Laura Lemmermann

SCI 632

Adjunct Faculty Workshop Evaluation

*Background

*Drury University employs 242 faculty members

*Of those, 153 are adjuncts

*2010 workshop hosted 102 adjuncts from 13 different academic departments

*ALL (6,000) CGCS students are taught by adjuncts for 85% of their B.S. classes

*Purpose and Rationale

Two-fold:

1) Measure the benefits of training

2)Improve training by soliciting input from faculty

*SurveyPlease indicate which statement best describes your feelings regarding the workshop using the following scale:

1= Strongly Disagree 2= Disagree 3= Neutral 4= Agree 5= Strongly Agree

The training was pertinent to my needs

1 2 3 4 5

I feel the workshop will help improve my pedagogy

1 2 3 4 5

The department-specific sessions were helpful to me

1 2 3 4 5

The speakers were easy to understand

1 2 3 4 5

The facility was adequate

1 2 3 4 5

The session length was suitable to the material

1 2 3 4 5

I would like more time to share with colleagues

1 2 3 4 5

Please use the back side of this sheet to suggest changes or improvements that can be made.

*Data Collection and Analysis

* Survey was distributed at the 2011 Faculty Workshop. 110 responded

*Data collection was done by myself

*Data analysis was conducted by myself and Director of Assessment

*Data was presented to VPAA , CGCS Dean, department chairs

* Quantitative Results

Nee

ds

Peda

gogy

Depar

tmen

t

Spea

kers

Facilit

y

Leng

th

Colle

ague

s0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

12345

*Qualitative Results

We analyzed the open-ended comments and these themes emerged:

Resource sharing (58% of comments mentioned):

“I want to know what my peers are using to teach writing”

“I want colleague ideas for syllabi wording”

“I would like colleague feedback on lesson plans”

Department Chair Communication (45% of comments mentioned):

“I would like to meet one-on-one with the chair”

“Is the department chair involved in faculty evaluation?”

“Can we talk directly to our chair about student problems?”

“Does the chair ever visit sites to ensure academic quality?”

*ImplicationsContent:

1) 63% of faculty felt the workshop was not pertinent to their needs

2) 65% felt it did not improve pedagogy

*Implications cont’d.

Logistics

3) 77% were satisfied with the speakers

4) 56% were satisfied with the facility

5) 68% were satisfied with the length of the sessions

*Implications cont’d

Department

6) 48% indicated they wanted more time with colleagues

7) 58% indicated they liked the department- specific session

*Recommendations

Content

1. Conduct further research to discover what faculty need for training. Specific requests outlined in open-ended comments:

“I would like to have blackboard training”

“I need help approaching students with special needs”

“I want library training to integrate in the classroom”

Training could be introduced to cover these topics:

•Blackboard

•Drury’s Library Resources

•ADA Students

*Recommendations cont’d.

Department

2. Conduct department-specific training.

3. Increase communication with faculty and their department chair via:

• training sessions

• Q&A

• one-on-one meetings

• site visits

4. Allow for open-sharing among colleagues:

• Open a syllabus sharing component on BB

• Allow for more time at training sessions for visit.

• Open a faculty group on BB