Focus Area
STEM
Cobblestone has evaluated STEM programs at every level, from K-12 classrooms to university research initiatives to large multi-institutional grants. We have partnered with NSF principal investigators, community colleges, and four-year universities to design and implement evaluations that build credible evidence of program impact. Our methods are matched to your program’s goals and maturity, from formative feedback in early implementation to rigorous outcome measurement in later years. We know the STEM landscape well and bring both technical expertise and practical knowledge to every project.
STEM PROJECTS
79
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION PROJECTS
30+
SECURED BY OUR CLIENTS
$1,500,000
On a recent survey of our clients, 20 out of 21 respondents said that Cobblestone was successful in helping their organization secure external funding.
Clients we loved working with
STARS
at California State Polytechnic University, Pomona
EMPOWER SCHOLARS
at the University of California, San Diego
PURSUE
at Claremont McKenna College
STEM PATHWAYS
at San Diego State University
The Impact
The Challenge
A first-time NSF principal investigator (PI) was skeptical about the required evaluation component of the grant. Why did money need to be spent on evaluation, and what was the value of an external evaluator?
Our Solution
Over the course of five years, we worked closely with the PI to implement an evaluation that built credible evidence to show the program’s impact. We conducted a bibliometric analysis to measure changes in research productivity and created a matched student sample to examine outcomes for program participants compared to non-participating students with similar backgrounds.
Our analyses found that the program led to increased PI research productivity as well as increased likelihood of participating students enrolling in graduate school. When the PI team applied for a second round of funding, they used these results to make the case for the program's success, securing an additional $5,000,000 to continue implementation.
Case Study
"We have been extremely fortunate to have Cobblestone Applied Research & Evaluation as the independent external evaluator for our EMPOWER program, a $5 million NSF S-STEM award that brings together UC San Diego, Southwestern Community College, and Imperial Valley College. Rebecca and her team took our evaluation to the next level. They are rigorous and responsive, their reports are clear, and their findings have shaped how we run the program. We could not ask for a better partner, and we look forward to working with Cobblestone on many programs to come."
Bill Lin, Ph.D.
Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering and Associate Dean for Research, Jacobs School of Engineering, UC San Diego, and Principal Investigator of the NSF EMPOWER program.
"Cobblestone has been an exceptional evaluation partner for our grant program. Their work reflects the highest standards of program evaluation, but their value extends well beyond producing strong annual reports. As PI/PD of a large federal grant, I have especially appreciated their strategic guidance, project management support, and thoughtful consultation, all of which have helped us stay focused on our goals and well prepared for federal reporting requirements... They are trusted partners who bring expertise, clarity, patience, and practical wisdom to complex grant-funded work."
Stuart Sidle, Ph.D.
Professor of Psychology & Project Director of STEM Ready, Mercy University
Portfolio
Publications
Conference Presentations
See Our Work
Publications
Conference Presentations
Work
Examples
See Our Work
Conference Presentations & Publications
Work
Examples
See Our Work
Conference Presentations & Publications
Work
Examples
FAQs
Both use similar methods — surveys, interviews, observations, and document review — but they serve different purposes. Applied research is investigator-driven: it aims to generate knowledge in a real-world setting (e.g., schools). Evaluation is client-driven: it assesses the merit, worth, or value of a specific program to inform decisions. In federally funded projects, the two are often distinct components with separate teams, questions, and reporting lines — and for good reason, since each serves a different function.
Evaluations typically draw on a mix of quantitative data (surveys, test scores, administrative records, completion rates) and qualitative data (interviews, focus groups, observations). Most rigorous evaluations use both — a mixed-methods approach — because each type answers different questions. Quantitative data shows how much or how many; qualitative data explains why and how. Your evaluator will help you determine the right data sources based on your evaluation questions, timeline, and available resources.
A logic model is a visual representation of how your program is designed to work and how you expect it to unfold in practice — connecting inputs and activities to short-term outputs and longer-term outcomes. It makes the assumptions underlying your program explicit, which is essential for designing an evaluation: you cannot measure whether a program achieved its goals if those goals are not clearly articulated. Federal funders increasingly require logic models as part of grant applications, and evaluators use them as the backbone of evaluation planning. If you do not have one, your evaluator can help you build it.