Development of a Questionnaire

In this assignment I developed two questionnaires: "Students Evaluation of Instructors/Classes" and "Adjunct Faculty Reasons for Teaching". Both questionnaires represent areas of interest to me and I plan to eventually use the results of these two studies as part of a dissertation. Before I will present the two questionnaires and all required detail, I would like to make here several theoretical points that will support the practical process I went through in the development of the two questionnaires, their administration and the compilation, interpretation and presentation of the results. Some of those theoretical points have embedded direct references to my two developed questionnaires.

"In general the word questionnaire refers to a device for securing answers to questions by using a form which the respondent fills in himself" page 133 in Good, Williams & Hatt, Paul. (1962) Methods in social research. New York: McGraw-Hill. The purpose for which questionnaires are used, and the type of information sought, vary from study to study. Business firms frequently attempt to determine consumer preferences while politicians might try to ascertain the opinions of voters concerning, say, unemployment. Those receiving questionnaires may be asked to give opinions ranging from world affairs to religious issues, or they may be asked to supply factual data concerning marital status or family income. The use of questionnaire in research is based on one basic, underlying assumption: THE RESPONDENT WILL GIVE TRUTHFUL ANSWERS. This means the respondent will be both WILLING and ABLE to give truthful answers.

Designing, using and interpreting the results from a questionnaires is a process that starts with a planning process, answering some fundamental questions such as, determining what you try to measure or accomplish through the questionnaire. With other words what is the problem, or problem statement. Next step is the process of actually designing the questionnaire, which involves other substeps, such as what criteria you try to measure and how. How do you know that the questions you so painstakingly sculptured actually elicit the information you want? How do you know that respondents' answers on a given day would be the same as the answers they might give on another day? These questions deal with the issues of VALIDITY and RELIABILITY. Many people are quick to challenge the reliability and validity of questionnaires, and the representativeness of respondents; many of these criticisms have been justified. But well designed questionnaires and a carefully formulated study design will minimize the negative effects that result from neglecting these three factors.

RELIABILITY is usually concerned with stability over time. A reliable questionnaire item is an item that consistently conveys the same meaning. Will a person reading the question interpret it the same way each time he or she reads it? If the question does not present a single image of meaning for a given person, we cannot be sure which meaning of the question the respondent had in mind when he answered the question.

The VALIDITY of a questionnaire item is concerned with whether or not the item actually elicits the intended information. Questionnaires items are valid if they are successful in eliciting true responses relevant to the information desired. In other words, it is essential that the respondent understands (and responds to) the question as it is understood by those conducting the research if the responses are to be generally termed validity and is measured by comparing the responses with known facts. unfortunately, if the facts are already known there is no point in asking questions, and it is largely for this reason that studies of questionnaire validity are rare. Of particular importance in questionnaire studies are question selection and phrasing. If questions are asked that the questionnaire recipient is unqualified to answer, his answers may be purely guess work and almost certainly invalid. Even though questions may be valid in some situations, in others they may not, i.e., responses may not be accurate. For example, certain respondents may, intentionally or accidentally, give untruthful answers to particular items. The authors of one study concluded that the truthfulness of the responses is "peculiarly vulnerable when employed for the collection of personal information or when used with subjects who see (or they imagine they see) an opportunity to advance their personal interests by means of the returns made by them". - Stoke, Stuart, & Lehman, Harvey. (1930) "The influence of self-interest upon questionnaire replies." School and Society.

The value of results, in terms of their generalizability, depends also on the representativeness of the sample of respondents. The main issue here is the percentage of people who responded to the questionnaire, assuming randomness of sample. If only a handful of those receiving a questionnaire responded, a replication of the study could produce a different handful of respondents having a different set of perspectives and opinions. In such a case, the results would not be representative of the entire sample. Therefore, sample representativeness is uncertain without high response rates.

ADVANTAGES and LIMITATIONS of QUESTIONNAIRES

The use of questionnaires in research has many advantages. Although these advantages do not necessarily benefit all questionnaire studies, thoughtfully designed studies will reap the benefits of most of the conveniences as follows [According to Berdie & Anderson (1974). Questionnaires: Design and Use. New Jersey: The Scarecrow Press.]:

1. Cost. This is most obvious convenience of the questionnaires method. In my study case, I used as population for my questionnaires my colleagues at four universities in Los Angeles, California area, where I am an adjunct faculty. My cost to survey my colleagues whose virtually none.

2. Establishing contact. Interviewers frequently have difficulty contacting people who are not home during normal hours. This was not a problem in my study case, since I use the "drop in my colleagues' mailbox" method, with a coverletter attached explaining the instructions to follow in completing the questionnaire.

3. For the multitudes. The use of mail questionnaires can facilitate collecting data from an extremely large sample in a short period of time. In my case study that was the method, even though the sample size was about 40 to 50 respondents for one questionnaire and in the hundreds for the other.

4. Why not in the world? The use of mail questionnaires allows the investigator to cover large geographic areas in his quest for data. In my study case I did not cover "large geographic areas"; however, Los Angeles area and the four universities where I ran the questionnaires is a considerable large geographical area.

5. Ease of completion. Questionnaires usually are more convenient for respondents than are other methods used to obtain information directly from people. In my study case one questionnaire was quite simple and easy to complete. The other one, was quite large, comprehensive and its easiness of completion may be questioned.

6. Less bias. It is often possible to determine how an interviewer feels about the question he is asking. Questionnaires, when the questions are well worded, avoid contamination from those conducting the research. In my case study, I hope that majority of questions were well worded.

7. Ease of tabulation. Well designed questionnaires can be tabulated easily. In my study case it was very easy to tabulated the answers and ran basic statistics, such as frequency, percentage, mean, etc., as follows below.

8. Method familiarity. Depending on the study sample, the fact that some people have had frequent contact with questionnaires may be an asset in eliciting their cooperation in the study. In my case study, definitely all participants were very familiar with the type of questions asks and the method of questionnaires, since all were very well educated individuals, holding at least a bachelor's (for students) and, for adjunct faculty, a master's degree.

9. Catch the opinion! In some surveys, opinions and sentiments may change considerably over relatively short periods of time. In my study case I do not think that opinions changed.

10. Uniform question presentation. All people who received questionnaires receive the same questions in the same format with the same accompanying materials. So was the case in my study.

11. Future study. One of the basic uses of questionnaires is to point out trends for future study. Definitely, I think in my study case, that is true.

Questionnaire Limitations

Questionnaires also have limitations, as follows [According to Berdie & Anderson (1974). Questionnaires: Design and Use. New Jersey: The Scarecrow Press.]:

1. Low response rate. The most limitation of research that uses questionnaires is the danger of not receiving representative responses. In my study case, I thing I have received at least 95% of the expected representatives responses.

2. Reliability and validity. Owing to the nature of questionnaires, the ways to check the reliability and validity of questionnaire item are limited. And I think that was, to some extent, the case in my study, too.

3. Question limitations. The fact that written questions are sent to subjects means the following limitations apply to studies using questionnaires: sometimes only shallow questions can be asked because of greater chances of misinterpreting increasingly complex questions; those tabulating the returned questionnaires cannot always be certain that the subject's response is accurately interpreted during the data analysis (subjects often need to explain a check marketed answer and often have no place to do so in a questionnaire; those conducting the study cannot probe more deeply into answers given by the subject who could, perhaps, give further date of value. This is, in my opinion, the most important limitation of questionnaires. Knowing that, I tried in building my two questionnaires to allow for some "comments" area, but unfortunately not as much as probably needed. The measurements of the results from questionnaires is a QUANTITATIVE one, and not necessarily a QUALITATIVE one. Knowing that 10% of the surveyed people have a give opinion on a particular issue tells us something, but there is a lot missing in between, or behind the numbers that we do not know.

4. Prejudice against questionnaires. Suggestions have been made that many people are prejudiced against questionnaires either because they receive so may or because they believe the questionnaire method of obtaining data is a disreputable, unscientific method. I recognize this fact during my questionnaires' administration and compilation of results, but unfortunately I think is very little we can do about it. We can not read people's minds.

5. Impersonalization. Some people are offended by the lack of personal contact throughout everyday life. This impersonalization is often exemplified by the mail questionnaire. This is another reality that I, unfortunately, could not do much about in my two surveys.

6. Sample limitations. For some studies, the use of questionnaires is not feasible. For instance, studies of samples that include people who do not read must use other means of collecting information. In my study case, I did not feel that this was a limitation. At least for one of the two questionnaires I built, this method is actually the only way you can get feedback (from the students, first questionnaire case).

7. Who completes the form? We usually cannot be sure who completed a returned questionnaire. At times, wives have their husbands complete questionnaires sent to the wife, while in other cases, the questionnaire recipient may forward the questionnaire to a person believed more qualified to respond. For both my questionnaires this was not an issue. For the first one, almost 100% sure the students who were asked to complete the questionnaire were the right person. In the case of second questionnaire, there is a very remote possibility that someone else than an adjunct faculty to whom the questionnaire was targeted, actually completed it.

8. Item independence. Because some subjects read through the entire questionnaire before completing it, questions asked later in the form may influence the answers to questions asked at the beginning of the form. This is true and almost impossible to be avoided. Actually the reverse is true, too. Some people answer the questions in the order they come, without reading first through all of them. And some questionnaires, maybe even mine, are built in a particular sequence, that adds to the bias factors.

DESIGNING A QUESTIONNAIRE

There are other factors that need to be taken in consideration when designing a questionnaire, and myself I had to consider them, such as:

1. Know Your Topic. One important step is to become thoroughly acquitted with the topic of your study before actually commencing the questionnaire design. This was very much so the case in my two questionnaires. Both topics: "Students Evaluation of Instructors/Classes" and "Adjunct Faculty Reasons for Teaching" were topics very well known to me.

2. Know Your People. One of the persistent themes of any study is to adapt your research design to the people you will survey. Consider those who will be asked to complete the survey forms. Unfortunately, I did not know, for most part of them, those people asked to complete the survey forms.

3. How Much? Careful study and early planning can prevent later headaches. Have you carefully considered the following:

(1) Can you clearly and explicitly state the specific goals of your study? Try it!

(2) Do these goals describe a study that is really worth doing?

(3) Have you made an effort to become thoroughly acquainted with the topic of your study? A sincere effort?

(4) Have you become familiar with the characteristics of those to whom you will send questionnaires? Can you anticipate reasons why they may be "nonresponsive"?

(5) Have you estimated the cost of your study and the time it will take to conduct it? Many people underestimate both of these.

Format Considerations

The following considerations should be kept in mind during all phases of questionnaire design:

1. Make the questionnaire as "appealing to the eye" and easy to complete as possible.

2. Number questionnaire items and pages so the respondent will not become confused while completing the form.

3. Put an identifying mark on each page of the form so that if one should get separated from the rest, it can be reattached.

4. Put the name and address of the person to whom the form should be returned at the beginning and end of the questionnaire even if you include a self-addressed return envelope since questionnaires are often separated from the cover letter and envelope.

5. Put the study title in bold type on the first page of the questionnaire.

6. Include brief but clear instructions for completing the form and additional clarifications and examples before sections that might be confusing.

7. Group items into logically coherent sections, e. g., those which deal with a specific topic or those which use the same response options should go together.

8. Begin with a few interesting "non-threatening" questions because introductory questions that are either "threatening" or "dull" may reduce the likelihood of the subject's completing the questionnaire.

9. Avoid putting important items at the end of a long questionnaire.

10. If questions appear on both sides of a page, put the word "over" on the bottom of the front side of that page.

11. Try to make smooth transitions between sections so the respondent does not get the feeling he is answering a series of unrelated "quiz" questions.

12. Avoid constructing sections of the form to be answered by only a subset of respondents - such sections may lead respondents to believe the form is not appropriate for them or it may because frustration and result in fewer completed forms.

13. If you have sections which consist of long checklists, skip a line every third item to help respondent place his answers in the appropriate spaces.

14. Avoid using the words "questionnaire" or "checklist" on the form itself since some people may be prejudices against these words after receiving many forms not designed with the care of yours.

Question Construction

The following is a checklist of how the questions should be constructed:

1. Does the question ask for only one bit of information?

2. Does the question presuppose a certain state of affairs?

3. Does the question wording imply a desired answer?

4. Are any of the question's words emotionally loaded, vaguely defined or overly general?

5. Do any of the question's words have a double meaning that may cause misunderstanding?

6. Does the question use abbreviations which may be unfamiliar to respondents?

7. Are the response options mutually exclusive and sufficient to cover each conceivable answer?

How to Stimulate Response

The summarized responses of information obtained by questionnaires cannot be assumed representative of the sample rate has been achieved. When designing a study, many considerations arise that will likely affect the response rate:

1. How will you relate to the people you ask to complete a questionnaire? Will you be "formal" or "folksy"?

2. Are you able to guarantee respondents anonymity, or confidentiality?

3. Have you obtained impressive sponsorship?

4. Have you considered using different types of printing and paper, and different colors of paper and ink?

5. Have you carefully considered the content and approach of your pre-letter and cover letter?

6. Would some type of incentive encourage response to your questionnaire?

7. Have you identified sufficient resources from which to obtain up-dated addresses of people in your study?

8. Will you send the questionnaire to the respondent’s place of work or to his home?

10. How will you know why people are not returning completed questionnaires?

11. Have you a follow-up "arsenal" available for use if five or six follow-ups are needed?

12. Have you considered using the following follow-ups: telephone calls, telegrams, postcards, raffle notices, formal letters, and informal letters?

13. Will your follow-ups be humorous, serious, or a combinations of both?

ANALYZING thE Results

Once the questionnaire has been completed by the respondent, the difficult task of tabulating, computing, interpreting and presenting the results follows. The range of techniques and tools that can be employed vary widely, from simple tabulation, all the way to the use of complex computer-based programs. In the following two questionnaires that I built, simple compilation were used. Frequency, percentage and mean were used as statistical tools.

QUESTIONNAIRE #1: "STUDENTS EVALUATION of INSTRUCTORS and CLASSES"

 

I am an adjunct faculty at four universities in Southern California/Metropolitan Los Angeles area: Chapman University (Orange County), National University (Los Angeles County), West Coast University (Los Angeles County), and University of Redlands (Riverside County). As an adjunct faculty I am teaching Computer Science, Information Systems, Mathematics, and rarely Business Administration/Management courses. Being and adjunct faculty, at the end of each class students evaluate me, as an instructor and the class, as a whole. Each of the four (private) institutions uses specific designed forms for this purpose, collecting students feedback that will allow administrative staff to improve on various dimensions, the overall quality of education.

In this study, I started by collecting the specific forms used by the four universities, as well as results derived from administering these surveys on me and other 9 colleagues who agreed to participate in this study. I'll start by presenting in here first, the forms (questionnaires) used for this type of survey by the four universities.

CHAPMAN UNIVERSITY

1 2 3 4 5 6

1. Strongly Disagree

2. Disagree

3. Neutral

4. Agree

5. Strongly Agree

6. Neutral

1. Treated students with respect.

2. Based grades on adequate number of tests, assignments or projects.

3. Encouraged student participation by means of questions, discussion, and/or other class projects.

4. Showed interest in students.

5. Was enthusiastic about the subject.

6. Was clear about the basis for grading at beginning of the semester or term.

7. Provided helpful feedback throughout the term or semester.

8. Was prompt in grading projects, assignments and tests.

9. Was available for help outside of class.

10. Planned each class session well.

11. Gave assignments which helped me learn.

12. Rarely canceled class or shortened class meetings.

13. Made the class challenging.

14. Stimulated my interest in the subject.

15. I used a library in meeting the requirements for this course.

COMMENTS:

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

NATIONAL UNIVERSITY

1 2 3 4 5 N

1. Unsatisfactory

2. Marginal

3. Satisfactory

4. Above Average

5. Exceptional

N. No Opinion/Not Apply

1. Clarity of course goals and objectives

2. Explanation of expected student performance and the grading systems

3. Professor's preparation for each class session

4. Professor's ability to communicate knowledge about the subject

5. Professor's effectiveness in encouraging student class participation

6. Professor's timely feedback on results of assignments and tests

7. Professor's interest in and actual help given to individual students needing assistance

8. How well the course met the stated goals and objectives

9. Please provide a short statement about your evaluation of the professor as a teacher:

________________________________________

________________________________________

________________________________________

________________________________________

WEST COAST UNIVERSITY

(A) (B) (C) (D) (E)

(A) Outstanding or Always

(B) Above Average or Frequent

(C) Average

(D) Below Average or Infrequent

(E) Unacceptable or Never

Your view of the instructor

---------------------------

1. Preparation and organization of class meetings

2. Instructor's apparent mastery of course material

3. Instructor's communication skills

4. Consistency in starting and ending classes on time

5. Encouragement of class discussion and student participation

6. Willingness to answer student questions

7. Availability of instructor outside of standard class meetings

8. Appropriateness of assignments

9. Uniformity and fairness of instructor's grading methods

10. Your overall assessment of this instructor

Your view of the course

------------------------

11. Correlation of course content to catalog description

12. Degree to which material stimulated your interest in this subject area

13. Your overall assessment of the textbook

14. Degree to which the course material will advance you toward your educational objectives

15. Your overall assessment of the course

Overall Rating: ________

UNIVERSITY OF REDLANDS

A B C D E

A - 1 Superbly

B - 2 Very Well

C - 3 Adequately

D - 4 Poorly

E - 5 Not Applicable

1. Know the subject?

2. Stimulate your interest of this subject?

3. Show enthusiasm for the subject?

4. Encourage questions?

5. Positively regard students' gender?

6. Provide timely feedback?

7. Help improve your writing or speaking skills?

8. Positively regard students ethnically?

9. Stimulate intellectual discussions?

10. Relate the subject to other knowledge areas?

11. Demonstrate concern for students?

12. Present basic course concepts?

13. Come prepared for class?

14. Manage classroom time?

15. Unify the course objectives to match

the assigned reading materials?

16. Organize and structure the course?

17. Integrate the course into the overall program?

18. Define the course criteria and grading methods?

19. Would you like to have this instructor again? (Yes = 1, No = 5)

20. Any comments will be found on the back.

As easily noted, the four questionnaires are quite different from one each other. They have a few things in common, but rather they are different, in both size (number of questions) and type of questions. Note also the grouping of questions or the measurement units for the questions, as well as their translation into number that will allow a quantitative result derived.

Based on the above four type of questionnaires as well as my experiences AND the literature search for this class, as outlined at the beginning of this paper, I BUILT A NEW, MORE COMPREHENSIVE, BETTER (in my opinion) QUESTIONNAIRE (see below), called "Instructor Teaching Inventory."

I asked several of my colleagues at all four universities, a total of 10 (including myself) to use at the end of their class this new questionnaire, in ADDITION, to the one required by the respective university. I asked them to explain to the students that we ran an experiment, and their confidentiality as well as compiled results will not affect in any way their relationship to the respective instructor. This questionnaire was handled in the same manner as the "official" one: a student representative collected them at the end of the course, staffed them into a pre-stamped envelope, sealed it, and mailed it to me.

INSTRUCTOR TEACHING INVENTORY

This inventory asks you to assess your instructor's specific classroom behaviors. Your instructor has requested this information for instructional analysis and improvement. To increase the value of your feedback, please provide thoughtful and candid responses.

Your judgments should reflect the type of teaching you think is best for this particular course and your particular learning style. Assess each behavior independently rather than letting your overall impression of the instructor determine each rating.

Each section of the inventory begins with a definition of the group of teaching behaviors assessed in that section. For each specific teaching behavior, please show your judgment of the frequency with which your teacher exhibits the behavior in question. Use the following continuum rating scale from "never" to "always," with 4 being a middle-of-the-road judgment, in expressing your judgments:

1. Never

2. Almost never

3. Rarely

4. N/A

5. Often

6. Usually

7. Always

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

CLARITY: Methods used to explain or clarify concepts

1. Gives enough examples of each concept

2. Uses understandable examples to explain concepts

3. Fails to define new or unfamiliar terms

4. Repeats difficult ideas several times

5. Stresses most important points

6. Uses visual aids to facilitate explanations

7. Points out practical applications of concepts

8. Explains subject matter in familiar language

ENTHUSIASM: Nonverbal behaviors used to solicit student attention and interest

9. Speaks in an expressive way

10. Moves about while lecturing

11. Gestures well with hands and arms

12. Avoids eye contact with students

13. Uses humorous anecdotes

14. Is enthusiastic while teaching

INTERACTION: Techniques used to foster students' class participation

15. Encourages students' questions and comments

16. Praises students for good ideas

17. Asks questions of individual students

18. Asks questions of class as a whole

19. Incorporates students' ideas into lecture

20. Presents challenging, thought-provoking ideas

ORGANIZATION: Methods used to organize or structure subject matter

21. Puts outline of lecture on blackboard or overhead screen

22. Uses a very detailed syllabus

23. Gives overview of lecture at beginning of class

24. Explains how each topic fits into the course as a whole

25. Begins class with a review of topics covered last time

26. Periodically summarizes points previously made

27. Homework assignments are clearly organized

28. Clearly explains homework requirements

PACING: Rate of presenting information and efficiency in using time

29. Dwells excessively on obvious points

30. Digresses from major theme of lecture

31. Uses class time well

32. Asks if students understand before proceeding

33. Goes too fast

34. Sticks to the point in answering students' questions

35. takes adequate breaks

36. Goes too slow

DISCLOSURE: Explicitness concerning course requirements and grading criteria

37. Advises students on how to pre[pare for tests

38. Tells students exactly what is expected of them o tests, essays, or assignments to earn their final grade

39. States objectives of each class

40. States objectives of course as a whole

41. Provides frequent feedback on students' grade status

SPEECH: Characteristics of voice used in classroom teaching

42. Stutters, mumbles, or slurs words

43. Speaks clearly

44. Speaks at appropriate pace

45. Says "um" and "ah"

46. Instructor's voice helps students maintain interest

RAPPORT: Quality of interpersonal relations between teacher and students

47. Addresses individual students by name

48. Announces availability for consultations outside of class

49. Shows tolerance of other points of view

50. Talks with students before or after class

51. What is your overall "grade" for the instructor as an effective educator? (0 - 100) ____________

Analysis of THE Results

First of all, the developed questionnaire, as above mentioned is a more comprehensive one (and of course longer) than any of the other "official" four. But, in the same time, it has the questions GROUPED, based of type or functionality, and I think that’s the main merit and effort put in this questionnaire. By comparing the results measured with this questionnaire vs. those with the official one, instructor by instructor, from each of the four universities, the following conclusions were drawn:

1. All other 9 adjunct faculty, plus myself, that agreed to participate in this study, also agreed to share a copy of their official students evaluation with me for the purpose of this study.

2. The 9 adjunct faculty and me taught between 1 and 3 courses over the past 4 to 5 months at the four mentioned universities. The distribution of the adjunct faculty was quite even, about 2 to 3 for each university.

3. The gender distribution was 3 females and 5 males. Each participant holds at least a master’s degree in related discipline to their taught topic. Topics taught were mostly computer-related. Also, each survey participant was an adjunct faculty with that particular institution for at least one year. Their teaching experience as an adjunct faculty was between 1 and 10 years total.

4. We also agreed on to keep the names of the participants in this survey, confidential, for reasons easy to understand. We used a numbering system, e.g., me I used No. 1, Joe Smith (for instance) used number 2 for both the official student evaluation and my questionnaire (I did not know that Joe Smith used number 2; number 2 helped me to match the same person on the official student evaluation and my questionnaire). They all surface mailed to me copies of both the official and my questionnaire.

5. One of the conclusions of this study was that I noticed very slight variation for a given adjunct faculty in the overall score he or she for the 2 to 3 courses they taught and were evaluated by the student (within 10%). This proves that the way the students as an entire population, viewed that particular instructor, even for two different classes, was not a influencing factor.

6. The same conclusion as above was valid for my developed questionnaire, i.e., little variation for the same instructor, for two or more different classes, even though they had different student populations. And this was independent of the school/university where it was administered.

7. Besides the task of developing and administering a questionnaire, the main purpose of my questionnaire was to see if the students, using a different format, more comprehensive and better grouped type of questions, will evaluate differently the same instructor (adjunct faculty).

8. I was surprised to notice that in most cases I’ve seen a 5 to 20% increase in the overall score each adjunct faculty received by using my questionnaire. If I were to make a conclusion out of this study, the only one I can think of is that students would prefer a more structured questionnaire to one that just flows through without much logical order or relationship.

9. I was also surprised that the length (much more in my questionnaire’s case) did not "bother" the student.

10. I also think that giving a definition for the meaning of a group of questions, helped students to get in a given mind set when answering that sequence.

11. I also found interesting, and I guess very appealing to the students, last question, #51: "What is your overall "grade" for the instructor as an effective educator? (0 - 100) ____________". Of course the students did not have the time to sum up and average the score of their answers, but in most cases their overall rating of the instructor came within 10% of the averaged score!

12. As above mentioned, I did not do any other statistical computations or inferences on the collected data from administering this questionnaire. I believe that additional conclusion can be made, based on other factors, like gender or the instructor and/or student, if the student had or not the same instructor before, or where in the program the student was (at the beginning, middle, or to the end).

13. Also, I think that the sample used for administering this questionnaire was not large enough (only 10 adjunct faculty). The number of students varied between 5 and 18. I would like, if I get enough support from my colleagues to keep running this survey for a longer period of time, like at least one year. That will help me to collect more data that after analysis may or may not support some of the above conclusions.

14. Another possibility would be to use the same instrument at NOVA, if agreed upon by the administration, for both master and doctoral students for CSIS program.

QUESTIONNAIRE #2: "ADJUNCT FACULTY REASONS for TEACHING"

 

The second questionnaire I built was intended to measure the motivation, reason factors that Adjunct Faculty have for teaching, known that vast majority of them do this on a part time basis, having a more regular job, in industry at large.

But, first of all, here's the little questionnaire I built:

Below is a list of possible reasons for teaching as an adjunct faculty. Rate the importance of each one o them to you personally, using the 5-point scale with 5 being the highest.

Reasons for Teaching Rating (1 low - 5 highest)

1. Quality of students ________

2. Pay rate ________

3. Potential appointment to full-time faculty ________

4. Reputation of this university ________

5. Reputation of this college ________

6. No other teaching opportunity ________

7. Strengthening of resume ________

8. Freedom to teach as you wish ________

9. Location of classes ________

10. Absence of close supervision ________

11. Collegial relations with other adjuncts ________

12. Schedule of classes ________

13. Fringe Benefits ________

14. Collegial relations with full-time faculty ________

Analysis of THE Results

The administration of this survey was done via (surface) mail. I sent in the questionnaire in an envelope accompanied by a self addressed stamped return envelope to a sample of about 50 adjunct faculty representing the population from the same four universities mentioned above. I received back about 44 answers (6 addresses did not respond). Here are the results of the survey (in order to the average, descending):

Number of Adjuncts

Low High

Rank Reasons for Teaching 1 2 3 4 5 Mean

1. Reputation of this university 0 1 8 12 23 4.3

2. Reputation of this college 0 2 8 11 23 4.3

3. Freedom to teach as you wish 1 0 11 11 21 4.2

4. Quality of students 1 2 7 24 10 3.9

5. Location of classes 3 5 12 15 9 3.5

6. Schedule of classes 7 4 10 11 12 3.4

7. Absence of close supervision 4 5 15 11 9 3.4

8. Pay rate 9 4 13 14 4 3.0

9. Collegial relations with other adjuncts 6 9 14 9 6 3.0

10. Collegial relations with full-time faculty 7 11 7 11 5 2.9

11. Fringe Benefits 16 6 9 4 6 2.5

12. Potential appointment to full-time

faculty 20 6 5 7 4 2.3

13. Strengthening of resume 23 6 7 6 2 2.0

14. No other teaching opportunity* 24 3 1 2 2 1.6

* 12 adjuncts did not respond to this question.

As seen, the reputation of the institution, freedom to teach without close supervision, quality of students, and location and schedule of classes dominated their reasons. PAY RATE, FRINGE BENEFITS, RELATIONSHIP WITH OTHER FACULTY, POTENTIAL for FULL-TIME APPOINTMENT or STRENGTHENING OF RESUME not being strong reasons or motivation for the respondents to be an adjunct faculty.