A Web-Based Tool for Collecting Faculty “Non- Classroom” Productivity Data Richard D. Howard James B. Rimpau Chris Fastnow Montana State University Richard D. Howard James B. Rimpau Chris Fastnow Montana State University

Outline  Introduction: Why develop a Faculty Activity Database  Benefits for the Faculty Member  Walkthrough data entry  Benefits for the University  Sample Queries and Results  Challenges  Future Steps  Lessons Learned  Introduction: Why develop a Faculty Activity Database  Benefits for the Faculty Member  Walkthrough data entry  Benefits for the University  Sample Queries and Results  Challenges  Future Steps  Lessons Learned

Abstract During the past decade the “Delaware Study” has become a primary source of comparative data for many colleges and universities. Recently, this study has been expanded to collect “non-classroom” faculty productivity data. Data are collected that document the scholarship activities of faculty in the areas of instruction, research, and service/outreach. Unlike the earlier data, these data must be collected each year directly from the faculty and then summarized in an institutional report. In this demonstration, a Web-based tool developed to collect these data from the faculty is presented. In addition, multiple institutional concerns that guided its development will be discussed.

Introduction: Why Build a Faculty Activity Database  Why did we build it?  What have we built?  Centrally housed, college-specific Access databases  Web data entry screens  Populated by Banner data (not automatic) and user inputs  What did we want?  Accurate data  Consistent formats  Easy interface  Secure interaction  Why did we build it?  What have we built?  Centrally housed, college-specific Access databases  Web data entry screens  Populated by Banner data (not automatic) and user inputs  What did we want?  Accurate data  Consistent formats  Easy interface  Secure interaction

Benefits to Faculty  Getting Buy-in  Decrease burden on Faculty  Easy annual review reporting  Avoids duplication of effort  CV builder (eventually)  Decrease burden on department heads  Single format for annual reviews  Single request for information  Eases reporting requirements to central administration  Getting Buy-in  Decrease burden on Faculty  Easy annual review reporting  Avoids duplication of effort  CV builder (eventually)  Decrease burden on department heads  Single format for annual reviews  Single request for information  Eases reporting requirements to central administration

Data Entry Walkthrough

Benefits to Administrators/IR Types  Comprehensive database of faculty activity  Use it at the College, University, statewide level  Standardized reporting across the campus  Reduces analysts workload in our office  Easy tallies for Delaware Faculty Activity Study  Data also used by Planning and Budget committee  On-the-fly responses to external queries  Can respond with concrete data on research, service, teaching, contributions to the state, etc.  Consolidated requests to faculty and departments  We get to make things easier on everyone once in a while  Comprehensive database of faculty activity  Use it at the College, University, statewide level  Standardized reporting across the campus  Reduces analysts workload in our office  Easy tallies for Delaware Faculty Activity Study  Data also used by Planning and Budget committee  On-the-fly responses to external queries  Can respond with concrete data on research, service, teaching, contributions to the state, etc.  Consolidated requests to faculty and departments  We get to make things easier on everyone once in a while

Sample Queries This year we used it primarily for reporting to the University of Delaware’s Faculty Activity survey But we included campus and college specific questions too And we have the ability to build customized queries to respond to requests for information Some examples of each… This year we used it primarily for reporting to the University of Delaware’s Faculty Activity survey But we included campus and college specific questions too And we have the ability to build customized queries to respond to requests for information Some examples of each…

Delaware Reporting Queries Question on Grants and Contracts College of Engineering’s total grants awarded and the amount awarded in 2004, by department – asked in Delaware Survey

Amended Delaware Reporting Queries Question on Federal Grants and Contracts We have an on-campus need to split out grants by source. This shows College of Engineering’s FEDERAL grants awarded (“qpart” a)

Delaware Reporting Queries Question on Undergraduate Advisees Delaware question asks for total undergraduate advisees by department…

Delaware Reporting Queries Additional Detail on Advisees …but we want to know WHOM faculty advised. No other central source for this information.

On Campus Reporting Queries Question on Teaching Awards We want to know about awards received. No question on this in Delaware Survey and no other place to find it centrally.

On Campus Reporting Queries Question on Teaching Awards Are all those awards legit? We can generate details to find out!

On-the-fly Subject Matter Queries – Design View Math Teacher Want to know who has papers, articles, books, or grants on math teachers?

On-the-fly Subject Matter Queries – Results Math Teacher Details, by type of research output, within the College of Education, Health, and Human Development

On-the-fly Subject Matter Queries – Design View Rural Health Maybe research on rural health is more interesting…

On-the-fly Subject Matter Queries – Results Rural Health Refereed articles, non-refereed articles, works in progress, etc., in the department of Health and Human Development

Data on Faculty by TYPE of Faculty Everything so far has been Tenure/Tenure-Track. But we can add and compare non-TT. 2 indicates non-TT; many UG theses chaired by non-TT

Future Steps  Converting to MySQL from Access  More easily handles multiple users  Adapts to question changes better  Developing web interface for queries  Levels of access determined by role in university  More flexible for non-database types  Expansion to all colleges  Converting to MySQL from Access  More easily handles multiple users  Adapts to question changes better  Developing web interface for queries  Levels of access determined by role in university  More flexible for non-database types  Expansion to all colleges

Challenges  Error checking at the department level (for those who don’t follow instructions well)  Keeping up with new/changed questions  Creating a culture/expectation where faculty update data regularly rather than just before annual reviews  Distribution of responsibility for hosting, funding – colleges, ITC, central administration  Error checking at the department level (for those who don’t follow instructions well)  Keeping up with new/changed questions  Creating a culture/expectation where faculty update data regularly rather than just before annual reviews  Distribution of responsibility for hosting, funding – colleges, ITC, central administration

Conclusions  Very positive feedback from the two pilot colleges (and maybe more importantly, lack of negative feedback!)  Customizable across colleges while maintaining consistency for central reports, especially Delaware  Greater confidence in and ease of reporting compared to the Excel-based faculty activity survey  Very positive feedback from the two pilot colleges (and maybe more importantly, lack of negative feedback!)  Customizable across colleges while maintaining consistency for central reports, especially Delaware  Greater confidence in and ease of reporting compared to the Excel-based faculty activity survey

Want to see more?  URL for demo database =  ID = msudelaware  Password = workload  URL for demo database =  ID = msudelaware  Password = workload