2013 common block development evaluation and feedback february 26, 2014
TRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: 2013 Common Block Development Evaluation and Feedback February 26, 2014](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062305/5697bf881a28abf838c892c6/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
2013 Common Block Development 2013 Common Block Development Evaluation and FeedbackEvaluation and Feedback
February 26, 2014February 26, 2014
![Page 2: 2013 Common Block Development Evaluation and Feedback February 26, 2014](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062305/5697bf881a28abf838c892c6/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Evaluation Components
1. CBD activities – hours and completion rate2. Stakeholder feedback
Faculty (focus groups, FDR survey) Academic Leadership Service Leaders’ Team
3. Student feedback
![Page 3: 2013 Common Block Development Evaluation and Feedback February 26, 2014](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062305/5697bf881a28abf838c892c6/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
CBD Activities – How Much Time? Approximately 42,000 hours of faculty time were spent on CBD activities
Greatest usage of time allocated to: Curriculum renewal and/or development E-learning Applied learning Professional development Program review
Estimated completion rate of planned activities: Fully complete – 68 % Partially complete – 20 %
![Page 4: 2013 Common Block Development Evaluation and Feedback February 26, 2014](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062305/5697bf881a28abf838c892c6/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Stakeholder Feedback: Areas of Inquiry Collaboration Strategic priorities Accountability Activity template Professional development opportunities Impact on service areas Recommendations for improvement Additional general feedback
![Page 5: 2013 Common Block Development Evaluation and Feedback February 26, 2014](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062305/5697bf881a28abf838c892c6/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Stakeholder Feedback: Collaboration
83 % of faculty rated collaboration with colleagues in their school as good or excellent
Collaboration with colleagues in other schools, contract faculty and support staff - not as strong
Good opportunity to collaborate with GAS faculty to make important curriculum changes
Support groups called upon most often to help: Learning Technologists eLearning Coaches CLT Curriculum Consultants Program Technicians/Technologists
![Page 6: 2013 Common Block Development Evaluation and Feedback February 26, 2014](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062305/5697bf881a28abf838c892c6/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Stakeholder Feedback: Strategic Priorities
89% of faculty agree progress was escalated against strategic priorities Most significant progress made with: curriculum renewal/ development,
program review, applied learning and e-learning
81 % of faculty experienced barriers which included: IT unable to support some ideas/software Faculty overestimated the amount that could be accomplished Too many meetings and committees Learning curve associated with D2L Cross-school integration not well planned Availability of other faculty Other duties (e.g. coordinator, semester start up, teaching)
![Page 7: 2013 Common Block Development Evaluation and Feedback February 26, 2014](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062305/5697bf881a28abf838c892c6/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Stakeholder Feedback: Accountability
89% of faculty agreed the accountability framework was fair
83 % of faculty believed requirement to be on-site Tuesday – Thursday was fair
87 % of faculty provided a mid-term progress update to their Dean/Chair; 82 % provided a final progress update
Mid-term check in with the Dean was very helpful
Team members held each other accountable; faculty held themselves accountable
![Page 8: 2013 Common Block Development Evaluation and Feedback February 26, 2014](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062305/5697bf881a28abf838c892c6/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Stakeholder Feedback: Activity Template
Only 52 % of faculty rated the Activity Template as easy to use
Comments ranged from "very easy to use and clear” to "fairly useless“ and “cumbersome”
Structure gave the Deans ability to track activity progress
Suggestions for improvement included: Allow for more rows to be added and more space to type Focus on outcomes rather than time (i.e. getting close to 44 hours per week) Ensure faculty consider time required for activities such as travel, booking meetings, setting
agendas Simplify the reporting
![Page 9: 2013 Common Block Development Evaluation and Feedback February 26, 2014](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062305/5697bf881a28abf838c892c6/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Stakeholder Feedback: Professional Development 94 % of faculty believed PD activities were relevant and would enhance the
student learning experience
68 % of faculty agreed CBD provided opportunities for PD related to their professional field
Overall, PD was well received; topics were relevant and interesting
Suggestions for improvement: Schedule PD week prior to CBD to allow full 7-weeks of CBD Send PD schedule further in advance More detailed description of topics
![Page 10: 2013 Common Block Development Evaluation and Feedback February 26, 2014](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062305/5697bf881a28abf838c892c6/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Stakeholder Feedback: Other Improvement Suggestions Early planning, better preparation
Involve faculty in the identification of priorities
Notify Facilities of CBD room/space needs in advance
Better cross-school coordination and planning
Account for preparation time for the Fall semester
Ensure a manageable and realistic number of projects
![Page 11: 2013 Common Block Development Evaluation and Feedback February 26, 2014](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062305/5697bf881a28abf838c892c6/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Stakeholder Feedback: Other Improvement Suggestions (cont’d) More involvement of contract faculty and technologists
Reinforce faculty accountability
Focus on improvements to rooms (classrooms, labs), tools
Required completion of course outlines during CBD period
Complete textbook/course material/supply orders prior to leaving for vacation
![Page 12: 2013 Common Block Development Evaluation and Feedback February 26, 2014](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062305/5697bf881a28abf838c892c6/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Student Feedback Faculty/course evaluations completed by students in the 2013
Spring/Summer semester
Overall evaluation score College = 92 % Schools’ scores range from 91 % - 96 %
Faculty Evaluation Schools’ scores range from 93 % - 97 %
A very big thank you to our contract faculty !
![Page 13: 2013 Common Block Development Evaluation and Feedback February 26, 2014](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062305/5697bf881a28abf838c892c6/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Stakeholder Feedback: Other General Comments Overall CBD was a great opportunity for faculty to have dedicated
time to focus on projects and work with colleagues
Excellent opportunity to connect with other faculty to exchange best practices and plan improvements
CBD should be continued
Productive and rewarding initiative that was greatly appreciated by the vast majority of faculty
![Page 14: 2013 Common Block Development Evaluation and Feedback February 26, 2014](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062305/5697bf881a28abf838c892c6/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
More Information
2013 CBD Evaluation Summary available on the Academic section of the HR Website:
https://department.flemingcollege.ca/hr/employee-groups/academic/
![Page 15: 2013 Common Block Development Evaluation and Feedback February 26, 2014](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062305/5697bf881a28abf838c892c6/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Questions or Additional Feedback ?