Part 11

DATA ANALYSIS

Faculty Engagement Survey Part 11 (February 2016)

Question: Does your institution maintain a website with links to local and outside technological / pedagogical / professional resources relevant to educational technology use?

Procedure

  • Disconsidered one anonymous reply.
  • Calculated data for questions 1 and 2.
  • Categorized and summarized responses to questions 3, 4, and 7
  • Categorized responses to questions 5 and 6

Results

  • Data based on 18 valid responses from 1/6 – 1/12, 2015 and 2/9 – 2/10, 2016.

Question

Answers

0. Do you use this strategy?

Yes = 13

No = 5
1. How effective do you feel it is?

Scale 1=Very ineffective  |   5=Very effective

Mean 3.38
SD 0.96
Median 4
Mode 4
2. Are you planning to continue or discontinue using it?
Discontinue 0
Continue 13
N/A 5
3. List the three main benefits of using this strategy.
  • Provides an easily accessible resource that is available 24/7 and promotes faculty self-sufficiency (10)
  • Provides a central location for broad, searchable and curated collection of resources (9)
  • Provides helpful resource illustrating and focusing on best practices (not just technology) when talking to faculty and doing training (3)
  • Increases faculty awareness of resources and access to further information, such as support options for vendors (2)
  • Resources from other universities allow faculty to develop a broader context for online course impact and gain multiple perspectives on the use of the technology (2)
  • It is easier to use just one website in communications and marketing (1)
  • Helps inform and promote technological changes in more expedient way while creating a basis for more in-depth conversations on use of technology to reach educational goals (1)
  • Provides a showcase for non-community members and/or prospective new community members, including vendors (1)
  • Can be combined with social-network community to allow faculty to reflect on and share their experiences with the resources (1)
4. List the three main issues to consider when using or introducing this strategy.
  • Gathering and maintaining comprehensive site resources while keeping them current (10)
  • Organization, structure and formatting of resources while keeping content engaging, not just a static info dump (7)
  • Ensuring that resources are easily located and publicized to the appropriate audience (6)
  • Ability to grant authoring rights to select faculty and staff in order to involve faculty more in content creation, recommendation and distribution (2)
  • Encouraging and maintaining faculty interest in resources – not all faculty want do-it-yourself resources (2)
  • Creating own resources (1)
  • Question of whether to describe tools that may not yet have been fully vetted for security/privacy/FERPA concerns (1)
  • Need for strong leadership and buy-in from an academic technology support team or specialist (1)
  • Need to combine resources with ongoing educational technology workshops and one-on-one support. (1)
  • Potential lack of examples of best practices and faculty use of listed technology/resources (1)
  • No control over access when linking to third-party resources (1)
5. Which strategy do you think holds the biggest potential for faculty engagement? See the Biggest Potential page.
6. What is the biggest obstacle to faculty engagement and training at your institution?
  • Time (25)
    • Faculty having difficulty prioritizing their time between need for conducting research and working to improve their teaching skills and pedagogy
    • Convincing faculty that the time investment in professional development pays off. If we cannot offer concrete value then it is difficult to get faculty engaged.
  • Teaching and Educational innovations, including effective use of educational technology, are not part of faculty evaluation criteria (4)
    • Includes lack of support from administration
  • Faculty attitudes toward use and implementation of technology in the classroom and fear of the unknown (2)
  • Lack of incentives for faculty to devote time to improving their teaching methods (2)
  • Instructor lack of understanding about the potential for big instructional gains with engagement and a small time commitment (2)
  • Gaining faculty attention and finding ways to reach more faculty, including those who may be hesitant towards using technology without personal support & training. (2)
  • Teaching and use of instructional technology are valued less than research and publication (particularly at some research universities (1)
  • Changing nature of technology and faculty needing to/failing to keep up with developments (1)
  • Lack of clear policy or standards for training before teaching online or blended courses (1)
  • Lack of coordinated and well-structured center for faculty to consult with educational technology specialists (1)
  • Lack of personnel resources (1)
  • Making faculty feel valued for participating (1)
  • Change fatigue (1)
  • Getting faculty to commit to working on integrating educational technology into their teaching (1)
  • Faculty governance reduces operational effectiveness that could require specific training and professional development be met and/or maintained (1)
  • Some colleges preferring workshops specifically for them instead of participating in mixed workshops with attendees from other colleges (1)
  • Demonization of online learning (1)
  • Identifying the most apparent need, from the perspective of the faculty (1)
  • Faculty resistance to ‘training’ (1)
  • The need for changing strategies to accommodate changing needs together with the personnel to manage this (1)
7. Websites submitted by respondents
8. Other comments
  • It is a constant struggle to put tools in the hands of faculty. Even faculty who seek out these resources may not know what they're looking for, or choose technology for technology's sake. Part-time and entrenched faculty will actively dismiss efforts to present these resources due to time constraints or because they feel they are being forced to change what already works fine in their view
Institutions that have responded

Cycle 1 (March 2014 - March 2015):

  • University of Maryland Libraries
  • Concordia College
  • Towson University
  • UofP
  • Missouri S&T
  • Ramapo College of NJ
  • University of Alabama
  • Niagara College
  • University of Florida
  • University of Central Missouri
  • New York University
  • Edgewood College
  • University at Buffalo
  • University of Nebraska at Omaha

Cycle 2 (April 2015 - April 2016):

  • University of Bridgeport
  • SUNY Buffalo State
  • University of Central Florida

Compiled in March 2016.