This section presents the findings in relation to the first inquiry question: To what extent did the participating faculty find the course useful? Th data were drawn from the Mid-Point Survey and Upon-Completion Survey, which contained questions that elicited the participants’ ratings on different items, such as the quality of the Pathway and likelihood of recommending it to others, among others.
In responding to the question ‘Overall, on the scale of 1 to 5 with 5 being very much, how much have you been enjoying this Pathway?’ in the Mid-Point Survey, out of a total of 14 responded participants from the Fall 2017 (eight participants) and Spring 2018 iterations (six participants), nine participants selected 4, and five selected 5. The average rating was 4.36. On the overall quality of the course, which was asked about in the Upon-Completion Survey, the average rating was 4.54. The ratings showed that the participants enjoying the course and thought highly of its quality.
Completion Survey, the participants of the Fall 2017 and Spring 2018 iterations found the course very helpful in the areas of learning about teaching best practices, engaging in discussion with other participants, receiving feedback, and redesigning their course materials. Figure 4 provides a summary of the ratings on the relevant aspects of the Pathway.
Figure 4 Summary of Ratings on Usefulness from the Upon-Completion Survey
In the Upon-Completion Survey, the participants rated their likelihood of recommending this Pathway to a colleague on the scale of 1 to 5, with 5 being definitely recommend it to a colleague. Nine participants rated 5 and four rated 4, and no participants rated lower than 4. The average rating was 4.70, indicating a high likelihood of recommendation.
Another question asked whether the small financial incentive ($300 as stipend given to the participants upon successful completion of the Pathway) influenced the participants’ decision to participate in this Pathway on the scale of 1 to 5, with 5 indicating the incentive greatly influenced their decision of enrolling into the Pathway. Most of the participants rated 1 and the average rating
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15% 8% 23% 62% 38% 92% 77% 38% 47% Learning about teaching best practices
Engaging in discussion with other participants
Receiving feedback on your ideas
Redesigning your course materials
How Useful Was...
for this item was 1.85, indicating that the financial incentive was of low importance. The correlation between the likelihood of recommending the course to colleagues and the monetary incentive was negative (Pearson r = -0.07). The correlation between the likelihood of recommending the course to colleagues and participants’ rating of the quality of the course was positive (Pearson r = 0.72). Table 5 presents additional analysis of this unexpected result. Among the seven participants rated the Pathway’s overall quality 5 (the highest), five did not think the monetary incentive influenced their decision of enrolling into the Pathway, as they rated it 1 or 2. Only two of these seven participants considered the monetary incentive mattered by giving it a value of 4 or 5. On the other hand, six participants gave a rating of 4 on the overall quality of the Pathway, and only one of them thought the incentive mattered by rating its influence on her/his decision of enrolling into the Pathway 4. No participants rated the overall quality of the Pathway lower than 4.
Table 5 Comparison of Ratings on Overall Quality and Importance of the Incentive Overall Quality of the
Pathway
Number of Participants
Rated
Incentive Did not Matter (Rating of 1 or 2) Incentive Mattered (Rating of 4 or 5) 5 (the highest) 7 5 2 4 6 5 1
The correlation indexes indicated that the participants were overall satisfied with the course, and that monetary incentive did not seem to be the factor that motivated them to recommend the course. It is likely that the participants would like to recommend the course to others due to their high overall rating of the course.
One unanticipated theme emerged in the focus group of both iterations: some of the participants found the term Pathway confusing in that they did not realize that this was actually a course, even though the description of the Pathway was available on the website for registration.
Some of the participants saw and remembered only the mentions of three F2F meetings, thinking the Pathway required only three meetings without additional tasks. Consequently, some were surprised to find out in the first F2F session that there was actual work or assignments that they had to complete. This might explain why some participants dropped out of the program. The comments on the name Pathway causing confusion was surprising because we thought that the descriptions about the Pathway were clear. One participant said that he realized that the Pathway would take much more time than he thought, but since his department chair knew he signed up for the it, he would not want to disappoint the chair by dropping out. This comment seemed interesting as it reflected a departmental factor that motivated him to complete the Pathway. Another unexpected finding was that teaching an online course while attending the Pathway might be helpful to the participants to apply knowledge learned from the course. Three participants reported that they felt teaching an online course while taking the Pathway was very helpful in that they could immediately apply the strategies and technologies learned in the Pathway, evaluate the results of their applications of knowledge, and discuss with colleagues in the Pathway and me for feedback.
The last unexpected finding was that it seemed that the participants became more aware of what the Teaching Center can offer. One person stated that he used the Teaching Center’s service to record video clips and that he would like to receive more assistance in the near future. Three participants requested consultations with me after the Pathway. This showed that the participants began to value and use the Teaching Center’s resources.