Presentation and evaluation instrument created for educational evaluation graduate class.

1. Laura Lemmermann
SCI 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 training
2)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 5
Please 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. *
80
70
60
50
40 1
2
30
3
20 4
5
10
0

7. *
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?”

8. *
Content:
1) 63% of faculty felt the workshop was not
pertinent to their needs
2) 65% felt it did not improve pedagogy

9. *
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

10. *
Department
6) 48% indicated they wanted more time with
colleagues
7) 58% indicated they liked the department-
specific session

11. *
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

12. *
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