Part 3


Faculty Engagement Survey Part 3 (May 2014 / June 2015)

Question: Does your institution maintain a faculty grant program for technology-assisted course development (e.g. money to pay for faculty release time to convert FTF courses to online or blended format)?


  • Excluded replies from people who did not employ this strategy (1 respondents – Year 1).
  • 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, May 2014.


  • Data based on 8 positive responses from 5/1 – 5/14, 2014 and 6/11 – 6/12, 2015.



1. How effective do you feel it is?

Scale 1=Very ineffective  |   5=Very effective

Mean 3.71
SD 1.38
Median 4
Mode 4
2. Are you planning to continue or discontinue using it?
Discontinue 0
Continue 8
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:

  • Helps increase faculty knowledge of course pedagogy (with the help of instructional designers) and the challenges of teaching online (3)
  • Signals to faculty that process is not quick and easy – that it needs serious time commitment – and provides faculty with needed resources (2)
  • Ability to offer financial assistance helps recruit participants and enables institution to place higher demands on course quality (2)
  • Demonstrates institutional commitment and the value it places on developing online learning (2)
  • Helps increase number of online / hybrid courses (1)
  • Teaches faculty process for future replication (1)
  • Teaching faculty in 10-person cohorts is more effective than 1-on-1 assistance (1)
  • Helps change faculty perception that hybrid learning / online learning is inferior to face-to-face instruction (1)
  • Incentivizes innovative teaching and learning through effective course design (1)
  • Encourages adoption of completion strategies as part of the conversion process (1)
  • Provides funds for hiring a TA (1)
  • Participation gets recognition from department dean (1)
4. List the three main issues to consider when using or introducing this strategy.

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

  • Quality and expectations (7)
    • Explore resources at academic conferences on this topic to create unique program for your institution (1)
    • Link grant criteria and goals to overall online strategy (1)
    • Ensure buy-in from all key stakeholders (1)
    • Make you expectations equivalent to the compensation (1)
    • Carefully consider aim and goals of program (1)
    • Check quality of courses not just during program, but also beyond by using approval process and quality checks (2)
    • Try to ensure both quality check of course development / design and how it is taught (1)
  • Funding, costs and time (7)
    • Program can be costly to sustain (1)
    • Is there a regular budget line to pay for these stipends each year?
    • Build in structures of accountability for recipient – e.g. identify milestones and stick to them (1)
    • Consider paying only half upfront, then rest when course is finished (1)
    • Make it worth everyone’s time to participate (1)
    • Consider differential course development stipends based on the number of credit hours, the complexity and length of the course, etc.(1)
    • Consider how many grants to award based on available resources and campus mission
  • Process (4)
    • Develop clear and formal process for application and transparent criteria for selection (1)
    • Consider if faculty should convert a course immediately prior to teaching it, for it to be fresh in their minds, or if it needs to be done earlier, in case post-processing is needed for accessibility, etc. (1)
    • Consider having standard course development contract in which specifies amount to be paid to the faculty course developer, ownership of course materials, intellectual property issues, etc. (1)
    • Consider requiring that in order to receive the stipend and ensure course quality, faculty members must work with an instructional designer (1)
  • Accountability (2)
    • Make the dollar amount high enough to justify the time needed but not so high that people do it for the dollars (1)
    • Consider faculty members’ other commitments before approving participation in program to ensure they are able to dedicate enough time (1)
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.
6. Other comments

Comments from participants included below with minimal editing:

  • No additional comments at this time; however, am willing to talk to others who are interested or have implemented a similar approach (contact for respondent contact info).
  • We allow faculty to use the $ for a variety of things - buyout, grad assistants, equipment, etc. It must be an allowable university expense with direct connection to the course being developed.
  • We pay faculty $5000 to develop an online class, no course release. This means that they're taking this on as an extra commitment over their regular course load. We've had some problems getting faculty to actually make the time, even with the money (!)
  • Consider who will supervise quality of the developed courses  is it IT, a central distance education team, instructional designers, a VP for Academic Affairs, a faculty development committee, Teaching and Learning Center staff, or academic technologists?
Institutions that have responded.

Cycle 1 (March 2014 - March 2015)

  • Emerson College
  • Penn State University - Berks Campus
  • Iowa State University
  • Canisius College

Cycle 2 (April 2015 - April 2016)

  • Edgewood college
  • Linn-Benton Community COllege
  • UC Davis
  • Case Western Reserve University
  • Iowa State University (answers updated)

Compiled in June 2015.