is important not only
to develop these local impacts but also to sustain them. We suggest that in order to
sustain these impacts, it is important to develop and articulate core competencies that
are valuable to the institution.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship,
and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship,
and/or publication of this article: This material is based upon work supported by the National
Science Foundation under Grant No. 0832874.
Downloaded from crw.sagepub.com at Calvin College & Seminary on September 13, 2013
23
Henderson et al.
References
Bailey, T. R., Matsuzuka, Y., Jacobs, J., Morest, V. S., & Hughes, K. L. (2003, October). Institutionalization and sustainability of the National Science Foundation’s Advanced Technological Education program. New York, NY: Community College Research Center, Teachers
College, Columbia University. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED482183)
Bailey, T. R., Matsuzuka, Y., Jacobs, J., Morest, V. S., & Hughes, K. L. (2004, March). Institutionalization and sustainability of the National Science Foundation’s Advanced Technological Education program (Community College Research Center Brief No. 20). Retrieved
from http://ccrc.tc.columbia.edu/Publication.asp?UID=83
Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing from among five
approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Creswell, J. W., Plano Clark, V. L., Gutmann, M., & Hanson, W. (2003). Advanced mixed methods
research designs. In A. Tashakkaori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social
and behavioral research (pp. 209-240). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Eckel, P. D., & Kezar, A. (2003). Taking the reins: Institutional transformation in higher education.
Westport, CT: Praeger.
Fiol, C. M. (2001). Revisiting an identity-based view of sustainable competitive advantage.
Journal of Management, 27, 691-699.
Germuth, A. A., Gullickson, A. R., Lawrenz, F., & Hanssen, C. E. (2006). Assessing the value
added by NSF’s ATE program: Business and industry perspectives’ cross-site analysis
report. Kalamazoo, MI: The Evaluation Center, Western Michigan University. Retrieved
from http://evaluation.wmich.edu/evalctr/ate/2006%20Business%20and%20Industry%20
Value%20Added.pdf
Goodson, C., Ezell, S., & Miertschin, S. (2000). Engineering technology education and the
National Science Foundation: Results. Journal of Engineering Technology, 17(2), 16-23.
Javidan, M. (1998). Core competence: What does it mean in practice? Long Range Planning,
31(1), 60-71.
Lawrenz, F., & Keiser, N. (2002). Sustainability: Increasing the likelihood of a long-term
impact by the ATE program. In S. Veeder (Ed.), The ATE program: Issues for consideration
(pp. 130-146). Kalamazoo, MI: The Evaluation Center, Western Michigan University.
Retrieved from http://evaluation.wmich.edu/evalctr/ate/Issues_for_Consideration_Sustainability.pdf
National Science Foundation. (2010). Advanced Technological Education (ATE program solicitation, NSF #10-539). Retrieved from http://nsf.gov/pubs/2010/nsf10539/
nsf10539.htm
National Science Foundation. (n.d.). ATE central. Advanced technological education. Retrieved
from http://atecentral.net
Patton, M. (2003, October/November). ATE grants impact community colleges. Community
College Journal, 74(3), 4-7.
Patton, M. (Ed.). (2008). ATE centers impact 2008-2010. Tempe, AZ: Maricopa Community
Colleges.
Prahalad, C. K. (1993). The role of core competencies in the corporation. Research Technology
Management, 36(6), 40-47.
Downloaded from crw.sagepub.com at Calvin College & Seminary on September 13, 2013
24
Community College Review 40(1)
Prahalad, C. K., & Hamel, G. (1990). The core competencies of the corporation. Harvard Business Review, 68(3), 79-91.
Reid, M., Jacobs, J., Ivanier, A., & Morest, V. S. (2007). ATE regional centers: CCRC final
report. New York, NY: Community College Research Center, Teachers College, Columbia
University. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED499919)
Stake, R. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Welch, W. W., & Gullickson, A. R. (2006). The sustainability of Advanced Technological
Education–supported efforts: An evaluation. Kalamazoo, MI: The Evaluation Center, Western Michigan University. Retrieved from http://evaluation.wmich.edu/evalctr/ate/ATESustainabilityReport.pdf
Wingate, L., Westine, C., & Gullickson, A. (2010). Advanced Technological Education survey 2010 fact sheet. Kalamazoo, MI: The Evaluation Center, Western Michigan University.
Retrieved from http://evalu-ate.org/app/webroot/files/uploads/2010_ATE_Survey_Fact_
Sheet.pdf
Wolcott, H. F. (1994). Transforming qualitative data: Description, analysis, and interpretation.
Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and method (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Zinser, R. W., & Hanssen, C. E. (2006). Improving access to the baccalaureate: Articulation
agreements and the National Science Foundation’s Advanced Technological Education program. Community College Review, 34(1), 27-43.
Bios
Charles Henderson is an associate professor in the Department of Physics and the Mallinson
Institute for Science Education at Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, MI.
Herb Fynewever is an associate professor in the Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry
at Calvin College, Grand Rapids, Michigan.
Heather Petcovic is an associate professor in the Department of Geosciences and the Mallinson
Institute for Science Education at Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, MI.
Andrea Bierema is a doctoral student at the Mallinson Institute for Science Education at
Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, MI.
Downloaded from crw.sagepub.com at Calvin College & Seminary on September 13, 2013