Assessment Report Faculty Development and Instructional Design Center

Transcription

1 Assessment Report Faculty Development and Instructional Design Center

2 Table of Contents Section Page No. I. Mission II. Vision III. Overview IV. Program Objectives... 3 V. Methods VI. Objectives by Method.. 5 VII. Evidence by Method... 5 VIII. Use of Results IX. Further Information Needed. 16 X. Timeline XI. Resources Needed Appendices Page No. A. Program Evaluation Form and Program Follow-up Feedback Form B. Program Self Assessment Form. 22 C Faculty, Staff & GTA Programs, Attendance & Contact Hours D. Faculty and SPS Development Grant Final Report Format.. 29 E. Sample Logs of Collaboratory and Digital Multimedia Studio Use During F. Annual Report of the Faculty Development Advisory Committee G. Graduate Teaching Assistant Campuswide Survey H. New Faculty Needs and Interests Survey Fall I. Fall 2006 Teaching Assistant Orientation Pre-Survey.. 43 Foreword This report summarizes Faculty Development and Instructional Design Center s assessment of its programs, activities, and services for faculty, supportive professional staff and graduate teaching assistants at Northern Illinois University during The information summarized in the report includes assessment methods, evidence by method, and Center s use of the assessment results. Appendices include samples of assessment instruments used during to collect data. The assessment initiative has been extremely beneficial to the Center in collecting and analyzing feedback from faculty, supportive professional staff and graduate teaching assistants on the Center s programs, services, and resources and identifying opportunities for further improvement. Even the process of preparing this report has been helpful to recognize better ways of managing the assessment process and documenting the information for future reference and analysis. I would like to express my sincere appreciation to Brenda Hodges, Program Coordinator, at our Center for her assistance in preparing this report, and all the staff at our Center for their enthusiastic participation in all the assessment activities. Without their cooperation and support this ongoing assessment initiative would not have been possible. I would also like to acknowledge the staff of the Office of Assessment Services and Information Technology Services for their assistance in designing and/or implementing some of the assessment instruments. I would like to express my sincere gratitude to Dr. Virginia Cassidy, Vice Provost for Academic Planning and Development, for her encouragement and support of our Center s assessment initiatives. Please feel free to contact me if you need additional information about our assessment initiative or if you have any suggestions for improving our assessment activities further. Yours truly, Murali Krishnamurthi Director

3 I. Mission The mission of Faculty Development and Instructional Design Center is to support faculty, academic supportive professional staff (SPS), and graduate teaching assistants (GTAs) through a variety of programs, resources, and services that support Northern Illinois University s (NIU) mission on teaching, research, and scholarly activities. II.Vision The Center envisions an enriched academic environment at NIU that facilitates and promotes effective teaching, supports professional development, stimulates research and scholarly activities, and encourages the integration of instructional technologies. III. Overview The Faculty Development Office established in the 1980s was reorganized in August 1998 and renamed Faculty Development and Instructional Design Center. The reorganized Center was temporarily located in Gilbert Hall and was charged with providing comprehensive support on teaching effectiveness and technology integration to faculty and academic SPS, and continuing the faculty development grants and SPS development grants. In August 1999, the Center began offering Teaching Effectiveness Institutes at the beginning of every fall and spring semesters, and numerous programs of varying duration on teaching effectiveness, technology integration, professional development and research and scholarly activities for faculty and teaching staff. The Center also developed and distributed a comprehensive Instructional Guide for University Faculty and the newsletter Spectrum for faculty and academic SPS. During fall 1999, the Center established a four-station Collaboratory and a four-station Digital Multimedia Studio in Gilbert Hall for faculty to experiment with instructional technologies. During , the Center was charged with training and supporting faculty on online teaching and the Blackboard Web course management system. Due to budget challenges at NIU during , Teaching Assistant Training and Development Office in the Graduate School was closed and the responsibilities were transferred to the Center in July Since that time the Center began offering a daylong Teaching Assistant Orientation at the beginning of every fall and spring semesters and a number of programs of varying duration on teaching effectiveness and technology integration during the semesters. The Center also expanded the Instructional Guide for University Faculty to include information for GTAs and began distributing the TA Connections newsletter to all GTAs at NIU. In April 2005, the Center was allocated permanent office space on the third floor of Adams Hall. The Center has since set up a ten-station Collaboratory, a five-station Digital Multimedia Studio, and a Teaching Resource Room with videos and books on teaching and related topics. The Center offers approximately 160 programs annually on a range of topics to nearly 1,600 faculty, SPS, GTAs, and academic administrators. In addition, the Center offers numerous consultations and resources on teaching effectiveness and technology integration, and professional development grants for faculty and SPS. 2

4 During the previous years, the Center submitted an assessment report every spring semester for the previous calendar year and an annual report every fall semester for the previous academic year. From this year (2007), the Center has decided to submit the assessment report every fall semester for the previous academic year to follow the same schedule as the annual report. More information about the Center can be found at IV. Program Objectives The Center s five major responsibilities, along with their details, are listed below. These responsibilities have been translated into five major objectives that serve as the basis for the Center s program assessment. 1. Provide opportunities for effective teaching: 1.1 Offer a range of programs on teaching effectiveness. 1.2 Offer teaching-related consultations and classroom observations. 1.3 Assist with the development of learning communities to promote effective teaching. 1.4 Promote multicultural and international education. 2. Promote research and scholarly activities: 2.1 Collaborate with campus units on offering programs on research and scholarly activities. 2.2 Pursue and collaborate on sponsored projects about faculty development issues. 2.3 Participate in research and scholarly activities related committees. 3. Facilitate the integration of instructional technologies: 3.1 Offer a range of programs on integrating a wide spectrum of technologies into teaching. 3.2 Offer consultations on teaching with technologies. 3.3 Serve as a central point of support for those teaching online credit courses. 3.4 Offer training programs on Web course management system and online pedagogy. 3.5 Collaborate with other units to coordinate support for those integrating instructional technologies in their teaching. 4. Provide professional development opportunities: 4.1 Arrange mentors for new faculty who request such support. 4.2 Offer professional development grants to faculty and supportive professional staff. 4.3 Assist in hosting new faculty welcome events and orienting them to NIU. 4.4 Assist in hosting development programs for department chairs. 5. Serve as a referral service and as a resource unit: 5.1 Serve as referral service to other units on campus. 5.2 Provide access to resources (video, DVD, guidebooks) on teaching. 5.3 Provide a laboratory environment to experiment with instructional technologies. 5.4 Disseminate information on teaching, technology and related topics through the web as well as through newsletters and other media. The Center s audience includes tenured and tenure-track faculty, instructors, academic SPS, adjunct faculty, teaching civil service staff, department chairs, and GTAs; therefore, some objectives apply only to a particular audience. 3

5 V. Methods Table 1 lists the assessment methods employed, a description of each method, the assessment timelines, Center staff responsible, and the objectives that each method addresses. Some methods address more than one objective. The assessment timeline has been spread out over semesters or years as necessary to make sure that the audience assessed is not bombarded with too many surveys, and that the assessment effort is manageable for the Center staff. Table 1. Assessment methods, timeline, responsibilities and objectives Method Description Timeline for Data Collection A. Feedback from programs offered B. Self-assessment of programs offered Evaluation of programs offered Evaluation of program planning and execution issues C. Program attendance Data on number of people who participated in each program D. Consultations, Requests, Referrals E. Development grants final reports F. Feedback from mentoring support Number of consultations and classroom observations Feedback gathered from recipients of Faculty and SPS development grants Evaluation of new faculty mentoring program G. Resource usage No. of users of Web resources, laboratories, videos, etc. H. Faculty Develop. Advisory Committee s input I. Faculty and SPS Campuswide survey J. Graduate Teaching Assistants Campuswide survey K. New Faculty Needs and Interest Survey Faculty Development Advisory Committee s annual feedback Data from survey sent to all faculty and SPS on Center s programs and services Data from survey sent to all GTAs on Center s programs and services Data from listservs and survey sent to new faculty joining NIU every fall L. Unsolicited feedback Anecdotal evidence and unsolicited letters, messages, etc. M. Graduate Teaching Assistants Pre-survey N. Office of the Provost s input Input gathered from GTAs audience who attend the fall TA Orientation Input obtained from the Provost and Provost s Staff Every semester Every semester Every semester Every semester Fall and Spring Spring Every semester Spring Every four years Every four years Fall Center Staff Responsible Program Coordinator Objectives Addressed 1,2,3,4 Program Staff 1,2,3,4 Program Coordinator 1,2,3,4 All staff 1,2,3,4,5 Program Coordinator Program Coordinator 4 2,4 All staff 5 Committee chair/director Program Coordinator TA Coordinator Program Coordinator 1,2,3,4,5 1,2,3,4,5 1,2,3,4,5 1,2,3,4,5 Ongoing All staff 1,2,3,4,5 Every fall semester TA Coordinator 1,3,4 Ongoing Director 1,2,3,4,5 4

6 VI. Objectives by Methods Table 2 lists which assessment methods address each objective. As indicated by Tables 1 and 2, the Center uses multiple methods for each objective and collects feedback data from multiple sources. Table 2. Objectives addressed by assessment methods Methods Objectives A B C D E F G H I J K L M N 1. Provide opportunities for effective teaching 2. Promote research and scholarly activities 3. Facilitate the integration of instructional technologies 4. Provide professional development opportunities 5. Serve as referral service and as resource unit VII. Evidence by Method A brief summary of the results of the Center s assessment effort is noted in this section, which addresses each assessment method in turn. A. Feedback from programs offered Activities: The Center has been conducting evaluations of all its programs offerings since fall Evaluations are conducted by staff for day-long teaching effectiveness programs such as the Teaching Effectives Institute and TA Orientation, and programs of shorter duration offered on a regular basis, such as teaching with technology workshops. Prior to fall 2006, a customized evaluation form was designed and implemented for collecting participants feedback for major programs, such as the Teaching Effectiveness Institute. The Center also designed and implemented a shorter, general evaluation form to participants of programs of shorter duration, such as two-hour teaching with technology workshops. All evaluation forms requested participants feedback on the presentations, materials, and program arrangements. Evaluation summaries were hand-tabulated and shared with program presenters, coordinators and sponsors. During fall 2006, the Center recognized the need to collect feedback on participants perception of programs applicability to teaching and related activities, as well as their impact on students. In an effort to simplify the forms and assess these valid indirect measures, the Center redesigned the various evaluation forms into one standard eleven-question form. The redesigned evaluation form requests participants feedback on presentations, materials, and program arrangements, as well as the program s applicability to participants teaching and related activities, and potential benefit to students. The Center began implementing the new evaluation form for all programs in The new form is distributed in hard copy format at major non-technology programs such as the Teaching Effectiveness Institute, TA Orientation, and workshops by invited presenters, and in an online format at regularly-offered programs of smaller duration with smaller audiences. 5

7 Along with the eleven-question evaluation form which has been used for all programs since it was redesigned, a three-question follow-up evaluation form was also designed to conduct followup assessment of participants a few months after they attended a program to assess if they used the information gained in the program. The follow-up evaluation form includes the same two questions from the redesigned eleven-question program evaluation form related to the programs applicability to participants teaching and related activities and the programs impact on students. The third question is open-ended to collect additional comments or feedback. Some participants do not teach and cannot answer questions related to program s applicability to their teaching or impact on their students; therefore, non-teaching participants are requested to indicate not applicable to those questions. It should also be emphasized that some major programs on research or scholarly activities or academic administration may not be teachingrelated and so the two questions mentiond earlier may not apply to all programs. The follow-up evaluation form is distributed to faculty and SPS participants approximately six months after they attend a major program such as the Teaching Effectiveness Institute or workshops by invited presenters, and to GTA participants of a TA Orientation before the end of the same semester the TA Orientation was held. The difference in timing of the follow-up evaluation is due to the transitory nature of the GTA audience. Appendix A contains the elevenquestion program evaluation form and the three-question program follow-up feedback form. Findings: Feedback collected from participants using the redesigned evaluation form has been overall very positive and indicates a majority of participants Strongly agree or Agree that concepts and techniques covered in the program will be applicable to participants teaching and related activities and may have potential benefits to students. Negative feedback, if any, has been very little and primarily related to issues over which the Center does not have any direct control, such as invited presenters style of delivery or Holmes Student Center s food and facilities. Staff members in charge of particular programs make every effort to convey the needs of the audience to external presenters before they present their workshops and to the Holmes Student Center (HSC) staff when making arrangements for each workshop, and also share participants feedback to the invited presenters after each program. Although the follow-up evaluation form has not been in use for a full year yet, early results indicate a good response rate to the follow-up evaluation form, and positive feedback. Examples of follow-up evaluation feedback are illustrated in Table 3 and Table 4. Table 3 contains the Fall 06 Teaching Effectiveness Institute Day 2 participants perception of programs; applicability to teaching and related activities and benefit to students. Forty-eight participants responded to the program evaluation conducted at the close of the institute and 97.9 % of them responded Strongly Agree or Agree for Question 6 and 100 % responded Strongly Agree or Agree for Question 7. Twenty five participants responded to the followup evaluation conducted six-month later and 92.0 % of them responded Strongly Agree or Agree for Question 6 and 76.0 % responded Strongly Agree or Agree for Question 7. Participants who did not answer Strongly Agree or Agree chose Neither Agree Nor Disagree or Not Applicable, because they did not teach or did not have teaching-related responsibilities. 6

8 Table 3. Comparison of Fall 2006 Teaching Effectiveness Institute program evaluation and sixmonth follow-up evaluation of participants perceptions Evaluation Questions Program Evaluation N=48 Six Month Followup Evaluation N=25 Question 6. The concepts/techniques covered in this program are/were applicable in my teaching and related activities. Question 7. My participation in this program has potential benefit to/benefited my students % Strongly Agree or Agree 100 % Strongly Agree or Agree 92.0 % Strongly Agree or Agree 76.0 % Strongly Agree or Agree Table 4 contains the Fall 06 TA Orientation participants perception of program s applicability to their teaching and related activities and benefit to students. The table includes results from the pre-survey conducted at the beginning of the orientation, the program evaluation conducted at the end of the orientation on the same day, and the follow-up evaluation conducted at the end of the semester (that is, 4 months later). For TA programs, the follow-up evaluation was conducted at the end of the semester (i.e after 4 months) instead of six months later because the participants might not be TAs the following semester or could have graduated and left NIU. One hundred fifty-three participants responded to the pre-survey, and out of those 89.5 % responded Strongly Agree or Agree for Question 6 and 93.5 % responded Strongly Agree or Agree for Question 7. One hundred and twenty seven responded for the program evaluation conducted at the end of the orientation, and out of those 93.7 % responded Strongly Agree or Agree for Question 6 and 96.1 % responded Strongly Agree or Agree for Question 7. Fifteen participants responded to the follow-up evaluation conducted four months later, and out of those 100 % responded Strongly Agree or Agree for Question 6 and 86.7 % responded Strongly Agree or Agree for Question 7. As with the Teaching Effectiveness Institute responses, participants who did not answer Strongly Agree or Agree chose Neither Agree Nor Disagree or Not Applicable, because they did not teach or did not have teaching-related responsibilities. Table 4. Comparison of Fall 2006 TA Orientation pre-survey, program evaluation and fourmonth follow-up evaluation of participants perceptions Program Six-Month Pre-Survey Evaluation Questions Evaluation Follow-up N=153 N=127 Evaluation, N=15 Question 6. The concepts/techniques covered in this program are/were applicable in my teaching and related activities. Question 7. My participation in this program has potential benefit to/benefited my students % Strongly Agree or Agree 93.5 % Strongly Agree or Agree 93.7 % Strongly Agree or Agree 96.1 % Strongly Agree or Agree 100 % Strongly Agree or Agree 86.7 % Strongly Agree or Agree 7

9 Table 5. Comparison of Spring 2007 TA Orientation program evaluation and four-month follow-up evaluation of participants perceptions Evaluation Questions Program Evaluation N=42 Four-Month Followup Evaluation N=21 Question 6. The concepts/techniques covered in this program are/were applicable in my teaching and related activities. Question 7. My participation in this program has potential benefit to/benefited my students % Strongly Agree or Agree 95.2 % Strongly Agree or Agree 57.2 % Strongly Agree or Agree 52.4 % Strongly Agree or Agree Table 5 contains the Spring 07 TA Orientation participants perception of program s applicability to their teaching and related activities and benefit to their students. The table includes results from the program evaluation conducted at the end of the orientation and the follow-up evaluation conducted four months later. It should be emphasized here that the presurvey is conducted only once per academic year during Fall TA Orientation when a majority of new TAs are hired and also more TAs attend the orientation. Therefore, the information gathered from the pre-survey is used for program planning purposes. As it can be seen in Table 5, 42 participants responded to the program evaluation, and out of those 95.2 % responded Strongly Agree or Agree for Question 6 and 95.2 % responded Strongly Agree or Agree to Question 7. For the follow-up evaluation, 21 responded and out of those 57.2 % responded Strongly Agree or Agree for Question 6 and 52.4 % answered Strongly Agree or Agree for Question 7. These results clearly show a significant drop in percentage of Strongly Agree or Agree responses from the program evaluation to the followup evaluation, but there is also a corresponding drop in the number of responses between the two evaluations. However, the reason for the drop in the percentage of Strongly Agree or Agree responses can be attributed to the nature of the advanced teaching topics presented in the spring TA Orientation as opposed to the fall TA Orientation where the topics presented are genetic in nature and are applicable to all TAs. Not every TA may find the spring TA Orientation topics directly applicable in his/her teaching, but the Center organizes the spring TA Orientation based on the topics the TAs suggested in the pre-survey during the fall TA Orientation and the availability of presenters to present those topics. Center staff will do their best to respond to the program needs suggested by TAs in the fall pre-survey and identify topics for the spring TA Orientation that may be of interest to a majority of TAs. B. Self-assessment of programs offered Activities: Results gathered from the program evaluation forms and program follow-up evaluation forms used in 2006 provided participants feedback on the presenters delivery, program arrangements, and perception of impact on students, but not on how the Center planned and executed the major programs, what worked well, and what could have been improved. For this purpose, Center staff continued to complete the self-assessment form and record various 8

10 aspects of planning and executing each major program for continuous improvement of programs and services. At the completion of each major program, staff in charge of those programs requested feedback from staff members who had input, compiled all input and shared the information with the Director, Assistant Director, and Program Coordinator. Appendix B contains the self-assessment form. Findings: Information obtained from self-assessment of programs was analyzed and used by the Center for improving the subsequent offerings of major programs. During , results of self-assessment helped the Center to recognize that signage should be placed near the program locations, more details should be added to confirmation and reminder messages sent to participants, and observations on minor problems with food and facilities arrangement should be shared with the Holmes Student Center staff. C. Program attendance Activities: The Center has been recording program attendance since fall 1998 to evaluate issues, such as participants interest in attending the Center s programs, demand for certain types of programs, and trends in program participation. Table 6 lists the number of programs, program hours, attendance and contact hours for the past four academic years. Contact hours is the product of actual duration (number of hours) of a program and the number of participants who attended that program. Appendix C contains program hours, attendance and contact hours for all programs offered by the Center during Academic Year Table 6. Total program hours, total attendance and actual contact hours Number of Programs Total Program Hours Total Attendance Actual Contact Hours Findings: The number of programs offered by the Center has remained steady as teaching and technology-related needs of faculty, staff and GTA continue to stimulate the creation of new workshops, especially on advanced technology such as podcasting, wikis, blogs and social bookmarking. Attendance at regularly scheduled technology programs, such as Blackboard workshops, has remained steady; however, some programs such as Customer Service, Disney Style offered in June 2007 by NIU s Outreach Services in collaboration with the Center for over 500 registrants skewed the overall attendance figures. Until spring 2007, the Center reported program data in terms of number of programs and number of participants who attended those programs. However, Center staff realized the need to change the way program data was reported as not all programs are of same duration, and therefore, reporting program data mainly in terms of number of programs and number of participants might not give an adequate picture of program participation. In summer 2007, the Center began analyzing program data in terms of actual contact hours for each programs and the number of 9

11 participants who attended that program instead of reporting just the number of participants. The Center realized that such analysis would help to understand program participation better and also evaluate the cost effectiveness of programs. The Center has found that many programs would be too expensive to sponsor alone given recent budget constraints, and has sought co-sponsorship of programs whenever possible. Programs with expensive national presenters such as Looking at Learning Objectively and Integrating Service Learning in Courses for Multicultural Outcomes were co-sponsored by the Office of the Provost, and Write Well, Publish More was co-sponsored by the Writing Across the Curriculum during and could not have been offered without such co-sponsorship. D. Consultations, Requests, and Referrals Activities: Along with formally scheduled programs, the Center has continued to offer individual consultations on a variety of topics, including teaching effectiveness, technology integration, development grants, career consultations, and research and scholarly activities. The Center has continued to track consultations for collecting and reporting data. Table 7 shows consultation numbers and individuals who have received consultations during the past 4 academic years. Academic Year Table 7. Number of consultations and individuals who received consultations Number of Consultations Number of Individuals Who Received Consultations Findings: It can be seen in Table 7 that the number of individuals who received consultations and the actual number of consultations have remained steady during the past two academic years. This shows consistent demand for consultations on certain topics. Whenever a new topic or program is introduced, the participants need follow-up consultations, and as a result, total number of consultations continues to remain steady. Once the Center has offered several consultations on a certain topic, a formal program is scheduled on that topic so that more participants could be served simultaneously instead of on an individual basis. E. Development grants final reports Activities: The Center has been offering grants to faculty and SPS to help them seek professional development opportunities that are unavailable at NIU. These grants typically fund participation in training programs or workshops on teaching effectiveness, technology integration, or research and scholarly activities to obtain particular skills necessary to fulfill the unique responsibilities of tenured or tenure-track faculty and SPS. 10

12 Faculty Development Grants annually award a maximum $2,500 per applicant, and SPS Development Grants award a maximum $1,000 per applicant. The grants are typically offered in two cycles: January through June, and July through December. SPS Development Grants funding is limited to total of $6,000 per year with $3,000 per cycle. Human Resource Services has contributed $3,000 annually for SPS Development Grants since During the July through December 2006 cycle, five faculty development grants and three SPS development grants were awarded. During the January through June 2007 cycle, one faculty development grant and four SPS development grants were awarded. All award recipients were required to submit a final report online detailing grant activities and outcomes. The online form used by grant recipients for submitting the report also required them to provide additional information on their perception of impact the development grants had on their teaching and student learning. Appendix D contains the Faculty and SPS Development Grant Final Report format. Table 8 lists the number of development grants awarded for the last four academic years. Table 8. Number of development grants awarded to faculty and SPS Academic Year No. of Faculty Development Grants No. of SPS Development Grants Findings: The number of development grant proposals submitted by faculty and SPS during indicate the need for continuing this type of support. During , six tenured or tenure-track faculty and seven SPS were awarded development grants to pursue professional development opportunities that were not available at NIU. Final reports were submitted by grant recipients indicated the grants were beneficial for faculty and SPS to pursue particular development activities that were not available at NIU. Completed final reports have been extremely useful for recording and assessing how recipients grant activities benefited the recipients, their units, and their constituents (faculty, students and staff). F. Feedback from mentoring support Activities: The Center established the New Faculty Mentoring Program in 1999 to arrange mentors for new faculty who requested such support to learn more about academic life, campus support services, and help them navigate the early stages of academic careers at NIU. Mentors were identified within the requesting new faculty s department, outside the department or outside his/her college. Participation in the mentoring program is purely voluntary and mentors and new faculty are encouraged to meet periodically at their own pace and as their schedules permit. New Faculty Mentoring Program feedback surveys are distributed to both mentors and the new faculty participants of the program at the end of the spring semester to gather their feedback about the effectiveness of the program. During fall 2006, six new faculty members requested mentoring support and were assigned experienced faculty mentors for the academic year. The Center sent reminders and 11

13 articles on mentoring several times during the year to both the mentors and the new faculty. At the end of spring 2007, Center staff ed the link to the feedback form online to all participants requesting their feedback. Table 9 shows the number of new faculty who participated in the New Faculty Mentoring Program during the last four academic years. Table 9. New Faculty Mentoring Program participants Academic Year No. of New Faculty Findings: New Faculty Mentoring Program participants feedback indicated that their goals were met and the materials distributed by the Center were useful. Written comments were extremely positive regarding the number of meetings, types of activities; however, one new faculty member commented on the limited time available to meet. In response to requests for more organized meetings, the Center sponsored lunch meetings for mentors and new faculty in G. Resource usage Activities: The Center continued to support numerous resources for faculty, SPS, and GTA use during Resources supported by the Center included an eleven-station Collaboratory, the Digital Multimedia Studio, Teaching Resource Room with TV/video facilities for viewing videos on teaching and related topics, and Web resources. During , the Center continued to collect data on the use of laboratory facilities. Appendix E contains sample logs of resource usage. Findings: Collaboratory and Digital Multimedia Studio resource usage logs showed faculty, SPS and GTAs from 33 academic departments, 5 colleges (not including University Libraries) used the Collaboratory and Digital Multimedia Studio in Users were very appreciative of the availability of laboratory facilities for experimenting with new technologies. The usage data was helpful to the Center to identify the resources used by faculty, SPS and GTAs and continue to make such resources available. The Teaching Resource Room was also used, along with the Collaboratory and Digital Multimedia Studio, for consultations. H. Faculty Development Advisory Committee s (FDAC) input Activities: FDAC is a university committee with faculty representatives from all the colleges and a representative from the SPS body, and advises the Center and participates in its activities. FDAC submits an annual report to the Executive Vice President and Provost in May of each year summarizing the committee s activities during the academic year and offers suggestions for consideration. Appendix F contains the annual report submitted to the Provost in May FDAC reports usually include information on committee members involvement in the following activities: 12

14 Reviewing faculty development grant applications Participating in Outstanding Graduate Teaching Assistant award selection process Presenting in the Center s programs on teaching effectiveness and technology integration Participating in the New Faculty Mentoring Program Discussing various issues of importance to faculty, SPS and GTAs Meeting with invited guests on particular issues Findings: The FDAC annual report indicated the committee s support and participation in various activities of the Center. The committee continued to support faculty development grants being available only to tenured and tenure-track faculty at this time due to the unique responsibilities of their positions and the need for professional development required for personnel actions, new course development, and research and scholarly activities. The report included an understanding of the need for professional development opportunities for instructors and recommended the allocation of separate professional development funds through HRS or other funding sources similar to SPS Development grants to meet the professional development needs of instructors. In their report, the committee recommended increasing the Center s operating budget to meet the increase in equipment and software costs necessary for supporting a 12-station training facility and a 6- station digital multimedia studio, and the increase in program costs due to increase in participation of faculty, staff, and GTAs and the range of programs offered by the Center. The committee also supported increasing the Center s budget to help continue faculty development grants. Finally, the committee conveyed the need for a computer-based testing facility expressed by faculty members from several colleges. I. Faculty and Supportive Professional Staff (SPS) campuswide surveys The Center conducts a campuswide survey of faculty and SPS every four years to assess the impact of its programs and services. The most recent faculty and SPS campuswide survey was conducted in The next campuswide survey of faculty and SPS will be conducted in J. Graduate Teaching Assistant (GTA) campuswide surveys Activities: As the responsibilities for teaching assistant training and development were transferred to the Center in 2003, the Center planned to conduct a survey of all graduate teaching assistants every four years. The first survey of all graduate teaching assistants was designed and conducted by the Center in Spring The survey included 14 questions and was implemented in the Blackboard web course management system. The link for the survey was ed to all 1200 graduate assistants (including research, teaching, and general graduate assistants) at NIU. One hundred ninety-five graduate assistants completed the survey; 71.80% of which indicated they had teaching or teaching-related responsibilities as a GTA in their departments. Appendix G contains the GTA campuswide survey. Findings: Conducting the first campuswide survey of Graduate Teaching Assistants was a learning experience for the Center. To begin with the Center had a difficult time getting a list of all GTAs with only teaching or teaching-related responsibilities and so Center staff decided to send the survey to all GTAs regardless of their responsibilities. Even though the survey questions asked respondents only about teaching and related programs offered by the Center for GTAs, the 13

15 respondents responded about other issues for which the Center had no control over. Therefore, for the next GTA campuswide survey, the Center will contact the academic units directly, obtain the names and addresses of only those GTAs with teaching and related responsibilities and target the survey only to those GTAs. The Center will also make it clear that the survey is only about assessing the Center s teaching and teaching-related programs and services for graduate teaching assistants and not other issues for which the Center is not responsible. The Center hopes to address these two issues and avoid unnecessary and immaterial feedback when the next GTA campuswide survey is conducted. In spite of the mentioned difficulties in conducting the campuswide survey of GTAs this year, the results of the survey were useful for planning programs and services, and improving the resources offered for GTAs. The TA Coordinator has already implemented some of the recommendations in the survey in planning GTA programs for this fall and developing the TA Connections newsletter. K. New Faculty Needs and Interest survey Activities: The Center conducts a New Faculty Needs and Interest Survey every fall to identify and meet the needs and interests of new tenure-track faculty who join NIU. The results of the survey help the Center in developing programs, resources, and services for new faculty, and convey appropriate needs to other units at NIU. In 2006, the Center updated the survey and posted it online to simplify the process for new faculty to receive the survey quickly and complete it easily. Appendix H contains a copy of the survey used in Findings: The Center ed the survey link to 55 new faculty in Fall Twenty-three new faculty responded for a 42 % response rate. This was up from a 36 % response rate in The results of the survey provided the Center with useful input on faculty needs and interests and the information was used in planning programs and services. In response to suggestions from new faculty, new programs were developed and delivered on topics such as plagiarism and new course development. Seventy-four percent of new faculty survey respondents also requested a program on writing and publishing, and therefore, the Center arranged the Write Well, Publish More Workshop. Teaching with technology workshops, such as those on audio/video capturing/editing and podcasting, were requested by a majority of the respondents, and those workshops were continued during In the new faculty survey, 13 new faculty members indicated the need for a mentor; however, seven of the 13 subsequently were assigned mentors by their own departments. Mentors were arranged for the remaining six new faculty members. Twelve faculty members also indicated their interest in participating in a learning community but they could not agree on a topic or day and time convenient for everyone to meet. This was a good learning experience for the Center and next year they will explore a different approach to organize a learning community for new faculty. L. Unsolicited feedback Activities: Along with formal evaluation of programs and services, the Center has been collecting unsolicited feedback from faculty, staff and GTAs. Such feedback has been useful to identify issues and concerns that were not covered in the formal program evaluations or surveys. 14

16 The Center also received unsolicited feedback and comments on programs and services offered by other units on campus and conveyed such feedback and comments to appropriate units. Findings: Similar to previous years, the Center collected unsolicited feedback during and used the information in planning new or special programs as well as in updating existing programs, such as New Faculty Forum, Teaching Effectiveness Institute, and TA Orientation. The unsolicited feedback received during was overwhelmingly positive, with comments such as I enjoyed meeting the new faculty members. I thought you all did a great job organizing [New Faculty Forum]. I ll do it again. As a result of unsolicited feedback, the Center arranged a special SPS Development Grant Writing Seminar for the CHANCE Program staff as they could not attend the regularly scheduled seminar. Unsolicited feedback continues to aid the Center in planning programs to further meet the needs of the Center s clientele. M. Graduate Teaching Assistants (GTA) Pre-Survey Activities: As the GTA audience is likely to change each academic year, and as a result, their needs may vary, the Center designs and conducts a survey at the beginning of the TA Orientation each fall semester. This pre-survey is useful to assess the needs and interests of GTAs for that particular academic year and to plan programs, resources, and services for them. Appendix I contains the GTA pre-survey conducted by the Center at the Fall 2006 Teaching Assistant Orientation. Findings: Out of the 153 GTAs who completed the pre-survey at the Fall 2006 TA Orientation, 80 % were teaching assistants and 75 % indicated plans to pursue an academic career in the future. They indicated their interests in attending particular training programs and the need for more workshops on technology integration. As a result, more technology integration workshops, such as Blackboard Overview, Getting Started in Blackboard, and Blackboard Communication Skills, were offered during The program suggestions made by those who completed the pre-survey were taken into consideration for planning the Spring 2007 TA Orientation, and their suggestions for newsletter topics were considered in developing the Spring 2007 and Fall 2007 TA Connections newsletters. N. Office of the Provost s input Activities: During , the Center Director continued to meet regularly with the Provost to report on planned and completed activities, convey faculty, SPS, and GTAs needs, and obtain Provost s feedback and directives for the Center. The Center Director also met regularly with the Provost s staff to discuss various issues related to faculty development and to obtain their suggestions on programs and services. Findings: As the Center reports to the Office of the Provost, the Center considers it crucial to obtain directions from the Provost and the Provost s staff. The Center Director received suggestions for programs, such as assessment workshops and department chair development workshops from the Provost and Provost s staff. Provost s staff was also helpful to the Center in addressing faculty needs and addressing them through the Council of Deans and other university bodies. 15

17 VIII. Use of Results The Center assessed all its programs, resources, and services on a regular basis during As part of the assessment effort, feedback and data collected were analyzed by the Program Coordinator, Director and other staff to identify useful results to implement during and in subsequent years. Feedback obtained from program evaluations and data on program attendance were helpful in making several programmatic changes. The following paragraphs describe some examples of how the Center has used assessment results to improve not only its programs and services, but also the assessment process. The Center continued to provide opportunities for effective teaching, such as facilitating a range of programs on teaching effectiveness, offering teaching-related consultations and classroom observations, and promoting multicultural and international education. During , the Center implemented a follow-up evaluation form to assess programs applicability to participants teaching and related activities and whether the programs benefited their students. The Center conducted regular evaluations and follow-up evaluations for many programs, such as the Fall 2006 Teaching Effectiveness Institute Day 1 and Day 2, Fall 2006 TA Orientation, and Spring 2007 TA Orientation. Participants responses to the two questions regarding their perception of programs applicability to teaching and related activities and potential benefits to students indicated that on the average 95.5% of the respondents strongly agreed or agreed in the program evaluation that the concepts/techniques covered in the program were applicable in their teaching and related activities and 83.0 % of the respondents indicated in the follow-up evaluation that they strongly agreed or agreed with the statement several months later. Similarly, on the average 97.1 % of the respondents strongly agreed or agreed that their participation in the program had potential benefit to or benefited their students and 71.7% of them indicated the same in the follow-up evaluation several months later. These results indicate that the Center s programs are perceived positively by program participants and they value the programs applicability to teaching and related activities and the programs benefits to their students. During , Center staff offered numerous consultations on teaching and related topics, and provided classroom observation support over a period of several weeks for one faculty member who requested such support. Center staff was also involved in multicultural and international education activities through its participation in the Multicultural Curriculum Transformation Institute and International Week activities. The Center continued to promote research and scholarly activities by collaborating with campus units to offer programs on research and scholarly activities. An example of collaboration to promote scholarly activities was the day-long workshop, Write Well, Publish More! by Brad Peters (Writing Across the Curriculum and Department of English), who contributed his time and expertise for offering this workshop. This workshop was offered in response to the need indicated by faculty and SPS for more programs on writing and publishing. The program was very well received, with 100% of participants indicating their objectives for attending the program were met. A second need was indicated by participants for the creation of writing circles. Subsequently, the Center created a faculty writing circle which began in Fall 2007 and it will be assessed in Spring

18 Center staff was involved in a number of internally and externally sponsored projects related to faculty development during These projects included the Responsible Conduct of Research Education Grant funded by the Office of Research Integrity (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services), GROW II project funded by USAID (U.S. Department of State), and Online Tutorial for Faculty on Promoting Academic Integrity funded by the Committee for the Improvement of Undergraduate Education (CIUE) at NIU. Center staff also participated in research-related committees such as Responsible Conduct of Scholarship Committee and USAID Project Advisory Committee for the Division of International Programs. The Center continued to facilitate the integration of instructional technologies during by offering a range of programs on integrating a wide spectrum of technologies into teaching and consultations on teaching with technologies. Regularly-offered technology programs are generally smaller in number of participants, but the evaluation results are similar in percentage to the major non-technology program, such as Teaching Effectiveness Institutes and TA Orientations. An example of an evaluation for a regularly-offered technology program with a smaller audience is Blackboard I: Introduction to Blackboard, in which 100% of respondents indicated the concepts/techniques covered would be applicable to their teaching and teachingrelated activities and 100% indicated their participation in the program had potential benefits to their students. The technology integration programs had too few participants to conduct a follow-up evaluations. Apart from offering programs and consultations on technology integration, Center staff also worked closely with Information Technology Services to coordinate support for instructional technologies such as Blackboard and CPS einstruction personal response systems. During , the Center continued to provide professional development opportunities by arranging mentors for new faculty who request such support, offering professional development grants to faculty and supportive professional staff, assisting in new faculty welcoming and orientation events, and assisting with hosting development programs for department chairs. The feedback obtained from the participants of the New Faculty Mentoring Program and the reports submitted by the recipients of faculty development and SPS development grants clearly indicated the need for continuing the mentoring programs and grants, respectively. As the New Faculty Forum (a welcoming event for new tenure-track faculty), New Academic Administrator Forum (an orientation program for new department chairs), and Department Chair Development Workshop (workshop on a topic of interest offered every semester) were sponsored by the Office of the Provost, the Center designed and administered special evaluation forms for each of these programs to obtain participants feedback. The evaluations for these programs were overwhelmingly positive and were shared with the Office of the Provost and program presenters. The Center continued to serve as a referral service and as a resource to other units on campus and to provide access to laboratory environments to allow faculty, SPS and GTAs to experiment with instructional technologies. During , faculty and staff from 6 colleges, 25 academic departments, and 7 resource units used the Center s Collaboratory. Also during , the Digital Multimedia Studio was used by faculty and staff from 5 academic colleges plus University Libraries, 7 departments and 1 resource unit. Faculty, SPS and GTAs were very appreciative of the availability of laboratory facilities for experimenting with new technologies. 17

19 The Center will continue to collect and analyze data on its programs, services, and resources during the academic year. The Center is already working with the Provost s Office, other units on campus, and faculty, SPS, and GTAs to address opportunities identified for improvement. In spite of budget reductions and staff changes, the Center has been making considerable progress in assessing its programs and services and exploring opportunities for continuous improvement, especially in the areas of how programs and services impact faculty s teaching and related responsibilities and benefit students. IX. Further Information Needed No further information is needed at this time. X. Timeline No new items to add to the assessment timeline. XI. Resources Needed No new resources are needed at this time for continuing the assessment initiative. 18

20 Appendix A: Program Evaluation Form and Program Follow-up Feedback Form 19