Faculty Perceptions of Fall 2011 IDEA Preliminary Report to CNU Faculty Senate

1. Faculty Perceptionsof Fall 2011 IDEAPreliminary Report to CNU Faculty Senate April 2012 By Deborah Moore, Director, OAEA for IDEA TaskForce & CNU Faculty

2. 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.

3. Background Information Response Rate: 192 submitted of 394 invited (49%); 8 reported “none of my classes were evaluated this fall”) By subgroup: (not all respondents provided a response to the status item) Adjunct, 30 of 148 (20%) Restricted, 44 of 78 (56%) Probationary, 31/53 (58%) Tenured, 80 of 115 (70%)

4. Which best describes your status in Fall 2011?

5. Home Departments

6. Which type of administration did you experience this Fall?

7. Knowledge about the IDEA 0% 10% 15% 50% 25%

8. Importance: Teaching EffectivenessOverall, how important is IDEA to you with respect to your own teaching efforts and improvement practices.

9. Satisfaction: Teaching EffectivenessOverall, how satisfied are you with IDEA with respect to your own teaching efforts and improvement practices.

10. Importance: EvaluationOverall, how important is IDEA to you with respect to CNU's process for instructor/course evaluation?

11. Satisfaction: EvaluationOverall, how satisfied are you with IDEA with respect to CNU's process for instructor/course evaluation?

18. IDEA Webpages • http://www.cnu.edu/assessment/idea/index.asp • http://www.theideacenter.org/

19. Preliminary Summary/Highlights • Survey response rates were acceptable, although low (56%-70%) for subgroups except adjunct (20%). • Nearly every department had faculty participating in the survey. • As expected more respondents indicated having participated with an online experience (160/192 or 83%) and paper was limited to a small subgroup (26/192 or 14%). A small group had no classes evaluated and ended their survey after reporting their faculty status (8/192 or 4%). • Although not ideal, these values can serve as a benchmark for comparison about faculty perceptions of the online application of the IDEA. • The majority of the respondents indicate good knowledge about IDEA and related procedures (75%); however 25% indicate the need information about both the form and procedures. • Faculty were asked to provide an overall rating of importance and satisfaction about two contexts of IDEA use: IDEA for personal teaching improvement, and IDEA as used by CNU for course/instructor evaluation. • In the 1st of 2 contexts, use of IDEA for personal teaching improvement efforts, 84% or 148/176 respondents indicated the tool was important (EI + VI + SI). Within that subgroup, 74% were satisfied and 14% were dissatisfied with IDEA. Although room for improvement, overall this is a positive outcome. • Similarly 80% or 141/176 respondents indicated the tool was important (EI + VI + SI) in the context of CNUS use of IDEA for course/instructor evaluation. Within this subgroup of those who indicate CNU’s use of IDEA for course/instructor evaluation is important, 57% were satisfied and 32% were dissatisfied.

20. Continued • Efforts to determine what is dissatisfying—and addressing the responses should help to shift these ratios in a more positive direction • Strategies 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. • Regardless of format subgroup, comments were fewer in quantity and less helpful qualitatively.