1. Strategic Priorities Consultation Survey Overview Strategic Priorities Advisory Committee November 6, 2013

2. Agenda Introduction Introduction Survey #1 Survey #1 Respondent overview Respondent overview Priority Selection Priority Selection Analysis Analysis Considerations Considerations Survey #2 Survey #2 Preliminary Results Preliminary Results

3. Survey 1 Oct. 15 – Oct. 23

4. Respondent Overview 1700 total respondents 381 215 166 127 78 233 183 201 85 21 35 56 127 53 44 135 110 59 35 26 48 710 N/A >10 6-10 3-5 1-2 <1 23 Yrs w/TRU

5. Respondent Overview 1700 total respondents Student 42% Alumni 22% Faculty 13% Staff 10% Community 7% Admin 5% Other 1% Sig. over-rep Sig. under-rep

6. Overall Priority Selection

7. Consistency Across Groups: 6 of 13 We would expect the breakdown by respondent group to be reflected in each priority. This was the case in the following priorities (top 7 are highlighted): Student Engagement Innovative and Accessible Academic Programming Learning and Teaching Innovation Life-long Learning Research, Scholarly, and Creative Capacity Research-Informed Education Top 7 priority

8. Inconsistency Across Groups: 7 of 13 This was not the case in the following priorities (top 7 are highlighted): Flexible Course and Program Delivery Partnerships with Educational Institutions, Communities, and the Private Sector Professional Development Community-Relevant Research Aboriginal, Local, and Global Understanding Innovation and Entrepreneurship School Pride Based on Academic and Athletic Excellence Top 7 priority We would expect the breakdown by respondent group to be reflected in each priority.

9. Flexible Course & Program Delivery Partnerships Professional Development Inconsistent Selection Rates Statistically Sig.

10. The Bottom Line Most groups picked the same top 7 priorities, with some exceptions.

11. A Closer Look at the Faculty Response Group Unique perspective Less frequent priorities Flexible Course & Program Delivery Partnerships More frequent priorities Research, Scholarly & Creative Capacity Aboriginal, Local, Global Understanding 13% of total respondents (215) 67% have been affiliated with TRU for more than 6 years A possible area to keep in mind for town halls

12. A Closer Look at the Student Response Group For consideration: students did not rate “Student Engagement” as one of the highest priorities; However, we know from other sources (like NSSE and the CUR) that students value the components of student engagement 42% of total respondents (710) 33% have been affiliated with TRU for less than 1 year

13. Other Suggested Priorities: Comment Boxes 788 additional priorities were suggested in the comment boxes (460 respondents) Grouped into overall themes, including: Course and program expansion and development Experiential learning Affordable education Grouped into original priorities where appropriate

14. Counts of All Priorities None of the comment box themes were mentioned frequently enough to change the top 7 priority.

15. Questions about Survey 1?

16. Survey 2- Preliminary Results Oct. 28 – Nov. 4

17. Respondent Overview 1110 total respondents 6-10 yrs 188 N/A >10 yrs 3-5 yrs 1-2 yrs <1 515 194 182 101 75 31 12 Preliminary

18. Respondent Overview 1110 total respondents Student 46% Alumni 18% Faculty 16% Staff 9% Community 3% Admin 7% Other 1% Preliminary

19. Overall Priority Ranking 1.Flexible Course & Program Delivery 2.Innovative and Accessible Academic Programming 3.Learning and Teaching Innovations 4.Student Engagement 5.Partnerships with Educational Institutions, Communities, and the Private Sector 6.Professional Development 7.Life-long Learning 1 st Group 2 nd Group 3 rd Group 4 th Group DescriptiveStatistical 1 st Preliminary

20. Questions about Survey 2?