The TechnoGras'98
Committee conducted a survey of 114 faculty and staff across at least
30 departments at the Hattiesburg Campus as well as 7 faculty and
9 staff at Gulf Park. The intent of the survey was to assist the TechnoGras'98
Committee in creating an event responsive to the needs and interests
of USM faculty and staff.
The survey consisted
of five questions, and each committee member was assigned certain
departments. In many cases this survey was distributed in written
form which accounted for a lower response rate than expected, and
may have caused individuals familiar with TechnoGras to be more likely
to respond. In other cases phone or in-person contact was used.
This document
consists of an analysis of the responses, a section for summary comments
by committee members, and a breakdown of the responses to each question
by departmental groups.
A N A L Y
S I S
Question #1
on the survey asked if the respondent had heard of TechnoGras.
Ninety (90) answered ‘Yes' and thirty-one (31) answered‘No'. Of particular
note is the relatively low number of people (24%) who claim not to
have known about TechnoGras. Exceptions are in the Educational Leadership
and Research department, in which the majority of the respondents
(9 to 7) did not even answer the question, the areas of Mathematics,
Physics, & Marine Sciences, where there were 8 negative responses
compared to 7 affirmative ones, and Music, Library Science, and Radio,
TV & Film which had 7 affirmative responses and 6 negative ones. Coincidentally
these were some of the areas which had the highest number of respondents.
In another large response, the survey of non-academic Hattiesburg
staff, the comment was made that some individuals required "a lengthy
explanation before they realized what Technogras'97 was." Such exceptions
would seem to indicate that the totals for this question are misleading.
Future surveys would probably provide a clearer picture of campus
recognition, interest, and understanding of the event if surveys were
conducted one-on-one, whether in person or by phone.
Question #2
on the survey asked why the respondent decided to attend or not attend
the event.
Twenty-two (22) respondents attended the event and one-hundred and
eight (108) did not. There were a variety of reasons given for not
going, but of the individuals who knew about the event, scheduling
conflicts and the feeling that Mardi Gras was meant to be a holiday
predominated (45). Only thirteen (13) cited a lack of interest in
the event. Summaries from committee members also emphasized that the
chosen day was largely responsible for a lack of attendance. It seems
clear that without having a day set aside that is not a widely celebrated
holiday TechnoGras will never reach a number of individuals who might
otherwise benefit from its programs. Especially for individuals on
the Coast the combination of a commute to Hattiesburg during a family
event at home made TechnoGras particularly unattractive. Various respondents
made suggestions for change that will be listed below. There were
at least eight (8) responses that cited the need for more information
sooner as the reason why they did not attend, indicating that continued
publicity over a period of months preceding the event would contribute
significantly to better attendance and greater awareness.
Question #3
asked what activities or programs would draw the respondent to TechnoGras.
Only three (3) respondents said that nothing would attract them to
TechnoGras, although a number of people had no opinion to offer. What
was of most interest were the number of suggestions made (42) that
corresponded to programs already offered at TechnoGras in 1997. Added
to those who wanted similar programs just more advanced (15), more
basic (6), or with more hands-on opportunities (7), this would seem
to indicate that it is not the programming, but scheduling conflicts
or other reasons that are preventing a number of otherwise interested
individuals from attending.
There were
a variety of excellent suggestions for new topics. (See "Breakdown
by Department/Area" below). Of these, only thirteen (13) mentioned
the desire for discipline-specific topics or applications, which
would be difficult to provide given the time restraints of the day's
schedule and the need for broad appeal in the programs. (When speaking
of time, three (3) people wanted longer sessions and even multiple
days of programming, whereas two (2) mentioned wanting half-day
sessions, and four (4) individuals mentioned the difficulty of deciding
among concurrent sessions of interest.) At least ten (10) individuals
asked for training on word processing or spreadsheet applications,
or for more instruction on how to better utilize such software they
already worked with. There were twenty (20) responses that cited
miscellaneous topics.
Two desired
additions to the TechnoGras program received support from a number
of individuals over departmental lines. They were Graphics/Multimedia/Desktop
Publishing topics (19) and what can be described as a What/Who is
Available (11) presentation. A number of individuals were interested
in scanning, digitizing, working with images or specific software
(such as Photoshop), incorporating multimedia into web pages or
presentations, and creating works with desktop publishing. One such
presentation was planned for TechnoGras'97 but was canceled the
day of the event due to presenter illness. There is obviously a
desire to see a number of such presentations available in the future.
The What/Who
is Available topic may be more easily presented in 1998 when campus
reorganization will create new services and clearer methods of obtaining
them. Combined with the requests for a keynote speaker (2), it would
seem that an opening speech by USM's head of campus technology,
citing specifics of available services, would be a big draw. A presentation
by TLRC staff on the services they have available to faculty and
staff may also satisfy these interests. Various comments made by
faculty make it clear that better publicity is needed for existing
services/equipment use.
A significant
issue that emerged from this survey is that two staff members stated
that they did not attend because staff were not invited, and cited
the receipt of a memo stating this two weeks prior to the event.
A few other staff members said they did not come because they did
not believe they were included, but did not mention any written
notice that led them to believe this. Efforts to follow up on who
sent the memo were unsuccessful, although it did not originate with
any of the TechnoGras'97 planners and was not billed to the TLTR.
The reported wording of the memo appeared to be the same as a memo
which was circulated in 1996, correctly stating that the first event
was planned for faculty only and later events would be planned to
include staff. If such a memo was recirculated in 1997, it is possible
that this would have contributed to low staff attendance. However
since some staff did attend, and only a few staff members believed
the event did not include them, the memo could not have been very
widespread. In any case, greater effort should be made this fall
to make staff aware of TechnoGras and make it clear that staff are
encouraged to attend.
Another important
item to note is two extensive comments focusing on the need for
administration support and interest in faculty development/technological
training. Respondents felt this should be demonstrated through evaluation
reports and time set aside for such participation. Although this
was only mentioned by a few individuals it seems reasonable to assume
that if faculty and staff were given incentives to participate in
such continuing education, they would be more likely to take advantage
of what is already being offered. Of equal concern is that departmental
policies relating to continuing education/training of staff is inconsistent
across campus. Various staff members mentioned they were not given
time to attend TechnoGras, or had to remain in their offices because
others were on leave that day. Part of this may have been due to
a lack of early planning for TechnoGras'97, which did not allow
for schedule changes to be made by individuals or departments. Another
problem may be the holiday scheduling which leads to absences in
many areas. The wider issue of clear policies and campus consistency
can only be addressed by USM's Staff Council or USM Administration.
Question #4
asks for suggestions related to teaching and learning as opposed to
technological training.
The intent of this question was to find out what other areas the
TLTR could be offering training or discussion in, aside from technology-oriented
programs, and whether or not there might be sufficient interest for
a faculty development program that focused on teaching techniques.
(For staff this was not a particularly pertinent question). Unfortunately,
the written surveys did not allow for explanation that topics other
than technology-related ones were being sought. As a result, most
of the replies were similar to question #3 and are reported together
below. Of the suggestions that were given, many focused on discussions
of participatory learning and student learning styles in general (7).
Others focused on faculty discussion of how they were using technology
in the classroom, especially as regarded Internet sources (4), or
how they could use technology to improve their productivity (3). Related,
perhaps, to the productivity issues were requests for presentations
on funding sources, whether at USM or elsewhere (6).
But most of
the comments in this area related to campus problems, not TechnoGras
or TLTR efforts. There were a number of requests for more support,
whether in a formal fashion where techs were responsible for aiding
faculty and staff (4), or where they were aided by peer support
and mentoring (3). Nine (9) individuals mentioned the need for ongoing
training, either in longer and more frequent workshops, or by some
sort of Faculty Development office that provided assistance year-round.
Several people specifically wanted a department-level program (3)
such as the one recently put on during the spring/summer intersession
by the School of Nursing.
General
issues included a strong desire for more and better technology in
classrooms and labs (4), more remote access to information (1),
and the need to train students in technology when they first arrived
at USM so that course time was not devoted to teaching them the
mechanics of software or hardware they needed to use (2).
Also obvious
is the need to promote existing forums such as tltr-talk as places
where individuals can post questions and get answers from colleagues
about campus use of technology, as well as other teaching-related
matters.
Question #5
asked what technology the individual was already using in his/her
work.
Predictably most staff members mentioned word processing and spread
sheet applications, and some faculty members mentioned specialized
software used only by others in their field. However, there was a
wide range of applications being used.
Forty-three
(43) individuals listed miscellaneous software/hardware, and seven
(7) listed "multimedia" without specifying particular programs or
hardware. Many individuals listed multiple applications, among them:
overhead projector (13), videos/recordings (18), CD-ROMs (8), visuals/graphics
(7), presentation software (13), scanners/projectors (9), IVN (10),
e-mail (18), remote access to databases (14), spreadsheets (18),
word processing (32), and Internet use (32).
Several individuals
noted that they could not utilize technology until such things as
wiring, space, funding, technical support, or training were made
available. Some noted that they used technology at home, or their
own equipment, out of necessity.
S U M M A
R Y C O M M E N T S
The TechnoGras'98
Committee Members are:
Russell
Anderson, Director, Career Planning & Placement |
Jeanette
Baylis, Administrative Assistant, School of Nursing |
Sherry
Finneran, IVN Assistant, TLRC |
Mary
Green, Secretary, Technology Education |
Lin
Harper, IVN Coordinator, TLRC |
Kathy
Hayman, Textbook Manager, Textbook Center |
Joan
Lewis, Visiting Professor, Special Education |
Eric
Luce, Assistant Professor, Education, Gulf Coast |
W.
Lee Pierce, Associate Professor, Educational Leadership and
Research |
Claudia
Rebaza, Information Services Librarian, Cook Library |
Sue
Roche, Graduate Student |
Curtis
Smeby, Credit Coordinator, Continuing Education, Gulf Coast |
Stella
Wheat, Curriculum Librarian, Gunn Curriculum Center |
Savan
Wilson, Director, TLRC |
Some summary
notes from their reports appear below:
"Biology would
like to hear a presentation of the University's vision for technology
on campus, the role(s) technology will play, what it will support
(administration, faculty, staff, student?), how it will support
the University's vision and goals."
"Most wanted
much more notice and would prefer a different date rather than a
holiday. There were strong feelings that if technology was important,
classes could be canceled for one day per year or per semester.
Example, a Wednesday could have been used this semester since finals
for that day came a week before other classes. Another suggestion
was that one faculty day prior to classes be set aside for technology
instruction, preferably with more choices and depth.
(Many of the
respondents wanted time-savers for technology skills they already
have and incentives to add new skills when time is so short. Others
wanted hand-holding to brave getting started.)"
"There seems
to be a great deal of frustration out there, some for poor support,
some for lack of leadership/guidance. There does not seem to be
a well defined direction the University wants to go in. Each individual
seems to be left to their own initiative. There is a need for some
specialized/departmental sessions, for instance the dance department
has some special software they would like help in using. Without
University guidance or prioritization, it doesn't seem to be important.
Also the issues of recognition for efforts, intellectual property
rights, etc. are floating around. The disparity in the equipment
across campus doesn't help.".
"There is considerable
difference between the departments as to equipment provided by the
departments which does not necessarily correlate with usage of technology.
Some members use their own machines at home, bring lap-tops, or
in several cases are not trying to use any new technology for lack
of support."
"Old or limited
equipment and difficult access to useful equipment discourage innovation.
Need hardware support. Equip departments. BIG issue."
"Need reasonable
access to knowledgeable people to support technology. Everyone was
very frustrated about lack of support. The general consensus was
that without it, few had time or were willing to take the time to
learn new technology skills, even though they wanted to enhance
their instruction. Time is just too precious to waste hitting one's
head against the stone wall of limited support."
"TV-VCRs need
to be mounted in each lecture/seminar room rather than tracked down
and moved from room to room when needed. Even many of the public
schools have wall-mounted equipment. Computer, LCD, and printer
permanently hooked up and on an easy-to-use cart and Internet access
in each lecture/seminar room would increase use of technology by
several who know how but have little opportunity."
"Need a large
lab in SRS building or nearby since the campus is expanding and
other labs are some distance."
"I want to
model how to locate and use lesson plans from the Internet but equipment
and wiring are not available."
C O N C L
U S I O N
Overall faculty
and staff didn't express a disinterest in technology so much as
a frustration with it. Lack of support, lack of equipment, lack
of space, lack of training, and a lack of knowledge over what was
available and how items could be obtained were all cited as reasons
why technology was not utilized or not more utilized. It seems obvious
that individuals who don't utilize technology or who are unable
to do so for reasons outside their control are unlikely to go out
of their way to learn how to integrate it into their work. This
may mean that, should the technology reorganization taking place
at USM this year be successful in solving or addressing some of
these problems, there may be more interest than ever in TechnoGras'98.
A fair number of individuals are already using technology of some
kind, even with the difficulty of doing so on campus.
It is also
apparent that changes will have to be made by the committee regarding
the scheduling of TechnoGras. Conflicts with personal leave, the
holiday, or department scheduling were all problematic for individuals.
Better and more long-term publicity, with earlier information about
individual programs, is also necessary. Possible use of group transportation
and/or IVN use for USM faculty and staff at remote locations may
also be important in allowing greater participation. In response
to the request for ongoing training, schools, departments, or colleges
should be encouraged to create their own department-level training
in subject specific areas at different times of the year, to give
individuals help with unique topics. This will also provide more
opportunities to receive information and assistance.
Additional
programs should be added to the 1998 schedule, perhaps focusing
on themes (such as working with images) or skill levels (beginners,
intermediate, and advanced), while maintaining a number of popular
topics that respondents wanted to see repeated. The task of arranging
the quantity of programs necessary to fulfill these interests, and
the numerous locations on campus needed to accommodate them, will
be a challenge for the committee.
Lastly, although
mentioned by only a few individuals, the question of cost is another
issue for the committee to work on. Several people mentioned the
absence of free meals and the registration cost ($2) as barriers
to their attendance. While the TLTR can not absorb the cost of presenting
TechnoGras, it seems important to keep costs for attendees low.
At the same time, recognition from the college and administrative
level seems important in promoting the need for, and value of, continuing
education among faculty and staff at USM.
Submitted June
18, 1997
Claudia Rebaza
Chair, TechnoGras'98 Committee
|
