Part 9

DATA ANALYSIS

Faculty Engagement Survey Part 9 (December 2015)

Question: Does your institution encourage faculty to attend and present at technology-focused educational conferences (whether online or FTF) such as ELI, the main EDUCAUSE conference, SLOAN-C, etc?

Procedure

  • Calculated data for questions 1, 2 and 3.
  • Categorized and summarized responses to questions 4, 5 and 6.
  • Categorized and summarized responses for Question 6 (Other comments) into two groups because many who do not use this strategy offered explanations for why not.
    • Group 1: Those who use this strategy (8 respondents)
    • Group 2: Those who do not use this strategy (5 respondents)

Results

  • Data based on 13 responses from 11/10 to 11/11, 2014 and 12/10, 2015.

Question

Answers

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

Mean 3.25
SD 1.16
Median 3.0
Mode 3.0
2. Are you planning to continue or discontinue using it?

Group 1 (YES):

Discontinue 0
Continue 8
N/A 4

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

Compiled in November 2014 and December 2015.