Conference Session

Faculty Development Lessons Learned Poster Session

Collection

2018 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Ken Yasuhara, University of Washington; Jim L. Borgford-Parnell, University of Washington

Tagged Topics

Faculty Development Constituency Committee

. The results were simply given back to the facultymembers as stacks of scribbled-on questionnaires. Although the questionnaires often containeduseful information, they were also rife with contradictory, confusing, and illegible feedback.Now that our university has an online option for SRIs, the legibility problem has been mitigated,but the confusion and contradictions remain endemic to the process. In general, the engineeringfaculty attitude we most encounter regarding the mandated SRI is that they are unfortunate,unfair, and flawed summative judgements of their teaching and courses. They are not viewed ashaving much, if any, formative use.With the introduction of our SGID process, we were able to not only provide actionable resultsfrom

Conference Session

Faculty Development Lessons Learned Poster Session

Collection

2018 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Angelica Burbano, Universidad Icesi; Gonzalo V. Ulloa, Universidad Icesi; Juliana Jaramillo JJO, Universidad Icesi; Norha M. Villegas, Universidad Icesi; Lina M. Quintero, Universidad Icesi; Alvaro Pachon, Icesi University

Tagged Topics

Faculty Development Constituency Committee

curricular level due to the fact that the results were not sharedwith other faculty members of the same curricular block or area. Neither were improvementactions shared, thus in this aspect, faculty efforts were autonomous and isolated.Beginning in 2011, we implemented curricular reform based on the CDIO Syllabus 2.0 [5] [6],which takes the evolution and consolidation of knowledge and skills along the curriculumbuilding blocks into account. At that point, we used the CDIO Syllabus 2.0 (linked to Standard3) as a resource for curriculum benchmarking. We did not use the complete CDIO framework,which includes twelve Standards focused on program improvement. As a result, the curricularcontent of the courses of a given block or area began to exhibit

Conference Session

Research in Faculty Development

Collection

2018 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Benjamin David Lutz, Oregon State University; Allyson Jo Barlow, Oregon State University; Shane A. Brown P.E., Oregon State University; Dominga Sanchez, Oregon State University

Tagged Topics

Faculty Development Constituency Committee

, before grades are released.SET forms might be filled out online or with paper and pencil and typically take the form of a setof Likert-type questions that probe student perceptions of the instructor, classroom environment,learning outcomes, and an evaluation of the course and instructor. Students are often asked torate the degree to which they agree (e.g., from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree”) withstatements such as “Overall, my instructor’s teaching was effective.” These scores are typicallyaveraged and used for comparisons across departments, colleges, and potentially the entireuniversity. In some cases, SET forms will include an open-ended text box where students canelaborate or express concerns not addressed in the quantitative