Undergraduate Teaching Faculty: The 2013-2014 HERI Faculty Survey

1y ago
11 Views
4 Downloads
3.46 MB
117 Pages
Last View : 1y ago
Last Download : 2m ago
Upload by : Gannon Casey
Transcription

UNDERGRADUATE TEACHING FACULTY:The 2013-2014 HERI faculty SurveyKevin EaganEllen Bara StolzenbergJennifer Berdan LozanoMelissa C. AragonMaria Ramirez SuchardSylvia Hurtado

Undergraduate Teaching Faculty:The 2013–2014 HERI Faculty SurveyKevin EaganEllen Bara StolzenbergJennifer Berdan LozanoMelissa C. AragonMaria Ramirez SuchardSylvia HurtadoHigher Education Research InstituteGraduate School of Education & Information StudiesUniversity of California, Los Angeles

Higher Education Research InstituteUniversity of California, Los AngelesSylvia Hurtado, Professor and DirectorHERI Affiliated ScholarsWalter R. Allen, Allan Murray Cartter Professor ofHigher EducationAlexander W. Astin, Founding Director andSenior ScholarHelen S. Astin, Senior ScholarMitchell J. Chang, ProfessorM. Kevin Eagan Jr., Assistant Professor in ResidencePatricia M. McDonough, ProfessorLinda J. Sax, ProfessorVictor B. Sáenz, Associate Professor, University ofTexas at AustinThe Higher Education Research Institute(HERI) is based in the Graduate School ofEducation & Information Studies at theUniversity of California, Los Angeles. The Instituteserves as an interdisciplinary center for research,evaluation, information, policy studies, andresearch training in postsecondary education.CIRP Advisory CommitteeBetsy O. BarefootSenior ScholarJohn N. Gardner InstituteVictor M. H. BordenSenior Advisor to the Executive Vice President forUniversity Academic Affairs and ProfessorIndiana UniversityMark L. GuntyAssistant Professor and Assistant Director ofInstitutional ResearchUniversity of Notre DameMarsha Hirano-NakanishiAssistant Vice Chancellor, Academic ResearchCalifornia State UniversityOffice of the ChancellorChristine M. KellerAssociate Vice President for Academic AffairsAssociation of Public and Land Grant UniversitiesKurt J. KepplerVice Chancellor for Student Life andEnrollment ServicesLouisiana State UniversityRandy L. SwingExecutive DirectorAssociation for Institutional ResearchSylvia HurtadoProfessor and Director, HERI(ex-officio)M. Kevin Eagan Jr.Assistant Professor and Director, CIRP(ex-officio)ACKNOWLEDGMENTS: Cover design by Escott & Associates. Page layout and text design by The Oak Co.Manuscript editor, Lesley McBain. The authors wish to thank the incredible efforts of Dominique Harrison andSilvio Vallejos for their efforts in managing the survey administration. Funding from the National Institute ofGeneral Medical Sciences (NIH Grant Numbers R01GMO71968-09) and the Howard Hughes Medical Institute(Grant #52008003) supported this work.Published by the Higher Education Research Institute.Suggested citation:Eagan, M. K., Stolzenberg, E. B., Berdan Lozano, J., Aragon, M. C., Suchard, M. R. & Hurtado, S.(2014). Undergraduate teaching faculty: The 2013–2014 HERI Faculty Survey. Los Angeles: HigherEducation Research Institute, UCLA.To download additional copies of this monograph, please visit www.heri.ucla.edu.Copyright 2014By the Regents of the University of CaliforniaISBN 978-1-878477-28-6ISBN 978-1-878477-33-0ISBN 978-1-878477-34-7ISBN 978-1-878477-38-5(Paperback)(E-book, regular version)(E-book, expanded version)(POD)3005 Moore Hall/Mailbox 951521, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1521www.heri.ucla.edu310-825-1925

CONTENTSList of TablesivList of FiguresivUndergraduate Teaching Faculty: The 2013–2014 HERI Faculty Survey1The Survey Questionnaire2An Overview of the 2013–2014 Faculty Survey Norms2Most Faculty Still Do Not Teach Online Courses3Faculty Move Away from Lecture, Adopt Student-CenteredTeaching Practices5Disciplinary Differences in Expectations for Course Assignments6Differences in Scholarly Productivity by Academic Rank,Institutional Type, and Sex8Faculty’s Perceptions of Institutions Prioritizing Prestige andCorporate Links9Positive but Skeptical: Exploring Faculty’s Views ofCampus Administration11Individual Experiences with and Perceptions of theCampus Climate for Diversity12Mentorship Activities and Encounters with Academic Dishonestyamong Graduate Faculty16Perspectives of and Support for Part-Time Faculty17A Gender Gap in Academic Advising19Full-Time Undergraduate Faculty, Type of Institution and Control23Full-Time Undergraduate Faculty, by Rank45Appendix A: Research Methodology67Appendix B: 2013–2014 HERI Faculty Survey Questionnaire79Appendix C: Institutional Participation99Appendix D: The Precision of the Normative Data and Their Comparisons107About the Authors111iii

Tables1.Faculty Perceptions of Campus Administration, by Institutional Type112.Institutional Resources Provided to Part-Time Faculty,by Institutional Type18Differences in Academic Advising, by Sex193.Figures1.Changes in Having Taught a Course Exclusively Online between2010–2011 and 2013–2014, by Institution Type3Changes in Having Taught a Course Exclusively Online between2010–2011 and 2013–2014, by Faculty Rank4Frequency of Using YouTube or Other Videos in Courses,by Faculty Rank4Frequency of Using Online Discussion Boards in Courses,by Faculty Rank55.Changes in Faculty Teaching Practices, 1989 to 201466.Expectations for Course Assignments, by Departmental Discipline77.Frequency of Requiring Students To Work with ClassmatesOutside of Class, by Departmental Discipline88.Faculty Scholarly Productivity, by Faculty Rank and Sex99.Faculty Perceptions of Institutional Priorities: To Develop aSense of Community Among Students and Faculty2.3.4.iv1010. Faculty’s Perspectives on Administration, by Faculty Rank1211. Agreement That Their Institution Has Effective Hiring Practices andPolicies That Increase Faculty Diversity, by Race/Ethnicity and Sex1312. Perceptions That They Must Work Harder Than Their ColleaguesTo Be Perceived as a Legitimate Scholar, by Race/Ethnicity and Sex1413. Agreement That Racial and Ethnic Diversity Should Be More StronglyReflected in the Curriculum, by Race/Ethnicity and Sex1414. Experiences with Discrimination, by Race/Ethnicity and Sex1515. Faculty Departmental Satisfaction, by Field1616. Mentorship of Graduate Students, by Faculty Rank1717. Amount of Advance Notice for Course Assignments Received byPart-Time Faculty, by Institutional Type1818. Types of Advisor–Advisee Interactions20

UNDERGRADUATE TEACHING FACULTY:THE 2013–2014 HERI FACULTY SURVEYThis report summarizes the highlights of a national survey of college and universityfaculty conducted by the Cooperative Institutional Research Program (CIRP) at the HigherEducation Research Institute (HERI) during the 2013–2014 academic year. Although HERIhas been surveying higher education facultysince 1978, this report is the ninth in aseries of faculty surveys administered on aThis year’s survey includedtriennial basis. HERI encourages institu-five optional modules fortions to collect data on their entire faculty,campuses to append to thebut historically these reports have focusedcore survey. We highlighton full-time undergraduate (FTUG)findings from the academicteaching faculty. Institutions receive reportsadvising and campus climatefor faculty respondents with teaching,modules in this monograph.research, and administrative obligations.Given that students are increasingly taughtby part-time faculty, particularly in introductory courses (Schuster & Finkelstein, 2006), inthe 2007–2008 HERI Faculty Survey we introduced a set of questions specifically addressingthe experiences of faculty employed in part-time positions. This report highlights findings fora select set of these items.1

The 2013–2014 HERI Faculty Survey introduced several new features for participatinginstitutions. Faculty responsible for teaching,training, and mentoring graduate studentsresponded to a short set of questions about theirinteractions with graduate students and perceptions of the graduate program(s) in which theyteach. Additionally, this year’s survey includedfive optional modules for campuses to append tothe core survey. These modules touched on faculty’s perceptions of campus climate, their sexualorientation and gender identity, experienceswith academic advising, and spiritual identityand commitment to students’ spiritual development, as well as a module designed specifically tomeasure the perceptions and activities of facultyworking in science, technology, engineering, andmathematics (STEM) departments. We highlightfindings from the academic advising and campusclimate modules in this monograph.The bulk of the results reported here arebased on responses from 16,112 full-timeundergraduate teaching faculty members at 269four-year colleges and universities. Data for fulltime faculty are weighted to provide a normativenational profile of full-time faculty at four-yearcolleges and universities; Appendix A containsdetails about methodological considerations,including how these weights were calculated.Complete results of the survey presented for fulltime faculty are reported separately for male andfemale faculty in each of eight different normative groups: all institutions, public universities,private universities, public four-year colleges,and private four-year colleges (combined andbroken out by three sub-groupings: nonsectarian, Roman Catholic, and other religious).Survey data by academic rank are also reportedin additional tables available .phpThe Survey QuestionnaireThe 2013–2014 questionnaire was basedlargely on items used in the eight previousfaculty surveys, which were revised followingthe suggestions of HERI-affiliated researchersactively studying faculty concerns and topicsrelated to teaching and learning. In additionto collecting demographic information, theweb-based questionnaire focuses on topicssuch as how faculty spend their time, how theyinteract with students, their preferred methodsof teaching, their perceptions of institutionalclimate, their primary sources of stress andsatisfaction, and their personal and professional goals. The questionnaire also includes asection that allows individual institutions to asktheir faculty up to 30 locally designed closedended questions and five open-ended questions,though these campus-specific questions are notreported here.An Overview of the 2013–2014Faculty Survey NormsThe following sections highlight findingsrelated to faculty’s online teaching and incorporation of technology in the classroom. We alsoexplore changes in faculty’s teaching styles overthe past 25 years and highlight differences inexpectations for course assignments. We thenanalyze respondents’ scholarly productivitybefore addressing issues of faculty’s perceptionsof institutional priorities and their opinionsabout the openness and inclusiveness of administrators in enacting campus policy. A section oncampus climate examines differences by race andgender in faculty’s experiences with discrimination and perceptions of how well the campusincorporates diversity into the curriculum. Wethen highlight a new set of items pertainingto the experiences of graduate faculty before

describing differences across institutional typesin the support of part-time faculty. The reportconcludes with a section describing differencesby gender in academic advising, which is a newmodule included in the 2013–2014 HERIFaculty Survey.(14%) respondents to the 2010–2011 HERIFaculty Survey reported having taught a courseexclusively online compared to 17.4% of facultyrespondents to the 2013–2014 survey.Changes between 2010–2011 and 2013–2014have been uneven across institutional types.Public four-year colleges had the highest proportion of full-time undergraduate faculty (27.2%)indicating they had taught a course exclusivelyonline in the past two years. Faculty at privateuniversities (8.5%) are the least likely to havetaught a course exclusively online; these individuals experienced some of the slowest growthin online teaching, gaining just two percentagepoints over the 2010–11 figure. By contrast,full-time undergraduate faculty teaching atprivate colleges with an “other” religious affiliation (i.e., not Roman Catholic) experiencedthe most growth in online teaching, as theproportion of faculty teaching a course exclusively online at “other” religious institutions rose4.5 percentage points to 16.7% in 2013–2014.% of FacultyMost Faculty Still Do Not TeachOnline CoursesHigher education leaders increasingly viewonline learning as an important part of their longterm strategic plans (Allen & Seaman, 2013),as this instructional delivery method potentiallytaps new markets. In the short time between therelease of the last monograph highlighting HERIFaculty Survey results from 2010–2011 and thefall of 2014, leaders of higher education institutions have waxed and waned in their enthusiasmfor MOOCs (Massively Open Online Courses).MOOCs aside, campus leaders—not to mentionpolicymakers—have put additional pressureon faculty to teach more online courses (e.g.,Medina, 2013).The HERI Faculty Surveyhas asked faculty for theFigure 1. Changes in Having Taught a Course Exclusively Online between2010–2011 and 2013–2014, by Institution Typepast two administrations30whether they have taught27.2a course exclusively online2010–201123.625at their current institu2013–2014tion. The results of the2018.117.42013–2014 administra16.716.715.9tion indicate a noticeable14.014.01512.2increase in the proportion10.4of full-time undergraduate8.78.5106.5faculty who reportedteaching at least one course5exclusively online. Figure 10shows the 2010–2011 13–2014 data on onlineNon-Sectarian Catholic Other ReligiousUniversities ng by institutionalCollegesCollegesCollegestype. Roughly one in seven3

Still relatively fewThese differences across institutional typesbroadly connect with other findings regardingtaught a coursethe growth of online offerings among post exclusively online.secondary institutions. For instance, publiccolleges and universities far outpace private,nonprofit institutions in online course offeringsand online programs: 70.6%versus 48.4% (Allen &Figure 2. Changes in Having Taught a Course Exclusively Online between2010–2011 and 2013–2014, by Faculty RankSeaman, 2013).25Growth in online22.021.4teaching varies not only20.220by institutional type but18.217.9also by academic rank as16.315.0demonstrated in Figure 2.14.81513.92010–2011Instructors experienced2013–201410.7the largest gains in online10teaching between the pasttwo surveys, moving from15% in 2010–2011 to 22%5in 2013–2014. By contrast,full professors remain the0least likely to report torProfessorProfessora course exclusively online,yet the proportion havingdone so jumped more thanfour percentage points in theFigure 3. Frequency of Using YouTube or Other Videos in Courses, by Faculty Rankpast three years to 14.8%100for the 2013–2014 survey.These gains substantially90narrowed the gap between80full professors and their7046.949.0colleagues across other ranks.47.66049.851.9OccasionallyJust fewer than one in five50.950Frequentlyassociate professors (18.2%)40and assistant professors30(17.9%) reported teaching a45.22039.238.4course exclusively online in35.634.228.410the past two years.0Although still relativelyProfessor Associate Assistant LecturerInstructorTotalfew faculty report havingProfessor Professortaught a course exclusively% of Faculty% of Facultyfaculty report having4

Figure 4. Frequency of Using Online Discussion Boards in Courses, by Faculty Rank70% of Facultyonline, many more regularly60incorporate various formsof technology into their50courses. Findings in Figure 340show that roughly one-third42.236.736.0(35.6%) of all full-time26.13030.2undergraduate teaching20faculty “frequently” incorporate YouTube or other videos1019.018.816.416.413.1in their courses, and nearly0half report doing so “occaProfessor Associate AssistantLecturerInstructorsionally.” Assistant professorsProfessor Professorutilize videos most often intheir courses, with 45.2%reporting having done so “frequently” in the pasthighly committed to promoting their students’two years. By contrast, full professors are theability to write effectively (92.7% markedleast likely to use videos in class, with just more“essential” or “very important”). Overall, facultythan one-quarter (28.4%) reporting having donebelieve it is their job to prepare students forso “frequently.” Just more than one-third of assoemployment after college (81.9%) as well as forciate professors (34.2%) “frequently” incorporategraduate or advanced education (72.7%).videos into their courses.This commitment to developing students’Faculty also used online discussion boardscritical thinking skills and preparing them forin their courses fairly regularly. Figure 4 showspost-college life is reflected in changing facultythat 16.1% of faculty “frequently” incorporatedteaching practices. Over the past 25 years,online discussion boards into their courses withfaculty have consistently shifted their pedagogmore than one-third (34.1%) of respondentsical styles to promote critical thinking skills byhaving done so “occasionally.” Nearly one inproviding collaborative learning environments,five (19%) assistant professors “frequently” useopportunities for reflection, self-evaluation, andonline discussion forums compared to 16.4% ofstudent-driven selection of coursework (Pithersassociate professors and 13.1% of full professors.& Soden, 2000). Figure 5 highlights trendsin several pedagogical approaches. More thantwo-thirds of faculty reported using class discusFaculty Move Away from Lecture,Adopt Student-Centered Teaching Practicessions in “all” or “most” of their courses in 1989–Full-time faculty with undergraduate teaching1990 (69.6%), and faculty’s use of this strategyresponsibilities overwhelmingly agree (99.1%)increased steadily over time before levelingthat developing students’ ability to think critioff in 2004–2005 at just over 80%. Othercally is a “very important” or “essential” goal. Instudent-centered methods have jumped substanfact, since the HERI Faculty Survey first introtively in the past 25 years, as the proportionduced this question in 2004, nearly all facultyof faculty who use student evaluations of eachhave consistently rated this goal as “essential” orother’s work in “all” or “most” of their courses“very important.” In addition, faculty are alsohas nearly tripled from 10% in 1989–1990 toOccasionally34.1Frequently16.1Total5

Figure 5. Changes in Faculty Teaching Practices, 1989 to 2014(% Marking “All” or “Most” Courses)100% of Faculty8060Student evaluations ofeach other’s workCooperative learning(small groups)Group projects40Student-selected topicsfor course contentExtensive lecturingClass discussions200198919921995199820012004200728% in 2013–2014. Incorporating studentselected topics for course content has increasednearly 20 percentage pointsin the past 25 years (8.5%in 1989–1990 to 26.3%in 2013–2014). Similarly,This commitment tofaculty’s reliance upon groupdeveloping students’ criticalprojects (45.5%) and cooperative learning (60.7%) are atthinking skills and preparingall-time highs in 2013–2014.them for post-college life isAs faculty’s reliance onreflected in changing facultystudent-centered teachingteaching practices.practices has increased overthe past 25 years, Figure 7shows an overall drop inthe percentage of facultyusing lecture in “all” or “most” of their courses.Heavy reliance on lecture has dropped by morethan five percentage points since 1989, dropping to 50.6% of faculty in 2013–2014. Thesetrend analyses clearly show that faculty aregradually diversifying their teaching approachesand attempting to identify new strategies toengage students.620102014Disciplinary Differences in Expectationsfor Course AssignmentsThe 2013–2014 HERI Faculty Surveyintroduced a series of items about the types ofassignments faculty gave to students. Facultyresponded to questions about how frequentlyin the past they had given at least one assignment that required students to engage deeplywith a significant challenge or question withintheir discipline. Differences by discipline showthat more than half of faculty from departmentsaffiliated with the fine arts (66.4%), history/political science (69.5%), and English (50.5%)“frequently” assigned work that required students to engage deeply with a significant challenge or question in their discipline. Facultyin mathematics/statistics departments wereamong the least likely to assign work of thisnature, with just 27.1% “frequently” doing so.The differences across disciplines may relate tofields’ epistemologies or the nature of knowledgeundergirding each discipline. Perhaps the variation across disciplines in the extent to whichfaculty assign work requiring students to engage

deeply with a significant challenge or questionin the discipline connects to differences in howfaculty view what can be known and how individuals might challenge that knowledge.Since data are now more accessible than ever,one item on the survey asked faculty to reportthe frequency with which they gave studentsan assignment that asked them to analyzeand interpret data and to weigh the meaningand significance of evidence (see Figure 6).Developing students’ ability to analyze data andinterpret its meaning and significance connectsto the essential learning outcomes for undergraduate education outlined by the Associationof American Colleges and Universities (AACU,2011). Faculty working in departments ofmathematics/statistics (26%), business (44.5%),and engineering (45.5%) were least likely to“frequently” assign work that asked students toweigh the meaning and significance of evidence.By contrast, faculty in history or political science(81.1%), English (75.8%), and the biologicalsciences (70.3%) were among the most likelyto “frequently” require assignments askingstudents to weigh the meaning and significanceof evidence. In areas such as English or history/political science, faculty may require studentsto rely heavily on evidence to support claimsmade in position papers; similarly, faculty in thebiological sciences require students to identifysources of evidence when writing lab reports.Figure 6 also shows the frequency withwhich faculty assigned work requiring studentsto analyze and interpret data. Faculty in theFigure 6. Expectations for Course Assignments, by Departmental Discipline(% Marking “Frequently”)908070% of nalyze and interpret dataHWeigh the meaning and significance of hematicsorg07

Figure 7. Frequency of Requiring Students To Work with Classmates Outside of Class,by Departmental Discipline (% Marking “Frequently”)706050.550% of manglishHEnHistoryorPoliticalScience0physical sciences (76.4%) and biological sciences(76.4%) required these kinds of assignmentsmost “frequently.” By contrast, assignmentsasking students to analyze and interpret datawere least common among faculty in thehumanities (34.9%), fine arts (37.8%), mathematics and statistics (41.9%), and education(46.8%). Somewhat surprising is the relativelylow percentage of faculty in mathematics andstatistics departments assigning work requiringthat students analyze and interpret data. Perhapsthese faculty rely more heavily on computational literacy and have an opportunity to pushstudents the next step to think more criticallyabout the meaning behind their analyses.Given research that suggests students learnbetter when working with others (Singer,Nielsen, & Schweingruber, 2012), the 2013–2014 HERI Faculty Survey asked respondentsto report how frequently they gave studentsan assignment that included working withclassmates outside of class. Figure 7 shows thefrequency with which faculty assigned workrequiring students to work with peers outside8of class. Faculty in business (64.6%), engineering (62.4%), and the fine arts (59%) most“frequently” included these kinds of assignmentsin their courses. These fields emphasize teamwork and collective/creative task completion. Bycontrast, faculty in history or political science(30.5%), English (38.4%), and the humanities(40.1%)—fields that often are considered to bemore individually focused—required workingwith classmates relatively infrequently.Differences in Scholarly Productivityby Academic Rank, Institutional Type,and SexThe CIRP Construct scholarly productivity isa unified measure of faculty scholarly activityincluding both career and recent publications.The construct consists of the number of articlespublished in academic and professional journals,the number of chapters in edited volumes, andthe number of professional writings publishedin the last two years. Differences in researchproductivity are apparent by gender, as shownin Figure 8. A greater proportion of male full

Figure 8. Faculty Scholarly Productivity, by Faculty Rank and Sex10050.541.331.131.426.4HighAverage% of Facultyprofessors scored “high”80on the faculty productivity61.8construct than all other60faculty. More than six in ten(61.8%) male full professors40placed in the high group—more than a 10 percentage29.620point advantage overtheir female full professor8.70colleagues (50.5%). ThisMalegap persists when lookingat associate professors, with41.3% of men and only31.1% of women scoring high on scholarlyproductivity. Although fewer men and womenwith the rank of assistant professor scored highon this construct, the gender gap persists. Abouta third (31.4%) of men compared to just overa quarter (26.4%) of women scored in the highgroup of productive scholars.Institutional support for junior faculty isevident, as more assistant professors, comparedto faculty at other ranks, have garnered internalgrants for research. About 45% (44.9%) of assistant professors reported receiving internal grantsfor research compared to 42.1% of associateand 38% of full professors. This institutionalsupport may help junior faculty boost theirpublication activity. In fact, although juniorfaculty scored relatively lower on scholarlyproductivity than associate or full professors,they were on par with their tenured colleagueswith regard to recent publication activity. Abouthalf of full-time undergraduate faculty reportedthat they have published between one andfour professional writings in the last two years(50% of full, 56.5% of associate, and 53.2% ofassistant professors). Full professors however,still outpace their colleagues when it comesto high publication activity. Nearly one-third(30.8%) of full professors have published five .251.720.422.0MaleFemaleAssociateAssistantmore professional writings in the last two yearscompared to 17.4% of associate professors and20.3% of assistant professors.Institution type also correlates with scholarly productivity; universities tend to rewardscholarship over teaching more than comprehensive four-year colleges, although four-yearcolleges are increasingly pressuring faculty toconduct research. Public and private universities have about twice the proportion of facultyscoring “high” (one-half standard deviation orhigher above the mean) on scholarly productivity compared to public and private fouryear colleges. Over half (52.2%) of faculty atpublic universities scored in the high group,with almost as many at private universities(48.6%) doing the same. These figures aresignificantly greater than those associated withfour-year colleges, as only 22.6% of facultyat public colleges and 21.1% of faculty atprivate colleges placed in the high group onscholarly productivity.Faculty’s Perceptions of InstitutionsPrioritizing Prestige and Corporate LinksFaculty’s scholarly productivity connectswith institutional efforts to gain prestige, andthe survey includes several questions about9

how faculty would describe their institutionalemployers and how they perceive institutionalpriorities. Overwhelmingly, faculty at bothpublic (84%) and private (89.5%) universitiesbelieve that enhancing the institution’s nationalimage is of the “highest” or a “high” priority attheir university. By contrast, faculty at four-yearcolleges are much less likely to report that theirinstitutions prioritize national image comparedto their colleagues at public and private universities. Two-thirds (66.3%) of faculty at privatecolleges believe that increasing or maintaininginstitutional prestige is a priority (comparedto 56.7% at public), and 63.7% of faculty atprivate colleges believe enhancing the institutional national image is a priority (compared to53.1% at public colleges).Although faculty sense that their campusesaim to increase institutional prestige, themajority of faculty at all institution typesreport that their colleges and universities prioritize students. About eight out of ten facultyacross institution types stated that they believepromoting the intellectual development ofstudents is a “high” or the “highest” priority.However, when asked about their perceptions8070% of Faculty605040302010010of how institutions prioritize the developmentof community among students and faculty,substantially fewer faculty believed this to bea focus. Figure 9 shows that public universities’ faculty were the least likely to believestudent–faculty community was importantto their institutions, with barely half (49.8%)reporting it as a “high” or the “highest” priority.Those at private universities (56%) and publicfour-year colleges (54.3%) were only slightlymore likely to believe student–faculty community was important. Faculty at private four-yearcolleges, however, felt differently. Seven out often (70%) faculty at private colleges reportedthat t

research, and administrative obligations. Given that students are increasingly taught by part-time faculty, particularly in introductory courses (Schuster & Finkelstein, 2006), in the 2007 - 2008 HERI Faculty Survey we introduced a set of questions specifically addressing the experiences of faculty employed in part-time positions.

Related Documents:

May 02, 2018 · D. Program Evaluation ͟The organization has provided a description of the framework for how each program will be evaluated. The framework should include all the elements below: ͟The evaluation methods are cost-effective for the organization ͟Quantitative and qualitative data is being collected (at Basics tier, data collection must have begun)

Silat is a combative art of self-defense and survival rooted from Matay archipelago. It was traced at thé early of Langkasuka Kingdom (2nd century CE) till thé reign of Melaka (Malaysia) Sultanate era (13th century). Silat has now evolved to become part of social culture and tradition with thé appearance of a fine physical and spiritual .

On an exceptional basis, Member States may request UNESCO to provide thé candidates with access to thé platform so they can complète thé form by themselves. Thèse requests must be addressed to esd rize unesco. or by 15 A ril 2021 UNESCO will provide thé nomineewith accessto thé platform via their émail address.

̶The leading indicator of employee engagement is based on the quality of the relationship between employee and supervisor Empower your managers! ̶Help them understand the impact on the organization ̶Share important changes, plan options, tasks, and deadlines ̶Provide key messages and talking points ̶Prepare them to answer employee questions

Dr. Sunita Bharatwal** Dr. Pawan Garga*** Abstract Customer satisfaction is derived from thè functionalities and values, a product or Service can provide. The current study aims to segregate thè dimensions of ordine Service quality and gather insights on its impact on web shopping. The trends of purchases have

Chính Văn.- Còn đức Thế tôn thì tuệ giác cực kỳ trong sạch 8: hiện hành bất nhị 9, đạt đến vô tướng 10, đứng vào chỗ đứng của các đức Thế tôn 11, thể hiện tính bình đẳng của các Ngài, đến chỗ không còn chướng ngại 12, giáo pháp không thể khuynh đảo, tâm thức không bị cản trở, cái được

Le genou de Lucy. Odile Jacob. 1999. Coppens Y. Pré-textes. L’homme préhistorique en morceaux. Eds Odile Jacob. 2011. Costentin J., Delaveau P. Café, thé, chocolat, les bons effets sur le cerveau et pour le corps. Editions Odile Jacob. 2010. Crawford M., Marsh D. The driving force : food in human evolution and the future.

Le genou de Lucy. Odile Jacob. 1999. Coppens Y. Pré-textes. L’homme préhistorique en morceaux. Eds Odile Jacob. 2011. Costentin J., Delaveau P. Café, thé, chocolat, les bons effets sur le cerveau et pour le corps. Editions Odile Jacob. 2010. 3 Crawford M., Marsh D. The driving force : food in human evolution and the future.