Market Research Logo

Survey of College Efforts to Improve Teaching Effectiveness

Survey of College Efforts to Improve Teaching Effectiveness

"The study presents data and commentary from 24 academic institutions from their centers of teaching effectiveness or other institutional centers to enhance the quality of instruction. The 150+ page report gives highly detailed data about budgets, personnel, technology, and strategy in improving overall educational effectiveness, especially the quality of instruction.

Among the many additional issues covered: levels of cooperation from various college departments with centers of teaching effectiveness, the popularity of instructing college teachers in many aspects of teaching including: use of distance learning and blended learning, use of new and emerging technologies, use of classroom response systems and course management systems, dealing with disabilities in the classroom, grading strategies, and much much more. The study also looks at time and workload management for offices of teaching effectiveness, defining how much staff time they spend with adjuncts, postdocs, tenured and untenured faculty, and exploring which subject areas do offices of teaching effectiveness focus on. Additional areas covered include: grants and funding for teaching effectiveness efforts, the use of awards for excellence in teaching, the role of student evaluations, legal issues in teacher evaluation and new ideas for instructor assessment and development. Just a few of the report’s many findings are that: The offices of teaching effectiveness in the sample had a budget ranging from $85,000 to $1,500,000; 25% of the institutions sampled gave monetary awards for excellence in teaching; For research universities, a mean of close to 24% of the staff time of offices of teaching effectiveness was spent helping teaching assistants; Community college offices of teaching effectiveness spent a mean of 30% of their staff time working with adjuncts; and The mean number of employees of the office of teaching effectiveness for all the organizations in the sample was 3.32.


SUMMARY OF MAIN FINDINGS
Characteristics of the Sample
Annual Budget 2013-2014 of the Teaching Effectiveness Office
Annual Budget 2014-2015 of the Teaching Effectiveness Office
Annual Budget 2015-2016 of the Teaching Effectiveness Office
Full Time Equivalent Staff 2013-2014 of the Teaching Effectiveness Office
Full Time Equivalent Staff 2014-2015 of the Teaching Effectiveness Office
Full Time Equivalent Staff 2015-2016 of the Teaching Effectiveness Office
FTE Positions for Graduate or Undergraduate Students of the Teaching Effectiveness Office
Break Down of Personnel of the Teaching Effectiveness Office
Awards for Effective Teaching
Funds Disbursed for Teaching Excellence Awards
Grant Funding from the Teaching Center to Departments or Instructors
Outside Grant Funding for the Center of Teaching Excellence
Staff Time Spent Working with Teaching Assistants
Staff Time Spent Working with Full Time Faculty
Staff Time Spent Working with Adjuncts
Staff Time Spent Working with Distance or Blended Learning Instructors
Staff Time Spent Working with Postdocs
Staff Time Spent Working with Instructors Born Abroad
Staff Time Spent Working with Individual Faculty Members
Faculties that Use Teaching Support the Most
Faculties Using Teaching Support the Least
Popularity of Instruction in Use of Lecture Capture
Popularity of Instruction in Use of Classroom “Clickers”
Popularity of Instruction in Use of Course Management Systems
Popularity of Instruction in Teaching Large Lecture Classes
Popularity of Instruction in Use of Group Assignments
Popularity of Instruction in Developing Curriculum
Popularity of Instruction in Use of Audio-Visual Resources
Popularity of Instruction in Use of Specialized Classrooms with Advanced Information Technology
Popularity of Instruction in Use of Course Reserves Systems
Popularity of Instruction in Use of Free or Low Cost Educational Materials
Popularity of Instruction in Use of Using the Library Effectively
Popularity of Instruction in Use of Quizzes for Immediate Assessment
Popularity of Instruction in Use of Distance Learning
Popularity of Instruction in Use of Flipped Classroom Strategies
Popularity of Instruction in Use of Grading Schema
Popularity of Instruction in Syllabus Development
Popularity of Instruction in Use of New or Emerging Instructional Technologies
Popularity of Instruction in Managing Disabilities in the Classroom
Teaching Skills Issues to Be Addressed
Most Effective Classes or Tutorials
Level of Cooperation from the Academic Library
Level of Cooperation from the Department of Information Technology
Level of Cooperation from the Department of Media Services
Level of Cooperation from Academic Advising
Level of Cooperation from the Tutoring Center
Level of Cooperation from the College President’s Office
Level of Cooperation from the Dean of Academic Affairs
Office for International Students
Questionnaire Policy
Impact of Assessment Questionnaires
Percentage of Faculty Evaluations that are Completed
Evaluation Ratings Adjusted For Biases
Role of Taped Lectures in Faculty Evaluation
Use of Software of Web-Based Faculty Evaluation Systems
Use of Home-Grown or Commercial Systems to Evaluate Faculty
Spending on Consultants and Services
When Assessment Efforts Revealed Deficiencies
Has the College Been Sued Over Faculty Evaluations?
Colleges with Effective Instructor Training and Evaluation Programs
Ideas for Improving Teaching Effectiveness
THE QUESTIONNAIRE
PARTICIPANTS LIST
Characteristics of the Sample
Table 1 What is the annual budget of the teaching effectiveness office, including salaries in each of the following years?
Table 1.1.1 What is the annual budget of the teaching effectiveness office, including salaries in 2013-14? (in US $)
Table 1.1.2 What is the annual budget of the teaching effectiveness office, including salaries in 2013-14? (in US $) Broken out by Carnegie class or type of college
Table 1.1.3 What is the annual budget of the teaching effectiveness office, including salaries in 2013-14? (in US $) Broken out by Public and private status
Table 1.1.4 What is the annual budget of the teaching effectiveness office, including salaries in 2013-14? (in US $) Broken out by Enrollment
Table 1.1.5 What is the annual budget of the teaching effectiveness office, including salaries in 2013-14? (in US $) Broken out by Annual Tuition, $
Table 1.2.1 What is the annual budget of the teaching effectiveness office, including salaries in 2014-15? (in US $)
Table 1.2.2 What is the annual budget of the teaching effectiveness office, including salaries in 2014-15? (in US $) Broken out by Carnegie class or type of college
Table 1.2.3 What is the annual budget of the teaching effectiveness office, including salaries in 2014-15? (in US $) Broken out by Public and private status
Table 1.2.4 What is the annual budget of the teaching effectiveness office, including salaries in 2014-15? (in US $) Broken out by Enrollment
Table 1.2.5 What is the annual budget of the teaching effectiveness office, including salaries in 2014-15? (in US $) Broken out by Annual Tuition, $
Table 1.3.1 What is the annual budget of the teaching effectiveness office, including salaries in 2015-16? (in US $)
Table 1.3.2 What is the annual budget of the teaching effectiveness office, including salaries in 2015-16? (in US $) Broken out by Carnegie class or type of college
Table 1.3.3 What is the annual budget of the teaching effectiveness office, including salaries in 2015-16? (in US $) Broken out by Public and private status
Table 1.3.4 What is the annual budget of the teaching effectiveness office, including salaries in 2015-16? (in US $) Broken out by Enrollment
Table 1.3.5 What is the annual budget of the teaching effectiveness office, including salaries in 2015-16? (in US $) Broken out by Annual Tuition, $
Table 2 What is the full time equivalent staff of your center for teaching effectiveness in each of the following years?
Table 2.1.1 What is the full time equivalent staff of your center for teaching effectiveness in 2013-14?
Table 2.1.2 What is the full time equivalent staff of your center for teaching effectiveness in 2013-14? Broken out by Carnegie class or type of college
Table 2.1.3 What is the full time equivalent staff of your center for teaching effectiveness in 2013-14? Broken out by Public and private status
Table 2.1.4 What is the full time equivalent staff of your center for teaching effectiveness in 2013-14? Broken out by Enrollment
Table 2.1.5 What is the full time equivalent staff of your center for teaching effectiveness in 2013-14? Broken out by Annual Tuition, $
Table 2.2.1 What is the full time equivalent staff of your center for teaching effectiveness in 2014-15?
Table 2.2.2 What is the full time equivalent staff of your center for teaching effectiveness in 2014-15? Broken out by Carnegie class or type of college
Table 2.2.3 What is the full time equivalent staff of your center for teaching effectiveness in 2014-15? Broken out by Public and private status
Table 2.2.4 What is the full time equivalent staff of your center for teaching effectiveness in 2014-15? Broken out by Enrollment
Table 2.2.5 What is the full time equivalent staff of your center for teaching effectiveness in 2014-15? Broken out by Annual Tuition, $
Table 2.3.1 What is the full time equivalent staff of your center for teaching effectiveness in 2015-16?
Table 2.3.2 What is the full time equivalent staff of your center for teaching effectiveness in 2015-16? Broken out by Carnegie class or type of college
Table 2.3.3 What is the full time equivalent staff of your center for teaching effectiveness in 2015-16? Broken out by Public and private status
Table 2.3.4 What is the full time equivalent staff of your center for teaching effectiveness in 2015-16? Broken out by Enrollment
Table 2.3.5 What is the full time equivalent staff of your center for teaching effectiveness in 2015-16? Broken out by Annual Tuition, $
Table 3.1 How many of the fte positions are for undergraduate or graduate students?
Table 3.2 How many of the fte positions are for undergraduate or graduate students? Broken out by Carnegie class or type of college
Table 3.3 How many of the fte positions are for undergraduate or graduate students? Broken out by Public and private status
Table 3.4 How many of the fte positions are for undergraduate or graduate students? Broken out by Enrollment
Table 3.5 How many of the fte positions are for undergraduate or graduate students? Broken out by Annual Tuition, $
How is the personnel in the office of teaching effectiveness broken down. For example, is staff organized functionally with some focusing on assessment and others on instructor training? Or some focusing on full time faculty and some on adjuncts or teaching assistants? Explain.
Table 4.1 Does the center gives awards for effective teaching?
Table 4.2 Does the center gives awards for effective teaching? Broken out by Carnegie class or type of college
Table 4.3 Does the center gives awards for effective teaching? Broken out by Public and private status
Table 4.4 Does the center gives awards for effective teaching? Broken out by Enrollment
Table 4.5 Does the center gives awards for effective teaching? Broken out by Annual Tuition, $
Table 5 What was the total amount of funds disbursed by the center in each of the following ways in the past year? Put in "0" if the answer is none.
Table 5.1.1 What was the total amount of funds disbursed by the center in awards for excellence in the past year? Put in "0" if the answer is none.
Table 5.1.2 What was the total amount of funds disbursed by the center in awards for excellence in the past year? Put in "0" if the answer is none. Broken out by Carnegie class or type of college
Table 5.1.3 What was the total amount of funds disbursed by the center in awards for excellence in the past year? Put in "0" if the answer is none. Broken out by Public and private status
Table 5.1.4 What was the total amount of funds disbursed by the center in awards for excellence in the past year? Put in "0" if the answer is none. Broken out by Enrollment
Table 5.1.5 What was the total amount of funds disbursed by the center in awards for excellence in the past year? Put in "0" if the answer is none. Broken out by Annual Tuition, $
Table 5.2.1 What was the total amount of funds disbursed by the center in grants to instructors, departments, etc. in the past year? Put in "0" if the answer is none.
Table 5.2.2 What was the total amount of funds disbursed by the center in grants to instructors, departments, etc. in the past year? Put in "0" if the answer is none. Broken out by Carnegie class or type of college
Table 5.2.3 What was the total amount of funds disbursed by the center in grants to instructors, departments, etc. in the past year? Put in "0" if the answer is none. Broken out by Public and private status
Table 5.2.4 What was the total amount of funds disbursed by the center in grants to instructors, departments, etc. in the past year? Put in "0" if the answer is none. Broken out by Enrollment
Table 5.2.5 What was the total amount of funds disbursed by the center in grants to instructors, departments, etc. in the past year? Put in "0" if the answer is none. Broken out by Annual Tuition, $
If the center itself has been a recipient of grants, awards or endowments over the past three years please describe these funding sources, the volume of funding and what was done with the funding.
Table 6 About what percentage of total staff time would you say is devoted to working with each of the following? The categories are not mutually exclusive and do not have to add up to 100%.
Table 6.1.1 About what percentage of total staff time would you say is devoted to working with teaching assistants? The categories are not mutually exclusive and do not have to add up to 100%.
Table 6.1.2 About what percentage of total staff time would you say is devoted to working with teaching assistants? The categories are not mutually exclusive and do not have to add up to 100%. Broken out by Carnegie class or type of college
Table 6.1.3 About what percentage of total staff time would you say is devoted to working with teaching assistants? The categories are not mutually exclusive and do not have to add up to 100%. Broken out by Public and private status
Table 6.1.4 About what percentage of total staff time would you say is devoted to working with teaching assistants? The categories are not mutually exclusive and do not have to add up to 100%. Broken out by Enrollment
Table 6.1.5 About what percentage of total staff time would you say is devoted to working with teaching assistants? The categories are not mutually exclusive and do not have to add up to 100%. Broken out by Annual Tuition, $
Table 6.2.1 About what percentage of total staff time would you say is devoted to working with teaching assistants? The categories are not mutually exclusive and do not have to add up to 100%.
Table 6.2.2 About what percentage of total staff time would you say is devoted to working with teaching assistants? The categories are not mutually exclusive and do not have to add up to 100%. Broken out by Carnegie class or type of college
Table 6.2.3 About what percentage of total staff time would you say is devoted to working with teaching assistants? The categories are not mutually exclusive and do not have to add up to 100%. Broken out by Public and private status
Table 6.2.4 About what percentage of total staff time would you say is devoted to working with teaching assistants? The categories are not mutually exclusive and do not have to add up to 100%. Broken out by Enrollment
Table 6.2.5 About what percentage of total staff time would you say is devoted to working with teaching assistants? The categories are not mutually exclusive and do not have to add up to 100%. Broken out by Annual Tuition, $
Table 6.3.1 About what percentage of total staff time would you say is devoted to working with adjuncts? The categories are not mutually exclusive and do not have to add up to 100%.
Table 6.3.2 About what percentage of total staff time would you say is devoted to working with adjuncts? The categories are not mutually exclusive and do not have to add up to 100%. Broken out by Carnegie class or type of college
Table 6.3.3 About what percentage of total staff time would you say is devoted to working with adjuncts? The categories are not mutually exclusive and do not have to add up to 100%. Broken out by Public and private status
Table 6.3.4 About what percentage of total staff time would you say is devoted to working with adjuncts? The categories are not mutually exclusive and do not have to add up to 100%. Broken out by Enrollment
Table 6.3.5 About what percentage of total staff time would you say is devoted to working with adjuncts? The categories are not mutually exclusive and do not have to add up to 100%. Broken out by Annual Tuition, $
Table 6.4.1 About what percentage of total staff time would you say is devoted to working with distance or blended learning instructors? The categories are not mutually exclusive and do not have to add up to 100%.
Table 6.4.2 About what percentage of total staff time would you say is devoted to working with distance or blended learning instructors? The categories are not mutually exclusive and do not have to add up to 100%. Broken out by Carnegie class or type of college
Table 6.4.3 About what percentage of total staff time would you say is devoted to working with distance or blended learning instructors? The categories are not mutually exclusive and do not have to add up to 100%. Broken out by Public and private status
Table 6.4.4 About what percentage of total staff time would you say is devoted to working with distance or blended learning instructors? The categories are not mutually exclusive and do not have to add up to 100%. Broken out by Enrollment
Table 6.4.5 About what percentage of total staff time would you say is devoted to working with distance or blended learning instructors? The categories are not mutually exclusive and do not have to add up to 100%. Broken out by Annual Tuition, $
Table 6.5.1 About what percentage of total staff time would you say is devoted to working with postdocs? The categories are not mutually exclusive and do not have to add up to 100%.
Table 6.5.2 About what percentage of total staff time would you say is devoted to working with postdocs? The categories are not mutually exclusive and do not have to add up to 100%. Broken out by Carnegie class or type of college
Table 6.5.3 About what percentage of total staff time would you say is devoted to working with postdocs? The categories are not mutually exclusive and do not have to add up to 100%. Broken out by Public and private status
Table 6.5.4 About what percentage of total staff time would you say is devoted to working with postdocs? The categories are not mutually exclusive and do not have to add up to 100%. Broken out by Enrollment
Table 6.5.5 About what percentage of total staff time would you say is devoted to working with postdocs? The categories are not mutually exclusive and do not have to add up to 100%. Broken out by Annual Tuition, $
Table 6.6.1 About what percentage of total staff time would you say is devoted to working with instructors born abroad? The categories are not mutually exclusive and do not have to add up to 100%.
Table 6.6.2 About what percentage of total staff time would you say is devoted to working with instructors born abroad? The categories are not mutually exclusive and do not have to add up to 100%. Broken out by Carnegie class or type of college
Table 6.6.3 About what percentage of total staff time would you say is devoted to working with instructors born abroad? The categories are not mutually exclusive and do not have to add up to 100%. Broken out by Public and private status
Table 6.6.4 About what percentage of total staff time would you say is devoted to working with instructors born abroad? The categories are not mutually exclusive and do not have to add up to 100%. Broken out by Enrollment
Table 6.6.5 About what percentage of total staff time would you say is devoted to working with instructors born abroad? The categories are not mutually exclusive and do not have to add up to 100%. Broken out by Annual Tuition, $
Table 7.1 About what percentage of staff time would you say is accounted for by consultations with or specialized personal programs for individual faculty members? (as opposed to time teaching workshops, or working with groups in other ways)
Table 7.2 About what percentage of staff time would you say is accounted for by consultations with or specialized personal programs for individual faculty members? (as opposed to time teaching workshops, or working with groups in other ways) Broken out by Carnegie class or type of college
Table 7.3 About what percentage of staff time would you say is accounted for by consultations with or specialized personal programs for individual faculty members? (as opposed to time teaching workshops, or working with groups in other ways) Broken out by Public and private status
Table 7.4 About what percentage of staff time would you say is accounted for by consultations with or specialized personal programs for individual faculty members? (as opposed to time teaching workshops, or working with groups in other ways) Broken out by Enrollment
Table 7.5 About what percentage of staff time would you say is accounted for by consultations with or specialized personal programs for individual faculty members? (as opposed to time teaching workshops, or working with groups in other ways) Broken out by Annual Tuition, $
Which three faculties use the center's services the most?
Which three faculties in order use the center's services the most? 2
Which three faculties in order use the center's services the most? 3
Which faculties use the center's services the least or have, in your view, virtually never used it at all?
Table 8 Rate the popularity of courses, workshops, talks, consultations and other instruction to faculty in each of the following areas.
Table 8.1.1 Rate the popularity of courses, workshops, talks, consultations and other instruction to faculty in lecture capture
Table 8.1.2 Rate the popularity of courses, workshops, talks, consultations and other instruction to faculty in lecture capture Broken out by Carnegie class or type of college
Table 8.1.3 Rate the popularity of courses, workshops, talks, consultations and other instruction to faculty in lecture capture Broken out by Public and private status
Table 8.1.4 Rate the popularity of courses, workshops, talks, consultations and other instruction to faculty in lecture capture Broken out by Enrollment
Table 8.1.5 Rate the popularity of courses, workshops, talks, consultations and other instruction to faculty in lecture capture Broken out by Annual Tuition, $
Table 8.2.1 Rate the popularity of courses, workshops, talks, consultations and other instruction to faculty in use of classroom "clickers" or personal response systems
Table 8.2.2 Rate the popularity of courses, workshops, talks, consultations and other instruction to faculty in use of classroom "clickers" or personal response systems Broken out by Carnegie class or type of college
Table 8.2.3 Rate the popularity of courses, workshops, talks, consultations and other instruction to faculty in use of classroom "clickers" or personal response systems Broken out by Public and private status
Table 8.2.4 Rate the popularity of courses, workshops, talks, consultations and other instruction to faculty in use of classroom "clickers" or personal response systems Broken out by Enrollment
Table 8.2.5 Rate the popularity of courses, workshops, talks, consultations and other instruction to faculty in use of classroom "clickers" or personal response systems Broken out by Annual Tuition, $
Table 8.3.1 Rate the popularity of courses, workshops, talks, consultations and other instruction to faculty in use of course management systems (such as blackboard)
Table 8.3.2 Rate the popularity of courses, workshops, talks, consultations and other instruction to faculty in use of course management systems (such as blackboard) Broken out by Carnegie class or type of college
Table 8.3.3 Rate the popularity of courses, workshops, talks, consultations and other instruction to faculty in use of course management systems (such as blackboard) Broken out by Public and private status
Table 8.3.4 Rate the popularity of courses, workshops, talks, consultations and other instruction to faculty in use of course management systems (such as blackboard) Broken out by Enrollment
Table 8.3.5 Rate the popularity of courses, workshops, talks, consultations and other instruction to faculty in use of course management systems (such as blackboard) Broken out by Annual Tuition, $
Table 8.4.1 Rate the popularity of courses, workshops, talks, consultations and other instruction to faculty in teaching large lecture classes
Table 8.4.2 Rate the popularity of courses, workshops, talks, consultations and other instruction to faculty in teaching large lecture classes Broken out by Carnegie class or type of college
Table 8.4.3 Rate the popularity of courses, workshops, talks, consultations and other instruction to faculty in teaching large lecture classes Broken out by Public and private status
Table 8.4.4 Rate the popularity of courses, workshops, talks, consultations and other instruction to faculty in teaching large lecture classes Broken out by Enrollment
Table 8.4.5 Rate the popularity of courses, workshops, talks, consultations and other instruction to faculty in teaching large lecture classes Broken out by Annual Tuition, $
Table 8.5.1 Rate the popularity of courses, workshops, talks, consultations and other instruction to faculty in assigning and managing group assignments
Table 8.5.2 Rate the popularity of courses, workshops, talks, consultations and other instruction to faculty in assigning and managing group assignments Broken out by Carnegie class or type of college
Table 8.5.3 Rate the popularity of courses, workshops, talks, consultations and other instruction to faculty in assigning and managing group assignments Broken out by Public and private status
Table 8.5.4 Rate the popularity of courses, workshops, talks, consultations and other instruction to faculty in assigning and managing group assignments Broken out by Enrollment
Table 8.5.5 Rate the popularity of courses, workshops, talks, consultations and other instruction to faculty in assigning and managing group assignments Broken out by Annual Tuition, $
Table 8.6.1 Rate the popularity of courses, workshops, talks, consultations and other instruction to faculty in developing curriculum
Table 8.6.2 Rate the popularity of courses, workshops, talks, consultations and other instruction to faculty in developing curriculum Broken out by Carnegie class or type of college
Table 8.6.3 Rate the popularity of courses, workshops, talks, consultations and other instruction to faculty in developing curriculum Broken out by Public and private status
Table 8.6.4 Rate the popularity of courses, workshops, talks, consultations and other instruction to faculty in developing curriculum Broken out by Enrollment
Table 8.6.5 Rate the popularity of courses, workshops, talks, consultations and other instruction to faculty in developing curriculum Broken out by Annual Tuition, $
Table 8.7.1 Rate the popularity of courses, workshops, talks, consultations and other instruction to faculty in use of audio-visual resources in the classroom
Table 8.7.2 Rate the popularity of courses, workshops, talks, consultations and other instruction to faculty in use of audio-visual resources in the classroom Broken out by Carnegie class or type of college
Table 8.7.3 Rate the popularity of courses, workshops, talks, consultations and other instruction to faculty in use of audio-visual resources in the classroom Broken out by Public and private status
Table 8.7.4 Rate the popularity of courses, workshops, talks, consultations and other instruction to faculty in use of audio-visual resources in the classroom Broken out by Enrollment
Table 8.7.5 Rate the popularity of courses, workshops, talks, consultations and other instruction to faculty in use of audio-visual resources in the classroom Broken out by Annual Tuition, $
Table 8.8.1 Rate the popularity of courses, workshops, talks, consultations and other instruction to faculty in use of specialized classrooms with advanced information technology
Table 8.8.2 Rate the popularity of courses, workshops, talks, consultations and other instruction to faculty in use of specialized classrooms with advanced information technology Broken out by Carnegie class or type of college
Table 8.8.3 Rate the popularity of courses, workshops, talks, consultations and other instruction to faculty in use of specialized classrooms with advanced information technology Broken out by Public and private status
Table 8.8.4 Rate the popularity of courses, workshops, talks, consultations and other instruction to faculty in use of specialized classrooms with advanced information technology Broken out by Enrollment
Table 8.8.5 Rate the popularity of courses, workshops, talks, consultations and other instruction to faculty in use of specialized classrooms with advanced information technology Broken out by Annual Tuition, $
Table 8.9.1 Rate the popularity of courses, workshops, talks, consultations and other instruction to faculty in use of course reserves systems
Table 8.9.2 Rate the popularity of courses, workshops, talks, consultations and other instruction to faculty in use of course reserves systems Broken out by Carnegie class or type of college
Table 8.9.3 Rate the popularity of courses, workshops, talks, consultations and other instruction to faculty in use of course reserves systems Broken out by Public and private status
Table 8.9.4 Rate the popularity of courses, workshops, talks, consultations and other instruction to faculty in use of course reserves systems Broken out by Enrollment
Table 8.9.5 Rate the popularity of courses, workshops, talks, consultations and other instruction to faculty in use of course reserves systems Broken out by Annual Tuition, $
Table 8.10.1 Rate the popularity of courses, workshops, talks, consultations and other instruction to faculty in use of open access textbooks and other free or low cost educational materials
Table 8.10.2 Rate the popularity of courses, workshops, talks, consultations and other instruction to faculty in use of open access textbooks and other free or low cost educational materials Broken out by Carnegie class or type of college
Table 8.10.3 Rate the popularity of courses, workshops, talks, consultations and other instruction to faculty in use of open access textbooks and other free or low cost educational materials Broken out by Public and private status
Table 8.10.4 Rate the popularity of courses, workshops, talks, consultations and other instruction to faculty in use of open access textbooks and other free or low cost educational materials Broken out by Enrollment
Table 8.10.5 Rate the popularity of courses, workshops, talks, consultations and other instruction to faculty in use of open access textbooks and other free or low cost educational materials Broken out by Annual Tuition, $
Table 8.11.1 Rate the popularity of courses, workshops, talks, consultations and other instruction to faculty in using the library effectively in teaching
Table 8.11.2 Rate the popularity of courses, workshops, talks, consultations and other instruction to faculty in using the library effectively in teaching Broken out by Carnegie class or type of college
Table 8.11.3 Rate the popularity of courses, workshops, talks, consultations and other instruction to faculty in using the library effectively in teaching Broken out by Public and private status
Table 8.11.4 Rate the popularity of courses, workshops, talks, consultations and other instruction to faculty in using the library effectively in teaching Broken out by Enrollment
Table 8.11.5 Rate the popularity of courses, workshops, talks, consultations and other instruction to faculty in using the library effectively in teaching Broken out by Annual Tuition, $
Table 8.12.1 Rate the popularity of courses, workshops, talks, consultations and other instruction to faculty in use of short quizzes for immediate assessment in class
Table 8.12.2 Rate the popularity of courses, workshops, talks, consultations and other instruction to faculty in use of short quizzes for immediate assessment in class Broken out by Carnegie class or type of college
Table 8.12.3 Rate the popularity of courses, workshops, talks, consultations and other instruction to faculty in use of short quizzes for immediate assessment in class Broken out by Public and private status
Table 8.12.4 Rate the popularity of courses, workshops, talks, consultations and other instruction to faculty in use of short quizzes for immediate assessment in class Broken out by Enrollment
Table 8.12.5 Rate the popularity of courses, workshops, talks, consultations and other instruction to faculty in use of short quizzes for immediate assessment in class Broken out by Annual Tuition, $
Table 8.13.1 Rate the popularity of courses, workshops, talks, consultations and other instruction to faculty in distance learning
Table 8.13.2 Rate the popularity of courses, workshops, talks, consultations and other instruction to faculty in distance learning Broken out by Carnegie class or type of college
Table 8.13.3 Rate the popularity of courses, workshops, talks, consultations and other instruction to faculty in distance learning Broken out by Public and private status
Table 8.13.4 Rate the popularity of courses, workshops, talks, consultations and other instruction to faculty in distance learning Broken out by Enrollment
Table 8.13.5 Rate the popularity of courses, workshops, talks, consultations and other instruction to faculty in distance learning Broken out by Annual Tuition, $
Table 8.14.1 Rate the popularity of courses, workshops, talks, consultations and other instruction to faculty in flipped classroom strategies
Table 8.14.2 Rate the popularity of courses, workshops, talks, consultations and other instruction to faculty in flipped classroom strategies Broken out by Carnegie class or type of college
Table 8.14.3 Rate the popularity of courses, workshops, talks, consultations and other instruction to faculty in flipped classroom strategies Broken out by Public and private status
Table 8.14.4 Rate the popularity of courses, workshops, talks, consultations and other instruction to faculty in flipped classroom strategies Broken out by Enrollment
Table 8.14.5 Rate the popularity of courses, workshops, talks, consultations and other instruction to faculty in flipped classroom strategies Broken out by Annual Tuition, $
Table 8.15.1 Rate the popularity of courses, workshops, talks, consultations and other instruction to faculty in grading
Table 8.15.2 Rate the popularity of courses, workshops, talks, consultations and other instruction to faculty in grading Broken out by Carnegie class or type of college
Table 8.15.3 Rate the popularity of courses, workshops, talks, consultations and other instruction to faculty in grading Broken out by Public and private status
Table 8.15.4 Rate the popularity of courses, workshops, talks, consultations and other instruction to faculty in grading Broken out by Enrollment
Table 8.15.5 Rate the popularity of courses, workshops, talks, consultations and other instruction to faculty in grading Broken out by Annual Tuition, $
Table 8.16.1 Rate the popularity of courses, workshops, talks, consultations and other instruction to faculty in syllabus development
Table 8.16.2 Rate the popularity of courses, workshops, talks, consultations and other instruction to faculty in syllabus development Broken out by Carnegie class or type of college
Table 8.16.3 Rate the popularity of courses, workshops, talks, consultations and other instruction to faculty in syllabus development Broken out by Public and private status
Table 8.16.4 Rate the popularity of courses, workshops, talks, consultations and other instruction to faculty in syllabus development Broken out by Enrollment
Table 8.16.5 Rate the popularity of courses, workshops, talks, consultations and other instruction to faculty in syllabus development Broken out by Annual Tuition, $
Table 8.17.1 Rate the popularity of courses, workshops, talks, consultations and other instruction to faculty in new or emerging instructional technologies
Table 8.17.2 Rate the popularity of courses, workshops, talks, consultations and other instruction to faculty in new or emerging instructional technologies Broken out by Carnegie class or type of college
Table 8.17.3 Rate the popularity of courses, workshops, talks, consultations and other instruction to faculty in new or emerging instructional technologies Broken out by Public and private status
Table 8.17.4 Rate the popularity of courses, workshops, talks, consultations and other instruction to faculty in new or emerging instructional technologies Broken out by Enrollment
Table 8.17.5 Rate the popularity of courses, workshops, talks, consultations and other instruction to faculty in new or emerging instructional technologies Broken out by Annual Tuition, $
Table 8.18.1 Rate the popularity of courses, workshops, talks, consultations and other instruction to faculty in managing disabilities in the classroom
Table 8.18.2 Rate the popularity of courses, workshops, talks, consultations and other instruction to faculty in managing disabilities in the classroom Broken out by Carnegie class or type of college
Table 8.18.3 Rate the popularity of courses, workshops, talks, consultations and other instruction to faculty in managing disabilities in the classroom Broken out by Public and private status
Table 8.18.4 Rate the popularity of courses, workshops, talks, consultations and other instruction to faculty in managing disabilities in the classroom Broken out by Enrollment
Table 8.18.5 Rate the popularity of courses, workshops, talks, consultations and other instruction to faculty in managing disabilities in the classroom Broken out by Annual Tuition, $
What teaching skills issues need to be most urgently addressed at your institution?
Which classes or tutorials do you feel have done most to improve teaching effectiveness at your institution?
Table 9 Rate the quality of the cooperation that the center for teaching effectiveness or excellence gets from each of the following:
Table 9.1.1 Rate the quality of the cooperation that the center for teaching effectiveness or excellence gets from academic library
Table 9.1.2 Rate the quality of the cooperation that the center for teaching effectiveness or excellence gets from academic library Broken out by Carnegie class or type of college
Table 9.1.3 Rate the quality of the cooperation that the center for teaching effectiveness or excellence gets from academic library Broken out by Public and private status
Table 9.1.4 Rate the quality of the cooperation that the center for teaching effectiveness or excellence gets from academic library Broken out by Enrollment
Table 9.1.5 Rate the quality of the cooperation that the center for teaching effectiveness or excellence gets from academic library Broken out by Annual Tuition, $
Table 9.2.1 Rate the quality of the cooperation that the center for teaching effectiveness or excellence gets from information technology
Table 9.2.2 Rate the quality of the cooperation that the center for teaching effectiveness or excellence gets from information technology Broken out by Carnegie class or type of college
Table 9.2.3 Rate the quality of the cooperation that the center for teaching effectiveness or excellence gets from information technology Broken out by Public and private status
Table 9.2.4 Rate the quality of the cooperation that the center for teaching effectiveness or excellence gets from information technology Broken out by Enrollment
Table 9.2.5 Rate the quality of the cooperation that the center for teaching effectiveness or excellence gets from information technology Broken out by Annual Tuition, $
Table 9.3.1 Rate the quality of the cooperation that the center for teaching effectiveness or excellence gets from media services
Table 9.3.2 Rate the quality of the cooperation that the center for teaching effectiveness or excellence gets from media services Broken out by Carnegie class or type of college
Table 9.3.3 Rate the quality of the cooperation that the center for teaching effectiveness or excellence gets from media services Broken out by Public and private status
Table 9.3.4 Rate the quality of the cooperation that the center for teaching effectiveness or excellence gets from media services Broken out by Enrollment
Table 9.3.5 Rate the quality of the cooperation that the center for teaching effectiveness or excellence gets from media services Broken out by Annual Tuition, $
Table 9.4.1 Rate the quality of the cooperation that the center for teaching effectiveness or excellence gets from academic advising
Table 9.4.2 Rate the quality of the cooperation that the center for teaching effectiveness or excellence gets from academic advising Broken out by Carnegie class or type of college
Table 9.4.3 Rate the quality of the cooperation that the center for teaching effectiveness or excellence gets from academic advising Broken out by Public and private status
Table 9.4.4 Rate the quality of the cooperation that the center for teaching effectiveness or excellence gets from academic advising Broken out by Enrollment
Table 9.4.5 Rate the quality of the cooperation that the center for teaching effectiveness or excellence gets from academic advising Broken out by Annual Tuition, $
Table 9.5.1 Rate the quality of the cooperation that the center for teaching effectiveness or excellence gets from tutoring center
Table 9.5.2 Rate the quality of the cooperation that the center for teaching effectiveness or excellence gets from tutoring center Broken out by Carnegie class or type of college
Table 9.5.3 Rate the quality of the cooperation that the center for teaching effectiveness or excellence gets from tutoring center Broken out by Public and private status
Table 9.5.4 Rate the quality of the cooperation that the center for teaching effectiveness or excellence gets from tutoring center Broken out by Enrollment
Table 9.5.5 Rate the quality of the cooperation that the center for teaching effectiveness or excellence gets from tutoring center Broken out by Annual Tuition, $
Table 9.6.1 Rate the quality of the cooperation that the center for teaching effectiveness or excellence gets from college president's office
Table 9.6.2 Rate the quality of the cooperation that the center for teaching effectiveness or excellence gets from college president's office Broken out by Carnegie class or type of college
Table 9.6.3 Rate the quality of the cooperation that the center for teaching effectiveness or excellence gets from college president's office Broken out by Public and private status
Table 9.6.4 Rate the quality of the cooperation that the center for teaching effectiveness or excellence gets from college president's office Broken out by Enrollment
Table 9.6.5 Rate the quality of the cooperation that the center for teaching effectiveness or excellence gets from college president's office Broken out by Annual Tuition, $
Table 9.7.1 Rate the quality of the cooperation that the center for teaching effectiveness or excellence gets from dean of academic affairs
Table 9.7.2 Rate the quality of the cooperation that the center for teaching effectiveness or excellence gets from dean of academic affairs Broken out by Carnegie class or type of college
Table 9.7.3 Rate the quality of the cooperation that the center for teaching effectiveness or excellence gets from dean of academic affairs Broken out by Public and private status
Table 9.7.4 Rate the quality of the cooperation that the center for teaching effectiveness or excellence gets from dean of academic affairs Broken out by Enrollment
Table 9.7.5 Rate the quality of the cooperation that the center for teaching effectiveness or excellence gets from dean of academic affairs Broken out by Annual Tuition, $
Table 9.8.1 Rate the quality of the cooperation that the center for teaching effectiveness or excellence gets from office for international students
Table 9.8.2 Rate the quality of the cooperation that the center for teaching effectiveness or excellence gets from office for international students Broken out by Carnegie class or type of college
Table 9.8.3 Rate the quality of the cooperation that the center for teaching effectiveness or excellence gets from office for international students Broken out by Public and private status
Table 9.8.4 Rate the quality of the cooperation that the center for teaching effectiveness or excellence gets from office for international students Broken out by Enrollment
Table 9.8.5 Rate the quality of the cooperation that the center for teaching effectiveness or excellence gets from office for international students Broken out by Annual Tuition, $
Table 10.1 What best describes the college's policies towards questionnaires for student assessment of instructors?
Table 10.2 What best describes the college's policies towards questionnaires for student assessment of instructors? Broken out by Carnegie class or type of college
Table 10.3 What best describes the college's policies towards questionnaires for student assessment of instructors? Broken out by Public and private status
Table 10.4 What best describes the college's policies towards questionnaires for student assessment of instructors? Broken out by Enrollment
Table 10.5 What best describes the college's policies towards questionnaires for student assessment of instructors? Broken out by Annual Tuition, $
Table 11.1 What would you say is the impact of student faculty assessment questionnaires on tenure decisions?
Table 11.2 What would you say is the impact of student faculty assessment questionnaires on tenure decisions? Broken out by Carnegie class or type of college
Table 11.3 What would you say is the impact of student faculty assessment questionnaires on tenure decisions? Broken out by Public and private status
Table 11.4 What would you say is the impact of student faculty assessment questionnaires on tenure decisions? Broken out by Enrollment
Table 11.5 What would you say is the impact of student faculty assessment questionnaires on tenure decisions? Broken out by Annual Tuition, $
Table 12.1 In general about what percentage of faculty evaluation requests from students are completed?
Table 12.2 In general about what percentage of faculty evaluation requests from students are completed? Broken out by Carnegie class or type of college
Table 12.3 In general about what percentage of faculty evaluation requests from students are completed? Broken out by Public and private status
Table 12.4 In general about what percentage of faculty evaluation requests from students are completed? Broken out by Enrollment
Table 12.5 In general about what percentage of faculty evaluation requests from students are completed? Broken out by Annual Tuition, $
Table 13.1 In your view do your student evaluation ratings adjust for biases such as class size or tendency to inflate grades, both of which can impact student teach ratings independently of actual teaching effectiveness?
Table 13.2 In your view do your student evaluation ratings adjust for biases such as class size or tendency to inflate grades, both of which can impact student teach ratings independently of actual teaching effectiveness? Broken out by Carnegie class or type of college
Table 13.3 In your view do your student evaluation ratings adjust for biases such as class size or tendency to inflate grades, both of which can impact student teach ratings independently of actual teaching effectiveness? Broken out by Public and private status
Table 13.4 In your view do your student evaluation ratings adjust for biases such as class size or tendency to inflate grades, both of which can impact student teach ratings independently of actual teaching effectiveness? Broken out by Enrollment
Table 13.5 In your view do your student evaluation ratings adjust for biases such as class size or tendency to inflate grades, both of which can impact student teach ratings independently of actual teaching effectiveness? Broken out by Annual Tuition, $
What role do taped lectures currently play in college assessment? Or do you have plans for them to play a role in the future?
Table 14.1 Does your college use a software or web-based faculty evaluation system?
Table 14.2 Does your college use a software or web-based faculty evaluation system? Broken out by Carnegie class or type of college
Table 14.3 Does your college use a software or web-based faculty evaluation system? Broken out by Public and private status
Table 14.4 Does your college use a software or web-based faculty evaluation system? Broken out by Enrollment
Table 14.5 Does your college use a software or web-based faculty evaluation system? Broken out by Annual Tuition, $
Table 15.1 Is your instructor evaluation system home-grown or do you use a commercial package?
Table 15.2 Is your instructor evaluation system home-grown or do you use a commercial package? Broken out by Carnegie class or type of college
Table 15.3 Is your instructor evaluation system home-grown or do you use a commercial package? Broken out by Public and private status
Table 15.4 Is your instructor evaluation system home-grown or do you use a commercial package? Broken out by Enrollment
Table 15.5 Is your instructor evaluation system home-grown or do you use a commercial package? Broken out by Annual Tuition, $
Table 16.1 How much did the center for teaching effectiveness spend on outside consultants, reports, conferences and other consulting services in the past year?
Table 16.2 How much did the center for teaching effectiveness spend on outside consultants, reports, conferences and other consulting services in the past year? Broken out by Carnegie class or type of college
Table 16.3 How much did the center for teaching effectiveness spend on outside consultants, reports, conferences and other consulting services in the past year? Broken out by Public and private status
Table 16.4 How much did the center for teaching effectiveness spend on outside consultants, reports, conferences and other consulting services in the past year? Broken out by Enrollment
Table 16.5 How much did the center for teaching effectiveness spend on outside consultants, reports, conferences and other consulting services in the past year? Broken out by Annual Tuition, $
Provide some examples of instances when assessment procedures revealed instructor or program deficiencies, how those deficiencies were addressed, and what were the results?
Table 17.1 To the best of your knowledge in the past two years has the college been sued by a faculty member at least in part due to perceived faults in official faculty evaluations?
Table 17.2 To the best of your knowledge in the past two years has the college been sued by a faculty member at least in part due to perceived faults in official faculty evaluations? Broken out by Carnegie class or type of college
Table 17.3 To the best of your knowledge in the past two years has the college been sued by a faculty member at least in part due to perceived faults in official faculty evaluations? Broken out by Public and private status
Table 17.4 To the best of your knowledge in the past two years has the college been sued by a faculty member at least in part due to perceived faults in official faculty evaluations? Broken out by Enrollment
Table 17.5 To the best of your knowledge in the past two years has the college been sued by a faculty member at least in part due to perceived faults in official faculty evaluations? Broken out by Annual Tuition, $
Are there colleges other than your own whose programs for instructor training and evaluation are particularly effective or admirable? If so which are they and what do you like about them?
What were your college’s best ideas in improving teaching effectiveness at your institution?

Download our eBook: How to Succeed Using Market Research

Learn how to effectively navigate the market research process to help guide your organization on the journey to success.

Download eBook

Share this report