Faculty workshop evaluation 26 March 2024

The faculty development workshop consisted of three systemwide sessions in the morning and two national campus sessions in the afternoon. 

1. Nuventive Improve assessment management system
2. Canvas Update
3. Tools for Tracking Progress with McGraw Hill
4. Mindtap platform overview, course setup, and customization
5. Mindtap hands-on practice session and effective teaching strategies with MindTap discussion

The evaluation for each session included the same four statements:

• Presentations were informative
• The amount of time was sufficient
• Feature coverage was sufficient
• I will be able to apply what I have learned

Response options were numerically encoded on a one to five scale:

• Strongly disagree (1)
• Disagree
• Neutral
• Agree
• Strongly agree (5)

Responses were received from all campuses. 

Overall means table for March 2024

The differences in the means were small and centered around a response of four: in general there was agreement with the statements. To provide some context, the faculty workshops in August 2023 had the following means:

Overall means table for August 2023. n = 22 respondents. Updated 09 Aug at 08:28

Against the August 2023 workshop the March 2024 means were lower suggesting faculty were less satisfied with this faculty development day. The mean for my own sessions fell by a statistically significant amount from 4.56 in August 2023 to 4.26 in March 2024 (p = 0.001). Relative to my past performance, I missed the mark by a significant amount. 

For the above sessions, n = 31 as of 03 April 2024

For the above sessions, n = 13 as of 03 April 2024

The means for each criterion in each of the sessions are reported above. 

Means by criterion, morning systemwide sessions only

For the morning systemwide sessions only, the overall mean by criterion suggests that faculty found the three morning sessions informative and containing sufficient coverage, but, in general, faculty rated lower the applicability of the presentations. The applicability rating was lower than any of the six applicability ratings August 2023.

Just-in-time training suggests that a learner benefits most from the information that they need at the time they need that information. Needing to know something is a powerful motivator for attending to information. The lower mean for applicability reflects that faculty could not immediately use some the information that they were being given. Presentations that involve future deployments of software or require a change of textbook - which means getting an outline through curriculum committee - reduce the immediate relevance of the presentations. 

On the same date as the faculty development day, college leadership was at the 2024 National Conference on Trusteeship in Boston which included a focus on artificial intelligence. Prior to the conference the host, the Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges, published Aligning and Governing AI to Leverage Resources and Enhance Results. Artificial intelligence was also a topic at their 2024 National Conference on Trusteeship. Perhaps there was a missed opportunity to spend some time getting ready for the next technological wave that is sweeping across higher education. Having explored the uses and capabilities of artificial intelligence, I take responsibility for this missed opportunity.

There is a tendency for respondents to respond with agree and disagree. Comments often provide more insight into more authentic assessments. 

List two things you liked most about the sessions

• Aleks & smartbook
• Canvas
• Canvas new quizzes  has more question types like hotspot, categorization, matching, and ordering. It also has more moderation and accommodation features not like the classic quizzes. 
• Canvas presentation and refreshments
• Connect and Aleks
• Development of quizzes on Canvas and Nuventive 
• Firstly, it was very informative and applicable; secondly, the presenter was commendable!
• Flexibility of resource in Mindtab without concerning with Copyright infringement.
• Great presenter and coordinators 
• I found one of the presentations very relevant to what I am doing right now.
• I like Dana's and Todd's presentations.
• I liked the Connect and the updates on canvas
• Informative and Inspirational- I want to try some the things I learned.
• Integration of Cengage-Mindtab into Canvas
• it's engaging and informative
• Motivation prices 
• Presentation of new information and all campuses joining the trainings
• The E-books on McGraw
• the possibility of incorporating what MHHE shared with CANVAS 
• The sessions started on time and snacks were provided
• The set up for  the zoom training( e.g audio, moderator, time)
• They're informative, useful 
• Time allotted for each presentations 
• Timing and organization 

List two recommendations for improvement

• Availability of wifi to access the resources on online 
• Better means of workshop because we were not able to listen in to the presentations and also maybe have the workshop more practical in which participants can actually have hands-on practice
• Better public speakers
• Canvas tutorial and Nuventive
• Go through available ebooks before the session.
• If presentation could be put in slides and display simultaneously, it could make the presentation more effective!
• Internet connection should be good.
• More hands-on practice perhaps, less new products per session
• More hands-on trainings
• More time needed and at a pace that most people would follow
• Need continuous improvements on our network 
• Need to come up with better ways for the presentations. Both audio and video were not clear. Could not hear comments and questions from the audience, especially from the National campus.  One other thing is instructions given out to the  participants were not clear.. 
• Participants must access the presentations or at least must have a coper of powerpoint.
• Please only teach us how to use platforms that are already being used by all faculty.
• Provide hands on on new information and presenters to not present too fast
• Start on time
• Starting on time
• Technical (sharing screen)
• Test devices and any technical issues that may arise before presentations 
• The presentation was marred by the constant coughing and sneezing of someone close to the microphone.  This was unpleasant -- and even disgusting -- to listen to for three hours.  As for video constant, more than half the time we saw nothing on our screen but "[redacted]" in big letters on a black screen.
• time management & scheduling
• Transmission of Zoom host keeps interrupted due to coughing & unclear instructions on how to do the afternoon session. 
• We could not see the slides because the font was too small. Maybe send the slides in advance so we can follow along on our devices.
• Work on technical support 

Noting the call for more hands-on sessions I would note that my experience with them has been positive but with important caveats. The primary caveat is that there is an upper limit on the number of faculty that can be handled in a hands-on workshop without some of the faculty feeling neglected. I worked all faculty sessions in which a handful of attendees required significant assistance which in turn led to the neglect of many attendees. My solution was to shift to providing one-on-one assistance outside of the workshop, moving from faculty member to faculty member as they needed my assistance. This one-on-one just in time delivery of training will likely need to be taken again with the move to New Quizzes and is a recommended approach for other new software implementations. 

The recommendation that slides be shared in advance so that faculty can follow in their own device reminded me of a single phase power loss that took out the SmartBoard power outlet in A101 on April 3. My use of Google Slides allowed the students to follow along on their own devices. I strive to always pre-share my presentations and I consider this to be a best practice. I know of very few online webinar presentations where the slide deck is pre-shared, and I view that as a suboptimal practice. Science publishing has the right order: publish the paper, then present the paper at a conference. Publish/Share the slide deck and then present the slide deck. A slide deck on the use of Google Slides from a January 2023 faculty workshop remains available online. That presentation includes slides that are 11 years old as this is being written. An August 2023 slide deck on Google Workspace delivered in another faculty workshop is also available. As with the earlier workshops, my March 2024 Canvas Update presentation was pre-shared and remains online.

What areas do you want to see covered in future faculty development workshops?

• Any topics regarding education
• Can't come up with anything at this time. 
• Canvas Rubric and linking external website to Canvas 
• Course Outline Modification 
• Ebook with simulation or interactive apps
• Hands on activities on new new updates how to navigate new platforms 
• How to access our textbooks directly from canvas
• How to use AI to make videos.
• I would like to see trainings that will help me improve my teaching especially with the use of the different devices and programs introduced.
• Increasing student engagement in online classes
• Interactive web apps
• Less emphasis on hi-tech systems.  More attention to human issues and how to engage with students.
• More Cengage and Canvas 
• More on cengage and online learning tips to use for student learning
• More on student retention and success!
• Sharing of teaching strategies and materials and evaluations 
• Student Advising
• The use of Cengage.
• The zoom presentation needs to be clear and understandable.

Any other comments?

• During the Zoom, we hardly hear and understand the presentation. 
• Face to face meeting to bring faculty, student leaders, and staff to see eye to eye to what would be issues and suggested remedies to put into action!
• Maybe focus on only one thing.
• None. thank you for the topics today. we need it.
• People who get sent here to advertise their products should not be included in faculty workshops. 

Under "Any other comments?" was an extended reply, which is one of the strengths of Google Forms. Extended replies can be accommodated. This extended reply is included in full below.

[Begin extended comment]

I've been teaching in high schools, colleges and universities for 30 years.  At COM, I teach a science class with lab.  All my classes involve discussions and team exercises.  In my experience, students learn through face-to-face engagement with other classmates, mentoring by inspiring teachers, hands-on experience with the material and exciting field trips.  These things don’t happen in on-line classes.  

The tools and management systems presented today have little direct benefit to me or my students.  Although these systems make money for publishers and software developers, and employ people with EDD degrees, in reality, these systems require more time to implement than traditional methods -- which achieve better results through face-to-face classes.  I don't plan to use any of the systems demonstrated today.

COM’s primary problem is declining enrollments.  There are hundreds of accredited universities that offer excellent on-line courses and degrees.  These schools have better learning systems and reputations than COM.  Instead of competing with big universities, COM should focus on improving its face-to-face classes.  The good news is that COM has the advantage of a captive audience because many students cannot afford to go elsewhere for higher education. 

Here are three suggestions on how to improve COM’s enrollments.  

1. Host enrollment events at each COM campus at the start of each semester to encourage more students to enroll.  
2. Invest in instructors with higher salaries and better facilities. 
3. Recruit foreign students by simplifying the student visas application process and provide housing benefits. 

[End extended comment]

Former instructor Doug Kelly noted the same over a decade ago: the college's competitive advantage is in being physically present on the four main islands of the nation. Online education will have a place at the college and will provide educational opportunities to remote communities, but the core strength of the college is being where the students live. In their islands. In online education the college essentially competes with globally available programs. In residential education, the college sees competition on only one island. 

And there may be students who can be recruited. In a recent conversation with a visitor from Kosrae I asked about the differential between the number of students graduating from Kosrae High School versus the number matriculating at the Kosrae campus. They noted that from what they had seen, many of the high school graduates had chosen to hang out at home, to not attend college. Obviously I do not know if this anecdotal observation is supported by data, but if this is the case, then determining why graduates are making this choice would help the college craft a message targeting this demographic. 

The challenge ahead for faculty is to integrate emerging technologies into their courses while providing residential educational opportunities that are the core competitive advantage of the college.