Presentation and evaluation instrument created for educational evaluation graduate class.
Text of Adjunct faculty workshop evaluation
1. Laura LemmermannSCI 632
2. ** 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 3. *Two-fold:1) Measure the benefits of training2)Improve training by soliciting input fromfaculty 4. *Please indicate which statement best describes your feelings regarding the workshop using thefollowing scale:1= Strongly Disagree 2= Disagree 3= Neutral 4= Agree 5= Strongly AgreeThe training was pertinent to my needs1234 5I feel the workshop will help improve my pedagogy1234 5The department-specific sessions were helpful to me1234 5The speakers were easy to understand1234 5The facility was adequate1234 5The session length was suitable to the material1234 5I would like more time to share with colleagues1234 5Please use the back side of this sheet to suggest changes or improvements that can be made. 5. ** 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 6. *8070605040 1 230 320 4 5100 7. *We analyzed the open-ended comments and these themesemerged:Resource sharing (58% of comments mentioned):I want to know what my peers are using to teach writingI want colleague ideas for syllabi wordingI would like colleague feedback on lesson plansDepartment Chair Communication (45% of commentsmentioned):I would like to meet one-on-one with the chairIs 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? 8. *Content:1) 63% of faculty felt the workshop was not pertinent to their needs2) 65% felt it did not improve pedagogy 9. *Logistics3) 77% were satisfied with the speakers4) 56% were satisfied with the facility5) 68% were satisfied with the length of the sessions 10. * Department6) 48% indicated they wanted more time withcolleagues7) 58% indicated they liked the department-specific session 11. *Content1. Conduct further research to discover what faculty need for training. Specific requests outlined in open-ended comments:I would like to have blackboard trainingI need help approaching students with special needsI want library training to integrate in the classroomTraining could be introduced to cover these topics: Blackboard Drurys Library Resources ADA Students 12. * Department2. Conduct department-specific training.3. Increase communication with faculty and their departmentchair via: training sessions Q&A one-on-one meetings site visits4. 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