PROGRAM HIGHLIGHTS

Research Training Program
 Evaluations and Assessments
Research Training Program
INFORMATION  |  APPLICATION PROCEDURES  |  HIGHLIGHTS  |  ALUMNI PAGES
Updated: 6 August 2007
Continuously improving and adapting to change, including assessing successes, and improving on weaknesses, is an important component of the Research Training Program. Instituted in 1999, standardized rating sheets help quantify and compare key points. Since implementing this standard evaluation, records show that advisors have maintained a high rate of success with an average of 64% receiving an outstanding rating from their students. In addition, Smithsonian scientists serving as research advisors continue to be very pleased with their RTP students with 90% of the students exceeding their advisor's expectations. And, the quality of events and activities also continues to improve, in part due to comments received during prior year evaluations, with an average of 90% of the activities and events conducted by the RTP rated as successful or better.

 

    2007 2006 2005+ 2004 2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
Average
ADVISORS: Student evaluations of their research advisor                    
                       
  Outstanding 54%
68%
  
68%
 63%
75%
69%
49%
59%
64%
  Highly Successful 36%
15%
  
26%
 33%
15%
17%
23%
23%
22%
  Successful 7%
2%
  
5%
4%
10%
11%
23%
9%
9%
  Improvement Needed 0
10%
  
0
0
0
3%
5%
9%
4%
  Unacceptable 0
5%
  
0
0
0
0
5%
0
1%
                       
STUDENTS: Research advisor evaluations of their students                    
                       
  Outstanding 71%
52%
  
74%
77%
65%
83%
59%
50%
66%
  Highly Successful 21%
28%
  
11%
17%
35%
8%
25%
34%
22%
  Successful 11%
15%
  
8%
6%
0
8%
16%
11%
9%
  Improvement Needed 0
0
  
8%
0
0
0
0
5%
2%
  Unacceptable 0
5%
  
0
0
0
0
0
0
1%
                       
EVENTS: Student evaluations of program events and activities                    
                       
  Outstanding 36%
95%
  
45%
26%
43%
31%
21%
29%
41%
  Highly Successful 50%
0
  
35%
35%
34%
35%
34%
30%
29%
  Successful 14%
5%
  
18%
31%
18%
26%
38%
27%
23%
  Improvement Needed 0
0
  
2%
7%
5%
7%
7%
12%
6%
  Unacceptable 0
0
  
0
2%
0
0
1%
2%
>1%

+ As the result of a catastrophic web server crash 9 February 2005 resulting in the irretrievable loss of all applicant and review data the decision was made to cancel the 2005 program.

Pre-program Survey   |   Post-program Survey
Advisor Evaluation Form   |   Student Evaluation Form   |   Event Evaluation Form

* * * Pre-program Survey * * *

Completed by the student prior to beginning the internship program. This survey is used to assess the student's expectations of the internship appointment, their research advisor, and the events of the program.

1. Define your expectations for the program events in terms of what you hope to learn, gain, explore, see, do, investigate, etc.


2. Define your expectations for your research advisor (and the research project) in terms of what you hope to learn, gain, experience, participate in, observe, etc.


3. What are your career goals?


* * * Post-program Survey * * *

Completed by the student after completing the internship program. This survey is used to evaluate the execution of the internship curriculum as a whole, compare the student's expectations to their realized results, and to identify improvement points for future programs.


1. Were the expectations you defined for the program events in terms of what you hoped to learn, gain, explore, see, do, investigate, etc. realized? If yes, provide specific examples. If no, provide suggestions for improvements.


2. Were the expectations you defined for your research advisor in terms of what you hoped to learn, gain, experience, participate in, observe, etc. realized? If yes, provide specific examples. If no, provide suggestions for improvements.


3. Have your career goals changed as a result of participating in this program? If yes, provide specific examples. If no, restate your intended career path.

 

* * * Research Advisor Evaluation * * *

Completed by the student and used as a tool to evaluate the research topic and mentoring provided by the research advisor. Evaluations are conducted half way through the internship appointment and at the conclusion of the program.

Definition of terms:

OUTSTANDING: The advisor exceeded the standards and expectations for all components including the quality of the research and the mentoring provided.

HIGHLY SUCCESSFUL: The advisor exceeded the standards for 50% of the components. Performance of the advisor exceeded the standards and met the expectations for both mentoring provided and quality of the research.

FULLY SUCCESSFUL: The advisor met the standards and expectations for both mentoring provided and quality of the research.

IMPROVEMENT NEEDED: The advisor met the standards. However, the expectations were not met and improvement is needed in either the quality of the research or the mentoring provided.

UNACCEPTABLE: The advisor did not meet the standards in either the mentoring provided or the quality of the research.
_____________________________________________________________________________

Element 1. Research topic - STANDARDS: Focuses on the research topic, methods used, and implementation protocols.

Standards: These are the standard expectations for research topics conducted as part of the Research Training Program. Review the standards then evaluate your project based on these standards.

- - - Exemplifies the objectives of the RTP including complements the students' career goals and interests, utilizes the uniqueness of the NMNH collections and facilities, exhibits scientifically significant "quality" natural history research, relates to bigger and more complex issues, and draws on the expertise of the research advisor.

- - - Engages the student in the overall process of real life research from design to outcome including developing a hypothesis, gathering data, making observations, analyzing information, and communicating results in the form of written manuscripts and oral presentations.

- - - Accommodates a sequence of priorities and realistic timetable for completion. Includes milestones for evaluation and assessment and deadlines for completion of drafts and finished products.

- - - Provides a wide variety of research perspectives and experiences, often integrating multiple disciplines and incorporating different methods and techniques, both traditional and new. Includes insight into what a scientist does day-to-day, how to work in interdisciplinary teams, publication and presentation protocols, funding and facilities decisions, and laboratory versus field investigations.

Evaluation (select one): MET   |   EXCEEDED   |   DID NOT MEET

Comments:


Element 1. Research topic - EXPECTATIONS: Focuses on the research topic, methods used, and implementation protocols.

Expectations: These are the individual expectations the student has for the research topic, including goals to be achieved and methods to be learned. Please define your research expectations and then evaluate if these were met.

Evaluation (select one): MET   |   EXCEEDED   |   DID NOT MEET

Comments:

 


Element 2. Mentoring provided - STANDARDS: Focuses on the mentoring provided by the research advisor and their research team.

Standards: These are the expectations for research advisors hosting students in the Research Training Program. Review the standards then evaluate your research advisor based on these standards.

- - - Develops confidence in the research process by providing opportunities to succeed and feedback on progress, such as constructive encouragement and productive criticism. Includes providing challenging, problem-solving assignments that can be successfully completed, demonstrating respect and trust, and maintaining a positive environment.

- - - Advances competence in the research process by providing opportunities to learn new methods and techniques, see a variety of facilities, meet national and international colleagues, participate in professional scientific activities, engage in active research questions and discussions, contribute original ideas, and exhibit independence.

- - - Demonstrates a commitment to the student/advisor team by dedicating quality time and attention to the research topic and providing mentoring guidance.

- - - Shares information and insights about succeeding in natural history research. Includes advice about careers, graduate school, research topics, time management, etc.

- - - Practices active listening and advocacy. Includes being committed to the research outcome, yet flexible about the process, adjusting assignments, if necessary, to achieve the objectives of the RTP and student's expectations.

Evaluation (select one): MET   |   EXCEEDED   |   DID NOT MEET

Comments:

 

Element 2. Mentoring provided - EXPECTATIONS: Focuses on the mentoring provided by the research advisor and their team.

Expectations: These are the individual expectations the student has for what they'd like to learn from their research advisor and the team associated with their research topic. Please record your mentoring expectations and then evaluate if these were met.

Evaluation (select one): MET   |   EXCEEDED   |   DID NOT MEET

Comments:

 

 

* * * Student Evaluation * * *

Completed by the research advisor and used as a tool to evaluate the research conducted by the student and their participation in the project. Evaluations are conducted half way through the internship appointment and at the conclusion of the program.

Definition of terms:

OUTSTANDING: The student exceeded the standards and expectations for all components including the quality and timeliness of the research conducted and level of participation in activities.

HIGHLY SUCCESSFUL: The student exceeded the standards for 50% of the components. The quality and timeliness of the research conducted exceeded the standards and the level of participation either met or exceeded the standards. The expectations were met or exceeded.

FULLY SUCCESSFUL: The student met the standards and expectations for both the research conducted and level of participation.

IMPROVEMENT NEEDED: The student met the standards. However, the expectations were not met and improvement is needed in either the research conducted or level of participation.

UNACCEPTABLE: The student did not meet the standards in either the research conducted or the level of participation.
_____________________________________________________________________________

Element 1. Research conducted - STANDARDS: Focuses on the research topic and the project being conducted by the student, including the implementation protocols.

Standards: These are the expectations for students conducting research topics as part of the Research Training Program. Review the standards then evaluate your student's research progress based on these standards.

- - - Conducts the research according to the sequence of priorities and timetable of accomplishments. Includes meeting established deadlines and following appropriate scientific methods and procedures.

- - - Demonstrates good research technique. Includes following safety procedures and collections management policies and ethics.

- - - Ensures that the research is scientifically significant by investigating prior work, establishing how the topic fits into the "big picture," and adapting emphasis if necessary to adjust to new information and discoveries.

- - - Communicates the research results by presenting a 15 minute talk as part of the RTP seminar series, producing a final report following journal format, and participating in the RTP poster session.

- - - Produces products resulting from the research that conform to expectations by following guidelines and instructions. Includes completing products according to established deadlines. Products include research abstracts and summaries for reporting.

Evaluation (select one): MET   |   EXCEEDED   |   DID NOT MEET

Comments:


Element 1. Research conducted - EXPECTATIONS: Focuses on the research topic and the project being conducted by the student, including the implementation protocols.

Expectations: These are the individual expectations, and preferences, the advisor has for students conducting research as part of their team. Please define your expectations and preferences for students conducting research as part of your team and then evaluate if these were met.

Evaluation (select one): MET   |   EXCEEDED   |   DID NOT MEET

Comments:


Element 2. Level of participation - STANDARDS: Focuses on the level of participation, time and attention, the student demonstrates toward the research topic and RTP activities and events.

Standards: These are the standard expectations for students participating in a research project as part of the Research Training Program. Review the standards then evaluate your student's participation based on these standards.

- - - Participates in the design, development, and outcome of the research project by contributing original ideas, pursuing investigations to enhance the topic, initiating discussions about the project, and actively participating in experiments to test the hypothesis and communicate the findings.

- - - Demonstrates an interest and commitment to learning the information presented by attending scheduled events, engaging in the activities, following up on assignments, and effectively utilizing the time reserved. Includes 49 days attendance, 8 hours each day, appropriately dedicated to either the research topic or RTP curriculum as listed in the "RTP Reference Manual".

- - - Exhibits progress and development toward becoming a successful scientist by gaining confidence and competence in the research process. Includes learning new methods and techniques, establishing "colleague" relationships within the NMNH community, and accepting encouragement and constructive criticism.

- - - Shares information and insights with the research team and works with other interdisciplinary staff to seek solutions to common questions. Includes cooperating with administrative and collections staff to accomplish travel, use of specimens, access to laboratories and facilities, etc.

Evaluation (select one): MET   |   EXCEEDED   |   DID NOT MEET

Comments:


Element 2. Level of participation - EXPECTATIONS: Focuses on the level of participation, time and attention, the student demonstrates toward the research topic and RTP activities and events.

Expectations: These are the individual expectations, and preferences, of the advisor for students participating as a member of their research team and a participant in the Research Training Program. Please define your participation expectations and preferences for students and then evaluate if these were met.


Evaluation (select one): MET   |   EXCEEDED   |   DID NOT MEET

Comments:


* * * Event Evaluation Form * * *

Completed by the student after each event, and used as a tool to evaluate the success, and weakness, of each activity and event. Students are asked to provide an overall rating of the event following a five point scale, ranging from Outstanding to Unacceptable. In addition, students evaluate components of the activity from two perspectives: 1) in terms of what information is presented including its content quality 2) and, in terms of how the information is presented. These elements are further evaluated from two different perspectives. First, from the standards outlined as part of the RTP program, and second, according to student's individual expectations for the event, including offering students the option to define their expectations for the event prior to its implementation.

Definition of terms:

OUTSTANDING: The event exceeded the standards and expectations for all components including the quality of the information presented and the presentation by the presenter.

HIGHLY SUCCESSFUL: The event exceeded the standards for 50% of the components. The quality of the information exceeded the standards and the performance of the presenter either met or exceeded the standards. The expectations were met.

FULLY SUCCESSFUL: The event met the standards and expectations in both the information presented and quality of the presentation.

IMPROVEMENT NEEDED: The event met the standards. However, the expectations were not met and improvement is needed in either the information presented or quality of the presentation.

UNACCEPTABLE: The event did not meet the standards in either the information presented or the quality of the presentation.
_____________________________________________________________________________


Element 1. Information presented - STANDARDS. Focuses on what information is presented and the general quality of the content.

Standards: These are the intentions and expectations of the activity, as designed by the Research Training Program. Review the standards then evaluate the activity compared to the standards for events.

- - - Presents a "solid foundation" of information by balancing depth and breadth of the topic. Includes enough general background data for non-specialists while also sharing challenging technical and specialist details.

- - - Demonstrates "high quality science" by drawing on expertise of a particular subject and presenting information with accuracy and thorough understanding.

- - - Includes recent discoveries and places them in context with previous theories and practices.

- - - Focuses on the uniqueness of the NMNH by highlighting research, collections, or issues relevant to the RTP curriculum rather than just general information and topics that could be accomplished anywhere.

- - - Illustrates one or more concepts relevant to pursuing a successful career in the natural history disciplines.

Evaluation (select one): MET   |   EXCEEDED   |   DID NOT MEET

Comments:


Element 1. Information presented - EXPECTATIONS.

Expectations: These are the student's individual expectations, and preferences, for the topic of the activity. Please define your expectations for the content of the event then evaluate if these were met.


Evaluation (select one): MET   |   EXCEEDED   |   DID NOT MEET

Comments:

 

Element 2. Presentation of information - STANDARDS. Focuses on how the information is presented and the general implementation of the activity.

Standards: These are the intentions and expectations of the activity, as designed by the Research Training Program. Review the standards then evaluate the activity compared to the standards for events.

- - - Conforms to the intention of the function by presenting information in a manner and format appropriate for the activity. Lectures concentrate on formal instruction, usually accompanied with background readings and references. Tours promote exploration, generally through the collections or laboratories, should involve "movement," and highlight seeing, holding, touching etc. while workshops provide a forum for active doing, demonstrations involve observing a special technique or method, and discussions facilitate sharing views between panelists and students.

- - - Presents information in an interactive, interesting, and positive atmosphere. Concentrates on conveying the benefits of the topic and focusing on the specific interests, needs, and preferences of the group.

- - - Encourages exploration of the topic, group involvement, and active learning by asking questions and accommodating requests rather than just presenting predetermined information.

Evaluation (select one): MET   |   EXCEEDED   |   DID NOT MEET

Comments:


Element 2. Presentation of Information - EXPECTATIONS. Focuses on how the information is presented and the general implementation of the activity.

Expectations: These are the individual expectations, and preferences, of the student for how the activity is presented. Please define your presentation expectations and preferences for the event then evaluate if these were met.


Evaluation (select one): MET   |   EXCEEDED   |   DID NOT MEET

Comments:


* * * Oral Presentation Evaluation Form * * *

The goal of the Research Training Program is to share the scientific expertise of Smithsonian professionals with undergraduate students seeking research careers in the natural history sciences, while fostering their confidence and competence in the complete research process. Oral presentations are offered as an opportunity for students to learn to communicate their research topic and findings to a scientific community. Student presenters request that the audience help them improve their oral presentation skills by offering helpful suggestions to increase their effectiveness in scientific presenting. Students also ask the audience to note particular elements in their presentation that were done well or especially outstanding. All evaluations will be given to the speaker for their consideration.
_____________________________________________________________________________

Definition of terms: Optional Scale to Rate Overall Presentation

OUTSTANDING: The presentation exceeded typical standards and expectations for a scientific presentation including the quality of the information presented and the presentation by the speaker.

HIGHLY SUCCESSFUL: The presentation exceeded typical standards for 50% of the usual components. The quality of the information presented exceeded the standards and the performance of the speaker either met or exceeded the standards.

FULLY SUCCESSFUL: The presentation met the typical standards and expectations in both the information presented and quality of the presentation.

IMPROVEMENT NEEDED: The presentation met the typical standards. However, improvements are suggested in either the information presented or quality of the presentation.

UNACCEPTABLE: The presentation did not meet the typical standards for a scientific presentation in either the information presented or the quality of the presentation.
_____________________________________________________________________________

Evaluation Elements:

1. RESEARCH CONDUCTED: Evaluate the scientific topic presented noting if the research followed a sound protocol and applied appropriate methodology.

Evaluation (circle one): Outstanding   |   Good   |   Average   |   Improvement suggested

Comments:


2. RESEARCH PRESENTED: Evaluate the information presented noting if the speaker focused on relevant and appropriate highlights of the research while minimizing aspects difficult to convey (e.g. large data sets) or inappropriate for an oral presentation and excluding unnecessary or extraneous information.

Evaluation (circle one): Outstanding   |   Good   |   Average   |   Improvement suggested

Comments:


3. PRESENTATION METHOD: Evaluate the effectiveness of the speaker in presenting the research to the audience by utilizing appropriate media, good time management, clarity of information, and quality of materials.

Evaluation (circle one): Outstanding   |   Good   |   Average   |   Improvement suggested

Comments:


4. PRESENTATION STYLE: Evaluate the style and quality of the presentation including the speaking manner (e.g. voice tone, inflection, clarity) and stage presence (e.g. effectively uses eye contact, draws attention to visual materials appropriately, presents information rather than just reads/repeats it, manages question/answer session professionally).

Evaluation (circle one): Outstanding   |   Good   |   Average   |   Improvement suggested

Comments:

 

Other Comments:


Research & Collections   |   Smithsonian   |   SI Libraries
  NMNH Home   |  What's New ?   |  Calendar of Events   |  Information Desk   |  Search

For general Smithsonian Information phone:
202-633-1000