Adjunct faculty workshop evaluation

  • 162 views
Uploaded on

Presentation and evaluation instrument created for educational evaluation graduate class.

Presentation and evaluation instrument created for educational evaluation graduate class.

More in: Education
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
162
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1

Actions

Shares
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 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 from faculty
  • 4. * Please 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 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 writing”“I want colleague ideas for syllabi wording”“I would like colleague feedback on lesson plans”Department Chair Communication (45% of commentsmentioned):“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?”
  • 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 withcolleagues 7) 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 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
  • 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