Part 4

DATA ANALYSIS

Faculty Engagement Survey Part 4 (July 2015)

Question: Does your institution use a faculty advisory group to advise on educational technology use and support?

Procedure

  • Disconsidered replies from people who did not employ this strategy (5 respondents).
    • Replies to question 6 from two respondents who did not use this strategy were retained because they outlined alternative ways of engaging faculty and eliciting their input on projects and purchases.
  • 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, June 2014.
  • .

Results

  • Data based on 21 positive responses from 6/4 – 6/24, 2014 and 7/9, 2015.

Question

Answers

1. How effective do you feel it is?

Scale 1=Very ineffective  |   5=Very effective

Mean 3.67
SD 1.02
Median 4
Mode 4
2. Are you planning to continue or discontinue using it?
Discontinue 1
Continue 20
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:

  • Enhances faculty voice in campus technology governance, promotes cross-campus perspectives, provides feedback on faculty needs and priorities (16)
  • Promotes and improves communication between faculty, IT staff and administration. Improves dissemination of information, technology implementation and faculty technology awareness. (15)
  • Helps instruction drive technology adoption and prioritize strategic needs. Also promotes faculty development and provides organized body for evaluation of faculty use of technology for teaching and research.(9)
  • Helps ensure faculty buy-in and that all members contribute to technology needs on campus (8)
  • Helps student engagement and allows faculty to promote student perspective and voice. (2)
  • Helps prevent spending resources on initiatives that will not get support. (1)
  • Vehicle faculty can use to bring about innovations that may not be supported within their own college (1)
  • Raises important issues of academic freedom and privacy (1)
  • Try to ensure that committee is sanctioned by Provost / administration for maximum impact (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:

  • Make sure that IT staff are part of group (possibly co-chair) and try to have even mix of disciplines, junior/senior faculty, and technology novices/experts. Consider also including library staff and students. (11)
  • Group should have strong leadership with a faculty chair or co-chair to help keep meetings productive and on task. Faculty should have their participation recognized and be compensated for their time/service; otherwise their involvement might suffer. Make sure group reports to administration. (9)
  • Try to make  the group an official governance committee with a clear, strategic mission, elected faculty, and available funding to decide on actionable items: It needs institutional support to have an impact. (7)
  • Make sure to focus on communication, feedback, and listening to faculty recommendations in this area. (4)
  • Use rubrics/evaluation tools to evaluate possible new technologies. (1)
  • Not every constituency can be satisfied all the time. (1)
  • College may not be able to afford to be on the cutting edge of technology. (1)
  • Technology needs to be shared, deployed for best usage, handed down from one usage tier to another. (1)
  • There may be a low adoption rate of recommendations. (1)
  • Make sure group is advisory rather than decision-making to balance sustainable innovation with hyped, but short-lived, fads (1)
  • Use an existing faculty group when possible instead of adding yet another committee to the faculty committee structure (1)
  • Use the group as an endorsing group to encourage certain behaviors from faculty, such as to complete non-mandatory data security training (1)
  • Use the group as a "charging" group when a particular task is too broad or large for the group to handle on its own (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?
  • Time (15)
  • Teaching and Educational innovations are not part of faculty evaluation criteria (2)
  • 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 incentives (1)
  • Faculty attitudes toward use and implementation of technology in the classroom (1)
  • Instructor lack of understanding about the potential for big instructional gains with a small time commitment (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)
6. Other comments

Comments from participants included below with minimal editing for space and clarity:

  • At research-focused institutions where instruction is not as highly prioritized for tenure/promotion, it can be challenging to have an impact on improving or facilitating instruction, and also challenging finding motivated/passionate faculty to participate. It's usually a certain group of faculty who feel teaching is important, so this makes it hard to ensure that your advisory committee is representing and considering perspectives across campus, and not "preaching to the choir".
  • Lack of leadership can make group/committee ineffective.
  • If there is no permanent faculty advisory group consider using ad hoc committees for special projects, such as classroom design or LMS choices.
  • Having faculty committee report back to faculty assembly regularly can help in communicating technology projects and trends to faculty and may alleviate need for yearly report on these topics to faculty.
  • When creating these advisory groups, it's important to specify how much will be operational business, such as dealing with issues that impact day to day student business like wifi, e-mail and printing and how much will be focused on using technology to promote learning or student outcomes. These can easily become conflicting priorities.
  • Examples of active committees and their missions submitted by respondents:
  • SUNY FACT2 Council: http://commons.suny.edu/groups/fact2-council/
Institutions that have responded.

Cycle 1 (March 2014 - March 2015)

  • Providence College
  • Albert Einstein College of Medicine
  • Scottsdale Community College
  • UCLA
  • Genesee Community College
  • University of Oregon
  • Grand View University
  • Valparaiso University
  • San Francisco State University
  • Maryville University
  • Saint Michaels College
  • Emmanuel College
  • University of North Dakota
  • McGill University
  • Canisius College
  • UoPhoenix
  • HKUST
  • Menlo College

Cycle 2 (April 2015 - April 2016)

  • University of Miami
  • St. Catherine University
  • SUNY Potsdam
  • Towson University
  • St. Mary's University (San Francisco)
  • Fort Lewis College

Compiled in August 2015.

Feel free to contact me with any questions