A
Qualitative Evaluation of Fall Start-up Programming at
Russell Lee
Director, Center for Professional Development
Thirty faculty were randomly
selected to take part in a qualitative evaluation of Fall Start-up Programming
at
Thirty names were randomly selected from a list of full-time
faculty at the
Sessions were facilitated by the researcher. Each participant was given copies of the fall start-up schedule for the last two years and a copy of the discussion prompts for the session. They were assured that the report resulting from the sessions would not include individual faculty names. The introduction to the discussion prompts stated “When Joann Fredrickson became Vice President she inherited a long established tradition of fall start-up. She would like to evaluate whether or not we should continue this method of fall start-up, and whether or not there are changes we should make. There are several standard features of fall start-up. I would like to list them, and hear what comments you have on them.” Participants were encouraged to comment on any additional subjects related to fall start-up that they wished.
Participants commented on eight areas identified by the
researcher as being standard features of fall start-up.
1. President’s All-university Breakfast. Participants spoke quite favorably about the tradition of the President’s All-university Breakfast. They perceived it as a time to officially start the year and to have the opportunity to greet colleagues after a summer’s absence. They liked the fact that it is a university-wide event. Newer faculty felt it to have been a welcoming experience. One participant said, “I like it. It gives a good start to the year.” Another commented, “It builds esprit de corps.” Participants commented favorably on the positive note usually present in the President’s speech. Even the humor (“mad cap” in the words of one participant) that has become part of the ritual of the breakfast was lauded: “It makes it interesting and provides an element of danger.” Discussion attendees particularly liked it when the Vice President was able to one-up the President. “It makes Jon more human.” Recent speeches by the President of the Student Senate were praised. Many discussants felt that a main purpose of the breakfast should be to get people “fired-up and motivated to start the new academic year.” Several participants appreciated the fact that for the last two years the breakfast was held on the second day of start-up rather than the first.
The only part of the all-university breakfast to draw criticism and suggestion for change was the food. Many faculty suggested eggs, potatoes, and other such foods were more appropriate for an event called “breakfast,” but one faculty member said “the food is unimportant; it is the event that counts.”
2. Mentor-focused orientation for new faculty. Newer faculty, who had recently been through this form of orientation, spoke in favor of the mentor-oriented and small-group approach. They felt that their particular concerns could be better addressed in this format than in a more formal series of presentations. One said that this was a “palatable way of getting information,” possibly referring to the fact that the orientation is held during a luncheon. Another newer faculty member said that the orientation, while quite helpful, should have been held earlier in the week, when they had more questions. Although this form of orientation was praised, the mentor program itself was criticized.
Several faculty members told stories of new faculty they knew of whose assigned mentor did not interact with the new faculty after orientation. One of the newer faculty participants present said that had been their experience as well. They stressed the importance of initiation on the part of the assigned mentor. Some questioned whether assigning mentors from outside the new faculty member’s department didn’t reduce likely contact. Other newer faculty, however, spoke highly of their interactions with their mentors, describing their mentors as helpful and committed, and expressed appreciation for the fact that the mentor program helped the new faculty get to know another faculty member outside of their department.
In both groups it was suggested that the Center for Professional Development continue its practice of offering workshops throughout the year aimed at newer faculty, and that presentations include information/discussion sessions on what is available in student services in order to support faculty efforts. It was suggested that the Vice President for Academic and Student Affairs underscore the importance of these sessions by attending them as well.
3. Presentations by administration on university-wide topics that change from year to year, such as the university work plan. This area was described as the “most problematic of start-up activities.” Some participants described presentations in this category as being generally too vague. Other participants said that they never go to these presentations because they are too busy getting ready for classes. Participants were particularly critical of this year’s discussion of the university work plan, criticizing it for not being useful. One participant said, “start-up presentations should be about topics related to getting started; that is what we are trying to do!” Another participant said that they liked the idea of university-wide topics, but that the presentations in this category have too often not been clear and compelling. Budget discussions was mentioned as an example of one such presentation having been compelling and useful.
During these discussions, participants spoke with strong feelings about the importance of having the time to get ready for classes. They stated that preparing for classes was time consuming and important, and that they saw meetings as interfering with this important activity. One said that this was especially true for faculty who have just taught a summer session. Several noted that new faculty, in particular, are in a time bind, yet they have the most meetings to attend. One participant suggested that perhaps some of the meetings at which new faculty are required to attend could be postponed until later in the semester. Others suggested that other meetings could be postponed until later in the semester as well.
The participants generally felt that meetings whose intent was to pass on information rather than to encourage discussion or solicit opinions were inefficient; they would rather the information be presented in written form. In a side discussion, the participants did not think that presenting information on a Web page was as useful as was passing out documents written on paper. They also preferred that information be presented to smaller groups, such as departments or even colleges, to facilitate discussion.
4. Presentations on more technical details that change from year to year, such as the new phone system or new computer practices. These presentations came under fire as well. Many of the participants skip these meetings. One participant said, “It is easy for Fall Start-up to be a deluge of information. Even if you go to everything it sort of washes through you.” Both groups repeated their suggestion that information only sessions be reduced to writing for efficiency’s sake.
A participant in one group suggested that services offered by EDC (meaning TRIO), Student Affairs, and the Career Placement change, and that it would be useful to have updates on those services as a part of these presentations. Academic advising in Liberal Education was brought up as a needed topic, as was academic civility. Others disagreed.
A difficulty that emerged is that some of our professorate see workshops in this category as important and useful, particularly when they involve dialogue and discussion, but other faculty members do not.
5. Presentations volunteered by faculty, that change from year to year, such as on international programs or on changes in Liberal Education requirements. The suggestion to “only have things at start-up that relate to starting up” was repeated in the context of this discussion. Others thought that these presentations were valuable, but noted that they were sometimes not well attended. As in area 4, above, some faculty may see a topic as interesting while others do not. In order to solve this problem, one group pursued the idea of a format like poster sessions, with presenters preparing posters displaying information about their topic and being prepared to chat with small groups of faculty and staff that move from poster to poster, spending more time at the posters of interest to them, and avoiding the posters displaying topics that do not interest them. Written material could be available at this session as well.
6. Presentations each year on assessment and 5-year reviews. Interviewed participants generally stated that this would be better done via individual meetings with departments, and suggested that a better timing would be at the end of the spring semester. A smaller group suggested postponing these meetings until later in the fall. One participant disagreed with limiting the meetings to individual departments, saying that when departments discuss together they can learn from one another.
7. Presentations each year on retirement and related issues. Older faculty in particular found these workshops to be very valuable. These faculty also appreciated it when the workshops were offered later in the year as well. Newer faculty members were aware that they had to make important retirement decisions by October, and appreciated the timely information.
8. Time reserved for department, college, and IFO meetings. Faculty in both groups thought that this time was important. Some mentioned the need for time for college-wide committees to meet. Participants in one of the groups said that there should be one main day of Fall Start-up, with the President’s Breakfast and department and college meetings all occurring on that day, with the other days of start-up being open, or for less important meetings. The other group wanted fewer meetings, but did not press for one single day of core meetings.
9. Open-ended: These groups of faculty noted that getting reacquainted with others is very valuable and may need to be structured as a part of start-up, but that just time to have coffee with each other was also very important. Freshman Year Experience training during start-up was commented on, as was the importance of civility within the academy. Quite a few of those present expressed appreciation at being listened to in the session, and for being given the opportunity to express their views.
One participant echoed the sentiments of many and provided a brief summary when saying, “During Fall Start-up concentrate on the things that get people fired up and focused…ready to start the new year!”
· “Concentrate on the things that get people fired up and focused…ready to start the new year!” “Only have things at start-up that relate to starting up.”
· The President’s All-University Breakfast appears to be a successful and highly appreciated part of start-up. It is seen as a community-building activity and as an important ritual. New faculty members are introduced and returning faculty have the opportunity to greet each other informally following the summer break. Part of its appeal is that it is campus-wide. An important part of this meeting that could perhaps be expanded on, is to fire people up and get them motivated to start the new academic year. We should consider improving the event further by improving the food served, to include traditional breakfast fare like eggs and potatoes. A suggestion that came from the Center for Professional Development staff as we were discussing these results was to have several restaurants prepare food for the event, showcasing their breakfast specialties and culinary skills in a way that provides public relations for them while showing their support for the university
· Bemidji State University’s way of conducting new faculty orientation using mentors and campus experts to conduct individually-focused discussions in a small group context is highly appreciated by the participants who have been through the experience in the last few years. Following the orientation, however, the performance of our mentors appears to be inconsistent. A high degree of commitment on the mentor’s part is very important. We need to improve our training of mentors and our selection process for mentors so that those who serve are more willing to reach out regularly to the new faculty.
· Faculty see the goals of start-up as getting acquainted with new faculty, reacquainted with each other, and preparing for their classes. They see many of the meetings in our traditional Fall Start-up as interfering with the latter of those goals. Faculty differed with each other about the importance of some topics for meetings, but were united in their desire to have more time during start-up to prepare for classes. Also strongly supported was the idea that start-up should be about starting up.
· Meetings where information is disseminated rather than opinions sought or discussion generated were criticized in particular. Participants felt that such information should be presented in writing instead. Perhaps it could be clarified in the start-up program that such meetings are optional, and that written material was available for those who chose not to attend.
·
Participants thought that time required for
department, college, and Faculty Association meetings should be maintained, and
some information/discussion topics presented in a smaller department or college
venue.