0. Do you use this strategy?
Yes = 8
No = 5
|1. How effective do you feel it is?
Scale 1=Very ineffective | 5=Very effective
|2. Are you planning to continue or discontinue using it?
Group 1 (YES):
One respondent who does NOT use this strategy indicated they expect to continue with this.
|3. List the three main benefits of using this strategy.
- Faculty can build connections and form relationships / partnerships with other faculty and institutions, helping promote professional development and idea sharing (5)
- Faculty can learn a lot about ed tech field by seeing what others are doing (4)
- Encourages instructors to talk about what they do and show off what works for them while giving them another avenue to present on their work in teaching and learning (3)
- Helps create informed advocates and faculty mentors for home campus while encouraging leadership and adoption among faculty (3)
- Gets faculty to report on what they have done on their own campus (1)
- If conference proposals are done in collaboration between tech staff and faculty then this provides rich opportunity for collaboration (1)
- Professional ed tech organizations and audiences really want to hear faculty voices (1)
- Helps provide different perspective for using technology (1)
- Helps demonstrate to faculty that instructional technology groups/staff can help drive instructional innovation (1)
- Presenting at a national conference lends credence to faculty presentation (1)
|4. List the three main issues to consider when using or introducing this strategy.
- Who supplies travel funds? Faculty’s department, IT, library, provost’s office? (3)
- Tailoring presentation to audience – should not simply be reading of a paper or discussion of pedagogy (2)
- Consider providing support and maximizing internal efforts to help ensure high levels of success, including resources, instructional design and best practice guidelines (2)
- Potential for discouragement of faculty who may not get repeated proposals accepted at competitive conferences (1)
- Does faculty member know technology well enough to present it? (1)
- Should a technologist co-present with faculty member to cover ‘technical’ aspects? (1)
- Tech conferences may be scheduled at times that conflict with academic calendars (1)
- Collaboration requires a lot of give and take by all parties (1)
- How do you incentivize faculty to go? (1)
- How do get instructors to talk about what they do when they feel that what they are doing isn't special?
- You may see slow adoption rates across faculty within different disciplines (1)
- Make sure you have a mechanism for faculty to report back findings or discoveries (1)
- Try to maintain a technology/innovation incubator to test new ideas (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 (23)
- Faculty having difficult prioritizing their time between need for conducting research and working to improve their teaching skills and pedagogy
- Teaching and Educational innovations, including effective use of educational technology, are not part of faculty evaluation criteria (3)
- 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)
- 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)
- At research universities, it can be hard to make faculty development for instructional technology and teaching a priority for instructors and for administrators (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)
- Lack of support from administration (1)
- Demonization of online learning (1)
- Identifying the most apparent need, from the perspective of the faculty (1)
- Faculty resistance to ‘training’ (1)
- Gaining faculty attention (1)
|7. Other Comments
Group 1 (those using this strategy):
- Some faculty may be limited to local or in-state conferences as some institutions require administration approval for out-of-state travel.
- It can be difficult to get faculty to take the needed time to attend a conference and sorting out funding can be difficult.
- Besides faculty participation, student participation can be beneficial if funding can be found to support travel and attendance.
Group 2 (those NOT using this strategy):
- We provide information about various online and F2F technology-focused conferences, but we do not "encourage" faculty to attend and/or present at those or even conferences focused on issues/strategies other than technology.
- If it makes sense for individual faculty research to present at Sloan, then it is encouraged, but there is not a comprehensive strategy in place to support this research at this time. However, I am somewhat optimistic that this may change over the next two years.
- We have a new Office of Academic Innovation which just launched < 12 months ago and it is likely they will begin to use this strategy as they develop their services and direction.
- Primary reason we don’t encourage this is lack of funding. We do, however, encourage faculty to present at two local campus events.
|Institutions that have responded
Cycle 1 (March 2014 - March 2015):
- Saint Michaels College
- University of Oregon
- Bucknell University
- Georgia Perimeter College
- Genesee Community College
- Missouri S&T
- Univ of TN Health Science Center
- University at Buffalo
- Towson University
- Olivet Nazarene University
- St. Catherine University
Cycle 2 (April 2015 - April 2016):
- Northland Pioneer College
- Weber State University