Part 2

DATA ANALYSIS

Faculty Engagement Survey Part 2 (April 2014 / May 2015)

Question: Does your institution maintain a faculty awards program to encourage innovation in the area of teaching with technology?

Procedure

  • Calculated data for questions 1, 2 and 5.
  • Categorized and summarized responses to questions 3, 4, 6, and 7.
  • Combined results with results of same questionnaire from Year 1, April 2014.
  • All results from Year 2 were added to the Group 1 results
  • Additional Year 1 Procedures:
    • Sorted replies into two groups
      • Group 1: Institutions who DO employ this strategy (3 respondents).
      • Group 2: Institutions who DO NOT employ this strategy (15 respondents)
    • Deleted one anonymous response from Group 2 (only data from this respondent was a suggestion given for Question 5)

As respondents in group 2 do not appear to have empirical evidence or personal experience with this strategy, their comments are listed apart from those of Group 1. This is done so as to distinguish the direct experiences of those in Group 1 from the educated and valuable opinions of those in Group 2.

Results

  • Data based on 22 responses from 3/31 – 4/8, 2014  and 5/6 – 5/11, 2015.

Question

Answers

0. Do you use this strategy?

Group 1:
7 = Yes

Group 2:
14 = No

1. How effective do you feel it is?

Group 1 (3 respondents answered this question):

Scale 1=Very ineffective  |   5=Very effective

Mean 3.57
SD 0.79
Median 4
Mode 4

Group 2 (2 respondents answered this question):

Scale 1=Very ineffective  |   5=Very effective

Mean 2
SD 0
Median 2
Mode 2
2. Are you planning to continue or discontinue using it?

Group 1:

Discontinue 0
Continue 7

Group 2:

N/A
3. List the three main benefits of using this strategy.

Listed by category with amount of respondents who mentioned it in parentheses, listed by order of frequency:

Group 1:

  • Faculty recognition and awarding those who make a special effort (4)
  • Provide examples for others to follow and promotes a culture of teaching and learning with technology (3)
  • Promotes innovative technology use and awareness and the relevance of teaching and learning with technology (3)
  • Improved student learning experience (1)
  • Contributes to institutional advancement (1)
  • Impacts teaching and learning scholarship (1)
  • Helps create a faculty community of learning (1)
  • Nature of award, such as internal grant, may force potential recipients to think through the process carefully and identify planned benefits and outcomes from the beginning (1)
  • Giving the awards through a peer-review process (1)
  • It is open to all faculty, including adjuncts (1)
  • Helps identify mentors and influential instructors (1)

Group 2:

  • Create culture of innovation (1)
  • Identify best practices (1)
Incentives are attractive to faculty (1)
4. List the three main issues to consider when using or introducing this strategy.

Group 1:

  • Resources (financial and human) (2)
  • Challenge expanding beyond early adopters and the same faculty applying year after year  (2)
  • Reward impact, creativity, and innovation (1)
  • Institutional culture (1)
  • Program sustainability (1)
  • Program management (1)
  • Being able to demonstrate positive impact at institution (1)
  • Ensuring accountability (1)
  • Securing departmental support (1)
  • Ensuring project completion (1)
  • Defining ‘innovative’ and also determining when a technology moves from innovative to mainstream (1)
  • The coordination between and among faculty and staff is not assumed when innovation is taken on (1)
  • Make the promotional materials culturally / institutionally relevant (1)
  • Keep the number of awards small (1)
  • Set the bar high (1)

Group 2:

Resources (financial and human) (3)
5. Which strategy do you think holds the biggest potential for faculty engagement? Please see the Biggest Potential page.
6. What is the biggest obstacle to faculty engagement and training at your institution? Please see the Biggest Obstacles page.
7. Other comments

Group 1:

Comment not directly related to strategy

Group 2:

  • Suggestions for rewards: Monetary (e.g. $150 for 3 hours of training), community recognition award, technology equipment (e.g. iPads), support for professional development opportunities,  compensation in form of smaller course load.
  • Lack of explicit recognition of educational technology innovation.
Belief in institutional administration that monetary award recognition does not encourage long-term outcomes.
Institutions that have responded.

Cycle 1 (March 2014 - March 2015)

  • Pepperdine University
  • NC State University
  • GateWay Community College
  • Louisiana State University - Baton Rouge
  • Valparaiso University
  • Massachusetts School of Professional Psychology
  • University of Arizona
  • Mitchell College
  • Canisius College
  • Genesee Community College
  • Northeast Community College
  • JWU
  • Reed College
  • Pima Community College
  • Emerson College
  • Maryville University
  • Yale University
  • Our Lady of the Lake University

Cycle 2 (April 2015 - April 2016)

  • Texas A&M University-Commerce
  • Weber State University
  • James Madison University
  • Name withheld by request

Compiled in May 2015.

Feel free to contact me with any questions.