2008 Faculty Survey Report

= Preface, PDF Version = Improving communication is key to ensuring that decisions are made with high consensus. With this in mind, Re-Rad created a survey to better understand faculty concerns and perspectives on Hampshire. Its results will better inform the Division I proposal and ensure a better understanding of the faculty's point of view.

You can download the PDF version of the report by clicking on this link:

= Hampedia Version =

Introduction
Since the fall of 2007, the Re-Radicalization of Hampshire College (Re-Rad) has been developing a proposal for the reform of Hampshire College's current Division I program. While drafting this document, several important questions arose about the Division I system. The answers to these questions, Re-Rad members believed, should serve as empirical evidence for the claims and complaints of the proposal. Because of the similarities between these questions and those in a previously proposed Re-Rad faculty interview from Fall 2006, this survey was based on questions developed for that interview. Although many of the questions were reworded or revised, the basic ideas of the previous interview-based study were maintained. The Fall 2006 Re-Rad faculty interview was scheduled to take place between November 2006 and the end of that academic year. However, because of the time-consuming nature of one- on-one tape-recorded interviews, the project was never completed in any major way. However, a document detailing the proposed questions for faculty members remains the legacy of this project, and was drawn on heavily in this survey.

The original goals of the 2006 interviews were honed and made more specific in this survey. The 2006 interview described its goals as "engag[ing] faculty in a conversation to: get to know them better, better acquaint us with their positions on various Hampshire issues, give a human face to Re-Rad, and inform them about the Re-Radicalization effort." This survey's goals were more directly concerned with Division I. Specifically, this survey sought to define faculty opinions of Division I, the state of Division I advising, the efficacy of tutorials, and the amount of faculty time spent on Division I students and 100-level courses.

Methods
The conception of this draft of the faculty survey occurred in October 2007. At that time, a group of Re-Rad members (officially referred to as the Faculty Survey Subcommittee) began holding regular meetings to discuss, revise, and rethink the questions and methods of gathering information from the 2006 interview. The questions in the survey were edited by the Faculty Survey Subcommittee, with input from Re-Rad as a whole, in meetings as well as via the ReRad_discuss listserv. In addition, the Subcommittee consulted with Barbara Anderson, Professor of Sociology and Demography at the University of Michigan.

The final version of the survey contained twenty-three questions, divided into five topics: `Background Information', `Advising', `View of Hampshire in General', `Pedagogy at Hampshire' and `Div I'. Most of the questions had a multiple-choice portion and a section for written comments, though some only asked for comments. There was also a section at the end of the survey for any additional thoughts, comments or questions. For the full text of the survey, go to Hampedia.

The Subcommittee then compiled a list of the entire faculty of Hampshire College, and various Re-Rad members met individually with selected faculty members they knew personally. Students gave faculty a paper copy of the survey, a release form, and an informational sheet concerning Re-Rad. The faculty member was asked to fill out the survey (which took approximately 20 minutes), and sign a release form to allow Re-Rad to quote them anonymously (only one faculty member asked Re-Rad not to quote him/her). This personal contact was intended to increase response rate and to inform faculty members of Re-Rad's mission and goals, as well as to minimize confusion about the survey's content or purpose.

Various methods were employed to follow up with professors to ensure a higher response rate. As Re-Rad members were unable to meet individually with every faculty member, professors were also reached through presentations at school meetings (NS, SS and HACU), survey distribution via faculty mailboxes (CS), and contacts with school secretaries to facilitate email invitations to fill out the survey (all schools). Many Re-Rad members chose to contact the faculty members with whom they had spoken as a form of follow-up.

Every effort was made to allow and encourage all faculty members at Hampshire College to fill out this survey. Surveys were distributed in manila folders with a box number for survey submission. Faculty members deposited their envelopes in campus mail and Ananda Valenzuela, a Re-Rad member, collected them. She then separated the release forms from the surveys, ensuring total anonymity, and checked off the faculty member's name in a master list, to keep track of who did and did not need to be reminded to hand in the survey.

The Faculty Survey Subcommittee entered all survey data into Microsoft Excel, starting in late March 2008. All graphs and results were calculated using Excel software. When ranges were given for quantitative data, the average was used in calculations. For some of the qualitative open-ended questions, the answers were analyzed for trends and common answers.

Results/Discussion
Of the approximately 120 surveys distributed, 27 were returned at least partially completed, a response rate of 22.5%. The 27 responses were comprised as follows: 19% from CS, 15% from HACU, 11% from IA, 19% from NS, and 37% from SS. HACU and IA were least represented as schools in responses, with 7.1% and 11% of the schools, respectively, responding (see Fig. 1). The faculty members surveyed averaged 14 years at Hampshire (see Table 1). Fifty- nine percent were Div I advisors, and 85% advised Div II/III students. The majority of respondents (63%) reported facilitating independent studies.

Perhaps most notable in the first few tables is that 20% - that is, one in five ­ of professors reports having received no training in advising (see Fig. 1). More surprisingly, nearly half (47%) of faculty members reported having received either "not much" or no advisor training. This seems significant, especially for a college so focused on the advisor-advisee relationship and a student-centered program designed by each student and their advisor.

Responding faculty members reported teaching and preparing for 100- and 200-level courses as the two most time-consuming parts of their schedules, with advising Div III students as the third most time-consuming (see Table 2). Additionally, 100-level courses required more preparation than 200-level courses, a piece of data which should possibly be investigated further ­ what is causing these courses to take more time for preparation?



Question 1: Do you think that your training was adequate to be able to effectively advise students?
Eighty-five percent of respondents answered this question. The majority of respondents (52%) felt that their advising training was adequate (see Fig. 3). "I find both the info that is sent by Advising and talking to folks in Advising helpful" said an SS professor.

Roughly 60% of comments on advisor training adequacy suggested that some of the training received was informal. One SS professor commented, "The informal process seemed fine because there was always somebody across the hall to ask." However, other faculty members felt that the training was not adequate to learn how to advise the students in the unique education style of Hampshire. An NS professor declared, "the initial training was NOT sufficient."



Question 2: If a student is not in your academic field, do you feel that you can effectively advise them?
Ninety-six percent of respondents answered this question. The majority of faculty (69%) responded that `It depends,' (see Fig. 4). The 22 comments were divided into 4 categories (see Fig. 5). The first category (27%) was comprised of comments saying that faculty could advise only on some topics: an NS professor wrote, "I can advise about Hampshire, or about medical school admissions or about sciences in general - but NOT on many important areas outside my specialty." The second category of comments (36%) were those reflecting that, to advise effectively, the faculty needed some sort of experience, knowledge or connection in the student's chosen field. For example, an SS professor said, "If I have been on a Div with someone from another school, I have knowledge." The third category was made up of comments that mentioned that the field of study did not matter for Division I (27%), and 9% said that their ability to advise depended on the student, which comprised the fourth category.



Question 3: What attracts you to Hampshire? (e.g. academic quality, small size, radical pedagogy, etc)
Comments were divided into six categories ­ academic quality, small size, radical pedagogy, "freedom to teach what I want," "opportunity to work closely with students," and "quality and passion of students" (see Fig. 6). The first three categories were given as examples, but many faculty still chose to fill in their own reasons. Many faculty members fit into one or more categories (several fit into all six), so percentages are not used in this analysis.



Question 4: What has disappointed or frustrated you about Hampshire?
The most frequent complaints were bureaucracy, increasing "conservativization" of the school (which an NS professor defined as "The decreasing importance of the student-faculty contracts (Div I, II, and III) as we increase the rules (and increase the number of Deans and other administrators to enforce rules and create policy)."), the lack of money/resources, overwork, and lack of student engagement (see Fig. 7). Many faculty fit into more than one category, so no percentages are given.



Question 5: Do you think faculty concerns are adequately expressed in administrative decisions?
The majority of faculty respondents (64%) said that they felt that their concerns were mostly expressed, and, interestingly, none selected either Always or Never (see Fig. 8).

Sixteen faculty gave comments; some had specific issues that they felt needed to be addressed, but felt that the relationship overall was good. One SS professor commented, "The time we spend on the Hub is too high. However, the admissions office offers critical help/support for faculty that takes some of the edge off." Others made more general comments ­ an NS professor said, "Some concerns are listened to - but many decisions get made without faculty input and just seem to appear." A HACU professor summed up the situation as, "Both sides are trying to hear each other, I guess."



Question 6: What does the concept of "student-centered" mean to you?
The comments received for this question were divided into five groups for ease of comprehension (see Fig. 9). The first category was the amount of time and effort faculty put in: "[I]t means I spend a hell of a lot of time working directly with students," an NS professor said. The second category defined "student-centered" as students' leadership of their education: "[S]tudents [should] take ownership of [their] education, curriculum, [and] devising their studies," said an SS faculty member. The third category was a close working relationship and a mutual dialogue between students and faculty: "[Student-centered means] that the debate, discussion and agreement on what to study, when to study it and how to study will always be a dialogue between faculty and students. [It means] that students will always be part of the process and recognized as individual learners with distinct histories and strengths and weaknesses--we learn together," commented one NS professor. The fourth category was student involvement in administration and governance of the school: "Student-centered means that the students and their concerns, desires, needs and dissatisfactions are central. It also means that students have to use this power (as re-rad is doing through this survey!)," urged an SS professor.

Five comments (19%) contained some variant of the following sentiment: "[Student- centered] doesn't mean doing whatever they want," as an SS professor put it. So while these comments showed that many faculty members feel that part of Hampshire's mission is to have student input in their education and in the governance of the college, they also wanted to make clear that that did not mean students were free to do anything.



Question 7: Does your method of teaching 100-level courses differ from 200 and 300-level courses? How or why not?
Twenty-two respondents answered this question. Fifty-eight percent said that their method of teaching 100-level courses differs from 200 and 300-level courses for the most part. Twenty-three percent said that it always differs, 14% said that it rarely differs, and one person (5%) said that it never differs (see Fig 10).

20 respondents also included comments, which were sorted into four groups (see Fig 11). Six professors highlighted the greater need for guidance and less intense schedules in 100-level courses. Five mentioned the importance of introducing students to modes of inquiry and basic skills, such as writing and researching; one SS professor said, "I work with students -explicitly- on reading, writing and presentation." Thirteen said that 100-level courses are narrow and deep rather than broad; an NS professor commented, "200 level is more traditional, informative coverage and lecture based - required for grad/med school - 100 level is narrow, engaging, and teaches students to find and read the primary literature and do independent projects and work in groups." Several comments fit into more than one category, so no percentages can be calculated.



Question 8: Is a first year tutorial different from a regular 100-level class?
Nineteen of the professors responded to this question. Forty-two percent of those who circled a choice said that tutorials are always different from regular 100-level courses. Twenty- one percent said that tutorials mostly differ from 100-level courses, 16% said that they rarely differ, and 21% of respondents said that tutorials are never different from regular 100-level courses (see Fig 12).

Interestingly, more comments were received for this question than circled answers; 20 professors as opposed to 19. The comments were again broken down into four categories, again including an `other' (see Fig 13). The most common response (12 comments) was that class time was devoted to advising. Four faculty members noted that class sizes were smaller, allowing for more one-on-one time; a HACU professor commented, "[They differ] only in the sense that it's always half the size of my 100 level classes and we do advising in them." Three commenters also said that they tried to build a sense of community in their tutorials. As an SS professor noted, "You have to do much more to create a sense of community, because students are skeptical about the course's centrality to their interests."



Question 9: What support systems do students need in order to be able to complete independent work outside of a course?
Twenty- five faculty members responded to this question, and the comments were sorted into rough categories. The most common response was that students need guidance, in the form of advising time or faculty mentorship (16 comments). Ten respondents mentioned that students needed specific skills, such as writing or time management, and background knowledge before framing an independent study. Ten others said that resources were important, such as library/research help, the writing center/writing help, and the quantitative skills center. Support from others working independently or the community was important to four respondents. Two said that students need structure.

Faculty members had very different definitions of and attitudes towards independent work. While some faculty outlined several things that a student needed in order to undertake independent work, other felt that students should be given as much freedom as possible. In addition, opinions concerning students' readiness and abilities varied widely. Some thought that students were, for the most part, incapable of independent work, such as an SS professor who commented, "I doubt that it is possible, but I would be happy to be convinced because students want to do it. My experience is that the work tends to be very shallow - at least in what I do - without a once-a-month meeting with a student, and reading drafts on the side. I have done it, and will do it, but there is a cost." A CS professor felt that it was possible with more training: "I think they need to learn how to complete independent work! I'm still learning how! I think very few students come in ready to do that. I try to teach strategies in my classes." And one NS professor said, "Depends on the student; if well prepared [they need] very little. BUT...FEW are well-prepared"



Question 10: What do you see as the strengths of the current Division I system? (e.g. distribution requirements, workload, etc.)
Twenty-five professors answered this question. Distribution requirements/breadth (which was offered as an example) and tutorials stood out as by far the most prevalent answers; other opinions varied widely (see Fig 15).

Eleven comments said that the distribution requirements/breadth were a strength; one CS professor said "It exposes students to a variety of intellectual activities and approaches." While many faculty were in favor of the requirements, an SS professor commented, "I think it does require students to experience a liberal arts education via the distribution requirement, but it requires too much."

Ten respondents said that the tutorials were a strength; seven of those ten echoed the sentiments of one NS professor, who said "The tutorial is the strength." A HACU professor commented, "I don't see strengths in it, except for the size of the tutorial. For those of us who regularly teach 20-25 people in 100-level classes, it's a real luxury to have the smaller class." Other strengths of the tutorial included the tutorial professor being one's advisor, meeting regularly with advisees, and developing a close relationship with advisees.

Five faculty members emphasized the importance of learning basic skills, such as reading, writing, and quantitative skills. Some of them connected these skills to the Learning Goals, but not all. "It does make me emphasize the teaching of how to develop an argument, develop an effective presentation, read an article critically rather than presume a student already has mastered those skills." an SS professor said.

Workload was listed as an example, but only one professor said that lowered faculty workload was a strength of the new Division I, and another said that faculty workload was not significantly different. Two respondents mentioned "structure" as a strength; "There is at least an illusion of structure, which Hampshire usually needs!" a HACU professor joked. A SS professor specified that finishing in a timely fashion was "the primary strength". Another SS professor said it "enables more effective student acclimatization to college, [...] preparation for more advanced work and transition to a better-developed Div 2."



Question 11: How could the Division I system be improved?
The 25 responses received varied widely (see Fig 16), though there were some commonalities. Seven respondents wanted more independent work/projects/flexibility in learning opportunities; "I know that more independent work is desired. There MUST be a way," an SS professor said.

Fourteen respondents wanted to somehow change the distribution requirements and learning goals. Seven advocated divorcing the distribution requirements from the schools. An SS professor said there needs to be "Redefinition of distribution away from schools (which are merely sites of hiring and firing) and TOWARD fields of intellectual inquiry--which may cross several school lines or fall within none of them." Another SS professor agreed, noting "The distribution based upon course work in the schools makes no intellectual sense. Faculty feel frustrated, because the current system makes for more reluctant students in the classroom." Another SS professor agreed that "It is too formulaic (8 courses, 7 goals, 5 schools...) Forces students into too many boxes."

Five faculty members said that the methods for evaluating and passing Division I need to be revised, and three of them emphasized the importance of the portfolio, asking that it become the main form of evaluating Division I. One HACU professor described a possible portfolio- based evaluation system: "Make it a portfolio-based exam (a.k.a. no checkboxes for learning goals). Don't have the advisor pass the portfolio. Portfolios should be lumped together and be read by 2 random faculty members. Have the advisor exist to help the student build a good portfolio. Right now the advisor has to do that AND represent the institution, which I think is flawed."

Other comments included that Division needs to "Clarify its purpose and mission" (HACU), "be more demanding of students academically" (CS) and that the quality of advising needs to go up (two NS members).



Question 12: Does the current Div I system adequately prepare students for Div II and Div III?
Out of twenty-five respondents, 17 (68%) said that the current Div I system does not adequately prepare students for Div II and Div III, while 5 (20%) said it does and 3 (12%) said `maybe' (see Fig 17).

Twenty-one survey respondents commented (see Fig 18). Eight of them thought that whether or not a student was prepared for the upper-division classes depended on the student and on their faculty and advisors: "For some it does [prepare them], but I don't think it has been implemented in such a way that it works for everyone" said a CS professor. Six attested that "research", "self-initiated", "independent" and "self directed" work prepares students for Div II and Div III, and that the current Div I system should include more such independent study. Three of the faculty members who commented on this question said that the student preparation for Division II is inadequate, but that it is not the fault of the Division I system.. Others disagreed; one NS professor commented that the current Div I "merely continues [the] high school pattern of passive behaviour in classes just to get the check off."



Question 13: Do you think that learning goals are an effective way to measure student capabilities?
Of the twenty-five respondents, zero felt that the learning goals, as they are presently implemented, are an effective way to measure student capabilities. Thirteen faculty members felt that they would be effective with different implementation, and twelve faculty members said that they are not an effective way to measure student capabilities (see Fig 19).

Twenty-one professors commented in this section, and their input was extremely varied. The comments were sorted into seven categories, within which there were wide varieties of opinion. Suggestions of how to change the Goals were: make them more difficult to satisfy (2 respondents), fewer (3 respondents), change their focus or definitions, often to include more flexibility and clarity (4 respondents), and change the method of evaluation from a check-box on the Hub to something more qualitative (6 respondents). "We need to really integrate these--not make them boxes to check off. Students need to feel ownership over them," a HACU professor said. Two professors commented that they did not themselves really understand the definitions and purposes of the Goals. Six professors also advocated getting rid of the Learning Goals entirely, often with such succinct comments as: "They're silly" (IA).



=== Question 14: Would you consider Div I distribution requirements based on fulfilling work in specific academic areas that are defined separately from the five schools (for example: Science, Arts, Humanities, Social Sciences)? ===

Twenty-five faculty members responded to this question. Eighteen (72% of those who responded) said yes, six (24%) said that it depends, and one (4%) said no (see Fig 21).

Fourteen professors commented, but many of the comments were more to emphasize their circled answer than to elaborate (i.e. "Absolutely"). The comments that did provide more detail emphasized that it would depend on the areas and definitions chosen, and how they were fulfilled.



=== Question 15: If you have been here since before the change in the Div I system in 2002, are the Div IIIs completed by students who entered under the new Div I system (graduated after 2006) different in general from those by students who entered under the old Div I system (graduated before 2006)? ===

Twenty-one faculty members responded to this question. The possible answers provided to circle were Yes, No and Not Applicable (for professors who arrived after 2006 or do not review Div IIIs). However, two respondents circled in the middle of the `Yes' and `No' responses, an answer which was scored as `Maybe' though it is not entirely certain that this is what was intended. Eight responses (37%) said that they Div IIIs were different in general, 5 said that they were not, and 6 circled N/A (see Fig 22).

Eighteen professors commented, though not all of those who commented circled a choice as well (see Fig 23). Seven of them stated that it was too soon to tell, or that Div IIIs were so varied that such a judgement was impossible to make; "[I] can't say whether [the difference is] because of Div I or some other factors" said an SS professor. Six professors stated that there was no difference, such as an SS professor who commented that "There have always been good ones, mediocre ones and ones that don't pass!" Seven comments said that under the new system, Div III students were more lacking in ambition, independence and ownership of their work: "It's hard to put my finger on exactly, but it seems that pre-new Div. I system students were more self directed and better able to define and carry out their Div. IIIs on their own" an IA professor mused. Two others felt that under the new system students were not coming out of Div I with all the skills they needed. "[The] new system puts more pressure on Div2 for skill development" said an SS member.



Do you have any other thoughts or questions?
A sampling of answers:

"Faculty and students must find a way to reestablish partnership in education - while Hampshire is definitely not all about faculty, it cannot on the other hand be about students only. Note: a lot of faculty time is spent with students not ready to learn, not able to commit to collaborative relationship with peers or faculty - admissions needs to work on this." ­an NS professor

"It's unfair for students to develop meaningful mentoring relationships with visiting professors only to have them leave when these same students need committee chairs or members. This should be addressed!" ­an SS professor

"I dislike the question "did the student successfully" pass the course (on the hub). Hampshire has effectively turned into a pass/fail system and often minimal work gets "passed" in courses." ­an SS professor

Conclusion
In the interests of remaining as objective and unbiased as possible, all analysis of these results as they pertain to Re-Rad's Div I plan and general goals are in a separate document (forthcoming).