Second, common measurement systems allow for a shift in
priorities for evaluation and research from a focus on individual
program impact and summative data to an emphasis on formative
data designed for optimizing learning environments, promotion of
change, and learning among collaborators. For evaluators, common
measurement systems can create evaluation plans that contribute
to positive change by formatively assessing project goals and
providing timely feedback rather than just documenting change
(Kramer, Parkhurst, & Vaidynathatn, 2009; Matsumura et al.,
2002). For researchers, common measures can empower researchers
to shift focus toward optimizing learning environments by
abandoning objective observer roles and controlled experiments
for interventionist strategies and theory-based design with
multiple iterations to optimize the design of learning environments
(Lamberg & Middleton, 2009; Sandoval & Bell, 2004). It
stands to reason that these shifts in evaluation and research
priorities, supported through common measurement systems,
could significantly contribute to the transformation of STEM
education.