home
  : Reports : Faculty Development





























home reports instruments plans
search

Faculty Development Annotated Report Excerpts

Return to Faculty Development Reports

Design

The table below contains report excerpts (right column) accompanied by annotations (left column) identifying how the excerpts represent the Design Criteria.

Annotations Report Excerpts
 

Excerpt 1 [Auburn University]

Information Sources & Sampling:
Describes response rate and sample attrition

In February, 1994, a written questionnaire was sent to the 197 workshop participants from the summer of 1993. The response rate was 64%. There were 113 usable responses; 2 questionnaires were returned too late to be included in the analysis; and 12 questionnaires were returned either for incorrect address or because the addressee had not actually attended the entire workshop. Results of the first nine questions were compiled and the open-ended responses were analyzed and categorized.

Data Collection Procedures & Schedule:
Identifies number of survey respondents and describes measures taken to increase the number

Ninety-nine of the 113 participants who responded to the questionnaire indicated on the questionnaire that they would be willing to be interviewed by telephone. After the analysis of the written questionnaires, phone interview participants were sought whose responses indicated either a dramatic change in their view of teaching calculus, or a resistance to change; and whose responses indicated careful thought about the impact of the workshop. This initial group numbered thirty-six. During the first week in May, 1993, an attempt was made to call all thirty-six people to set up appointments for interviews. Ten of the thirty-six were either unreachable or were unable to be interviewed in the available time period. One additional person made an appointment and then was unable to keep that appointment. Thus, twenty-five people participated in the telephone interviews. An attempt was made to interview participants from each workshop as well as participants from each of the four institution types.

Information Sources & Sampling:
Describes who was selected to provide information

The twenty-five people interviewed included seven who taught at a university, seven who taught at a four-year school, four who taught at a two-year school, and six who taught at a high school. One person taught calculus both at a high school and at a two-year school. Five of those interviewed had attended the Oregon workshop, four had attended the Missouri workshop, four had attended the Michigan workshop, three had attended the Texas workshop, three had attended the Pennsylvania workshop, three had attended the Maine workshop, two had attended the Georgia workshop and one had attended the Idaho workshop.

 

Excerpt 2 [Auburn University]

Instruments

Two assessment forms were administered. The first was administered on Sunday evening (July 20), prior to the beginning of the week-long training workshop. The post-test was administered on Friday afternoon (July 25) after the final session of the training workshop. The pre- and post-assessment battery consisted of several sections. A comparison of the responses from the pre- and post-assessments was made to determine any change in the following:

  1. the level of knowledge of geosynthetics;
  2. the level of confidence professors have in teaching geosynthetics;
  3. the extent to which these professors are equipped with sufficient materials to teach the topic of geosynthetics; and,
  4. the availability of resources such as books, software, and engineering design samples for use in addressing specific topics in their courses.