201 opened the survey; 192 completed at least 1 item
Numbers on slide 3 and 4 don’t match because survey responses did not always allow match to official faculty file.
160/192 or 83.3% of the respondents had some experience with the online administration. 26 or 15% had primarily paper but a few also had online8/192 or 4% had no classes that were evaluated in the fall; these were not asked to respond to any more survey items.
Indicates a need at least 2 different types of communications—one group needs training about the tools and the procedures; another group needs support on the procedures—that could be administration and uses of reports for improvement
Greater than 50% indicated IDEA was VI or EI in terms of teaching effectiveness efforts; if add SI, then 8 of 10 (84%) respondents indicate it is important.
With respect to satisfaction, 44% are VS and S and 23% are SS—about 2/3rds or 67% are satisfied with IDEA for personal teaching effectiveness.Only 19% reported dissatisfaction.
When rating importance of IDEA to Evaluation of Teaching by CNU—again see over half consider it EI or VI and about 85% consider it important. In contrast 12% rated it as unimportant. So far fairly similar to teaching effectiveness—just a little more skewed in perception that is is more important than unimportant.
Now the picture changes. Less than half are satisfied (47%, VS,S,& SS). Nearly 40% rated dissatisfaction (39%, VD, D, SD).
This is the first of the two contexts in which faculty were asked to comment—Use of IDEA for personal teaching improvement efforts.84% or 148/176 respondents indicated the tool was important (EI + VI + SI). Within the subgroup of those who value IDEA to work on their teaching practices, 74% were satisfied and 14% were dissatisfied.This is very positive information—room for improvement, but overall good news
This table reflects perceptions about a second context, CNU’s use of the IDEA for course/instructor evaluation.80% or 141/176 respondents indicated the tool was important (EI + VI + SI). Within the subgroup of those who indicate CNU’s use of IDEA for course/instructor evaluation is import, 57% were satisfied and 32% were dissatisfied.Efforts to determine what is dissatisfying—and addressing the responses should help to shift these ratios in a more positive direction
Patterns instructors used to encourage student completion of IDEA form are similar except those involved with the Diagnostic form (either paper or online) used slightly more strategies than those involved with the Short Form.
Weeks 13 and 14 (the current timeframe) was preferred by the largest percent of respondents in the various subgroups (by form), however there was also support for pushing the administration to weeks 14 and 15.
Did not get as much feedback on the webpages as hoped but that wasn’t the highest priority (said it was optional in the survey—guess what, people skipped by it).Both pages have been updated. The IDEA’s webpage is tremendously better. It is worth additional and frequent looks because of the addition of interactive features with more current responses in smaller/more digestible sizes.The local webpage will probably shift location by fall but has added a lot of detail for the CNU community. There are lots of details should people want to know.
This is the first of the two contexts in which faculty were asked to comment—Use of IDEA for personal teaching improvement efforts.84% or 148/176 respondents indicated the tool was important (EI + VI + SI). Within the subgroup of those who value IDEA to work on their teaching practices, 74% were satisfied and 14% were dissatisfied.This is very positive information—room for improvement, but overall good newsThis table reflects perceptions about a second context, CNU’s use of the IDEA for course/instructor evaluation.80% or 141/176 respondents indicated the tool was important (EI + VI + SI). Within the subgroup of those who indicate CNU’s use of IDEA for course/instructor evaluation is import, 57% were satisfied and 32% were dissatisfied.
CNU Ad-Hoc Community Study: Religious Tolerance and Diversity
Faculty Perceptions of Fall 2011 IDEAPreliminary Report to CNU Faculty Senate April 2012 By Deborah Moore, Director, OAEA for IDEA TaskForce & CNU Faculty
Purposes of the Survey• gather information about Fall 2011 IDEA experience . . . targeting the online. . .• learn what information you would like to have about IDEA timeline, reports, etc.• identify what you need to know about the reports to help you improve instruction in your classroom and those planned collectively by your department.
Background InformationResponse Rate: 192 submitted of 394 invited(49%); 8 reported “none of my classes wereevaluated this fall”)By subgroup: (not all respondents provided aresponse to the status item) Adjunct, 30 of 148 (20%) Restricted, 44 of 78 (56%) Probationary, 31/53 (58%) Tenured, 80 of 115 (70%)
Which best describes yourstatus in Fall 2011?Answer Response % adjunct 29 15% restricted 47 24% probationary, hired before Fall 2011 26 14% probationary, new hire as of Fall 2011 8 4% tenured 82 43% Total 192 100%
Which type of administrationdid you experience this Fall? Answer Res- % ponse none of my classes were evaluated this fall 8 4% online only, short form 82 43% online only, diagnostic form 40 21% online, both short and diagnostic forms 34 18% paper only, diagnostic form 24 13% paper and online, short form 2 1% paper and online, both short & diagnostic 2 1% Total 192 100%
Importance: Teaching EffectivenessOverall, how important is IDEA to you with respect toyour own teaching efforts and improvement practices.
Satisfaction: Teaching EffectivenessOverall, how satisfied are you with IDEA with respect to your own teaching efforts and improvement practices.
Importance: EvaluationOverall, how important is IDEA to you with respect to CNUs process for instructor/course evaluation?
Satisfaction: EvaluationOverall, how satisfied are you with IDEA with respect to CNUs process for instructor/course evaluation?
Teaching Effectiveness: Importance by Satisfaction (Q1.6)Overall, how satisfied are you with IDEA with respect to your own teaching efforts and improvement p... Somewhat Somewhat Very Dissatisfied Dissatisfied Neutral Satisfied Very Satisfied Total Dissatisfied Satisfied Not at all 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 Important Very Unimportant 0 1 0 1 1 3 0 6 Somewhat (Q1.5)Overall, how 1 4 3 2 4 0 1 15 Unimportantimportant is IDEA to you with respect to your own teaching efforts and improvement Neither Important prac... 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 3 nor Unimportant Somewhat 1 3 6 15 14 17 1 57 Important Very Important 2 3 5 3 19 41 1 74 Extremely 0 0 1 0 3 8 5 17 Important 8 11 15 24 41 69 8 176 Total
Evaluation: Importance by Satisfaction (Q1.8)Overall, how satisfied are you with IDEA . . .instructor/course evaluation Very Somewhat Somewhat Very Dissatisfied Dissa-tisfied Dissatisfied Neutral Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied Total Not at all Important 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 5 Very Unimportant 2 4 0 2 0 0 0 8 Somewhat(Q1.7)Overall, how Unimportant 3 3 1 0 0 0 0 7important is IDEA . . . for instructor/course Neither Important evaluation nor Unimportant 0 2 4 7 1 1 0 15 Somewhat Important 1 5 6 7 20 4 0 43 Very Important 1 6 9 6 17 20 3 62 Extremely Important 3 5 9 2 8 7 2 36 Total 14 26 29 24 46 32 5 176
Please rate the following aspects of the your IDEA experience: I s , if ue - nd ct IF as iss t ru ea eF y ew m lve ns ur th of nt enc ei en so s ith wa ov rt ch re nie ri ew pr ea fo ve xpe to n . . te tio im rts m or FI ble ple on e ra sf to po lp nc ne he a ist m he ive re F. ts n i nli g t as Statistic co in or in w to ct ha o s. EA m o ep t t the je et nt ad yt e tie ID ob bl yr pl e as ivi y EA m sm ea en t em ct m ni ha ct se ID co es er ele l a se ve t t wa us t h ss d. e sw on gh ne o u s. to s le th wi of A to IF e c ou ue on t du n eF n. ow r s ow he he ur ow or I th ag ad e it. lin I h ffic sc w co w h tio h pe w h ne le ed all on se w ol w O ed no no er yc ne ne e e Ov Th Th Ik Ik Ik Ik M m Mean 4.14 4.14 3.63 3.36 4.03 3.82 3.60 3.28Online, Short Form SD 0.90 0.63 0.80 0.81 0.93 0.94 0.99 1.25 N 73 72 71 72 73 72 72 72 Mean 3.77 4.05 3.92 3.21 3.81 3.74 3.42 3.33Online, Diagnostic SD 1.04 0.69 0.75 0.57 0.60 0.97 1.06 1.42 Form N 39 39 38 39 39 39 38 39 Mean 3.78 4.09 3.65 3.41 4.00 3.79 3.47 3.26 Online, Short & SD 0.88 0.58 0.98 0.88 0.95 0.77 0.90 1.11Diagnostic Forms N 34 33 32 33 34 34 34 34 Mean 4.17 3.06 3.37 3.11 4.04 3.96 3.83Paper, Diagnostic SD 0.76 0.64 1.07 0.68 0.91 0.91 1.01 NA N 24 18 18 18 24 24 24 Neither Strongly Disagree Agree/ Strongly Scale values Disagree Agree=4 =2 Disagree Agree=5 =1 =3
What did you do to encourage or ensure that your students completed their IDEAs for your classes? (Select all that apply.) Set aside classroom Discussed time for Discussed my choice students the of to bring importance objectives laptops I didnt do of student and how and anything to participation they Offered complete encourage in IDEA related to rewards for the IDEA Statistic evaluations the class participation evaluation participationOnline, Short Form % 88 21 4 6 10 (N=72)Online, Diagnostic % 72 26 18 15 15 Form (N=39) Online, Short &Diagnostic Forms % 76 24 9 9 12 (N=34) Paper, Diagnostic % 76 33 10 10 10 (N=21)
Which elements of your individual course reports do you use? Stats at end and Stat- items I Comments istic All 1st Page added Other primarilyOnline, Short Form % 51 18 7 1 23 (N=74)Online, Diagnostic % 77 5 0 3 15 Form (N=39) Online, Short & Diagnostic Forms % 59 12 12 3 15 (N=34) Paper, Diagnostic % 50 8 13 17 13 (N=24)
Currently the IDEA is administered weeks 13 and 14 of the term. What weeks would you prefer? weeks 13&14 (dont change the Statis weeks weeks timefra weeks tic 11&12 12&13 me) 14&15 otherOnline, Short Form (N=71) % 3 6 61 25 6 Online, Diagnostic Form % 3 5 45 42 5 (N=38)Online, Short & Diagnostic % 9 6 50 26 9 Forms (N=34) Paper, Diagnostic (N=24) % 8 13 50 21 8
IDEA Webpages• http://www.cnu.edu/assess • http://www.theideacenter.o ment/idea/index.asp rg/
Preliminary Summary/Highlights• Survey response rates were acceptable, • Faculty were asked to provide an overall although low (56%-70%) for subgroups rating of importance and satisfaction except adjunct (20%). about two contexts of IDEA use: IDEA for personal teaching improvement, and IDEA• Nearly every department had faculty as used by CNU for course/instructor participating in the survey. evaluation.• As expected more respondents indicated having participated with an online • In the 1st of 2 contexts, use of IDEA for experience (160/192 or 83%) and paper personal teaching improvement efforts, was limited to a small subgroup (26/192 84% or 148/176 respondents indicated or 14%). A small group had no classes the tool was important (EI + VI + SI). evaluated and ended their survey after Within that subgroup, 74% were satisfied reporting their faculty status (8/192 or and 14% were dissatisfied with IDEA. 4%). Although room for improvement, overall this is a positive outcome.• Although not ideal, these values can serve as a benchmark for comparison • Similarly 80% or 141/176 respondents about faculty perceptions of the online indicated the tool was important (EI + VI application of the IDEA. + SI) in the context of CNUS use of IDEA for course/instructor evaluation. Within• The majority of the respondents indicate this subgroup of those who indicate good knowledge about IDEA and related CNU’s use of IDEA for course/instructor procedures (75%); however 25% indicate evaluation is important, 57% were the need information about both the form satisfied and 32% were dissatisfied. and procedures.
Continued• Efforts to determine what is • Weeks 13 and 14 (the current dissatisfying—and addressing the timeframe) was preferred by the responses should help to shift largest percent of respondents in these ratios in a more positive the various subgroups (by form), direction however there was also support for pushing the administration to• Strategies instructors used to weeks 14 and 15. encourage student completion of IDEA form are similar except • Regardless of format subgroup, those involved with the comments were fewer in quantity Diagnostic form (either paper or and less helpful qualitatively. online) used slightly more strategies than those involved with the Short form.