Results

Methodology
This survey
Limitations/Challenges
See the Survey

Courses & Workshops
Nature of Training
Faculty & Graduate Students
Assessment

Conclusion
Further Study
Appendix A
Works Cited

Perceptions of Technology Training Assessment

Important to this study are the feelings, opinions and attitudes concerning the nature of technology training provided by department and program administration. Important, also, are The formal procedures in place within a department designed to assess the ongoing effectiveness of technology training. Significant to my study is not only the procedures themselves but whether the procedures even exist. Twenty-four percent of faculty respondents claimed that assessment occurred through written evaluations.

TABLE 4

Program Assessment

(Faculty/Graduate Cross tabulation) How does your program assess the effectiveness of technology training for graduate students?

The noticeable difference here is that while sixty percent of faculty believe their technology training for graduate students to be somewhat effective, fifty-two percent of faculty claimed that their department had no assessment procedure in place. What criteria then are faculty using to form their opinion of technology training? Faculty did explain, however, some ways that their program assessed technology training. For example, here are some responses reported in the text-boxes:

• We have an interactive list which the teachers use to voice concerns, give feedback etc.; we have several survey instruments but they change; and we have a lot of informal contact w/ the grad students/adjunct faculty.
• If part of a course written evaluations are included. If workshop oral assessment and suggestions for further workshops are gathered.
• We have an end-of-workshop summative evaluation survey.

In short, faculty believe that their technology training for graduate students is somewhat effective despite the fact that their program’s assessment of such training procedures is either non-existent or that it is carried out via course evaluations and/or talking with graduate students and contract/adjunct faculty.

Sixty-two percent of graduate students said that their program has no assessment of technology training for graduate students. Nineteen percent claimed that written evaluations and other, respectively, serve as a method of assessment. Those that marked "other" typically elaborated by saying that they were unsure or did not know if the program assessed such training.

Where the graduate students and faculty are most similar is in the fact that they both revealed similar feelings concerning the program’s assessment of technology training for graduate students. They both claimed that programs have no formal assessment. It should be noted also that graduate students largely reported that technology training is somewhat effective, but here graduate students reported mostly that there is no program assessment. This is important because in the opinion of graduate students, technology training is somewhat effective, but like faculty’s opinions, I wonder by what criteria graduate students are forming their perceptions.

Additionally, faculty and graduate student opinions differ largely from formal assessment procedures. For example, while both faculty and graduate students see technology training as somewhat effective, both groups also claimed that their program has no formal assessment procedure in place. This fact influences the type and frequency of feedback concerning technology workshops or courses that address technology. When there is no formal assessment in place, the chance for constructive change diminishes. In other words, without formal assessment, programs have no way to gauge the success or failure of the kinds of technology training being offered or required. Furthermore, there will be no systematic way to determine its effectiveness.

Conclusion>> Further Study>>