COACHE Faculty Satisfaction Survey Results Presented to Faculty - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

▶
coache faculty satisfaction
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

COACHE Faculty Satisfaction Survey Results Presented to Faculty - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Sep 09, 2023 238 likes •462 views

COACHE Faculty Satisfaction Survey Results Presented to Faculty Assembly on September 9, 2020 John Wallace Amanda Brodish Lu-in Wang Vice Provost for Faculty Vice Provost for Faculty Director of Data Analytics & Diversity and

slide-1
SLIDE 1

COACHE Faculty Satisfaction Survey Results

John Wallace

Vice Provost for Faculty Diversity and Development

Amanda Brodish

Director of Data Analytics & Pathways for Student Success

Lu-in Wang

Vice Provost for Faculty Affairs

Presented to Faculty Assembly on September 9, 2020

slide-2
SLIDE 2

Why Survey Faculty?

  • Aligns with Plan for Pitt
  • Support efforts to recruit, develop, and

retain a diverse and excellent faculty

  • Inform roadmap for implementing data-

driven changes to increase faculty satisfaction

slide-3
SLIDE 3

The COACHE Survey

  • Collaborative Of Academic Careers in Higher

Education

  • Harvard Graduate School of Education
  • Consortium of over 300 institutions
  • Survey of faculty satisfaction
  • Pitt participated in 2016
slide-4
SLIDE 4

Survey Themes

  • Nature of Work (Research, Teaching, Service)
  • Resources & Benefits
  • Tenure & Promotion
  • Collaboration & Mentoring
  • Leadership & Governance
  • Department Culture
slide-5
SLIDE 5

Methodology

  • Survey open from February 12 to April 7, 2019
  • Most full-time faculty eligible to participate
  • Newly hired faculty excluded
  • Some faculty with administrative roles excluded
  • Clinical faculty in the SOM excluded
  • Pitt response rate was 42% (similar to 46%

response rate of other institutions)

slide-6
SLIDE 6

Response Rates

43.5% 47.7% 39.6% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

By Tenure Status

Tenured Tenure Stream Appointment Stream 42.1% 43.2% 41.8% 41.1% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

By Rank

Full Associate Assistant Instructor/Lecturer/Other

467 186 591 290 320 402 232

slide-7
SLIDE 7

Response Rates

47.8% 37.5% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

By Gender

Women Men 25.8% 40.5% 40.6% 45.1% 71.3% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

By Race/Ethnicity

Asian Black Latinx White Other 136 34 39 978 57 628 616

slide-8
SLIDE 8

Key Outcomes

  • 25 Key Benchmarks
  • Each benchmark assessed with multiple questions
  • Gives a general sense of how faculty feel about

that aspect of their work/life

  • Nested within 7 broad areas (e.g., Nature of Work,

Tenure & Promotion, Leadership)

slide-9
SLIDE 9

Comparisons

  • Cohort: 103 research universities that were

surveyed in the past 3 years

  • Peers: 5 universities of our choosing from cohort
  • Comparisons will focus on Peers
  • 1. Indiana University
  • 2. Purdue University
  • 3. University of Texas
  • 4. University of North

Carolina

  • 5. University of Virginia
slide-10
SLIDE 10

Results Outline

  • General satisfaction
  • Pitt relative to peers on key benchmarks
  • Within Pitt variation on key benchmarks
  • Variation by subgroups
  • Pitt 2016 vs. Pitt 2019
slide-11
SLIDE 11

General Satisfaction

74%

Said if they had to do it again, they would select Pitt

  • Peers Avg: 69%

73%

Satisfied with department as a place to work

  • Peers Avg: 72%

75%

Satisfied with Pitt as a place to work

  • Peers Avg: 67%
slide-12
SLIDE 12

Pitt Benchmark Scores

3.4 3.3 3.9 3.6 4.2 3.4 2.8 3.7 3.2 3.5 3.3 3.5 3.6 3.4 3.2 3.4 3.0 3.1 3.3 3.1 3.1 3.4 3.9 3.6 3.6 1 2 3 4 5 Research Service Teaching Facilities & Work Resources Health & Retirement Personal & Family Interdisciplinary Work Collaboration Mentoring Promotion to Full Tenure Expectations Tenure Clarity Departmental Divisional Faculty Senior Adaptability Productivity Purpose Trust Understanding Appreciation & Recognition Departmental Collegialty Departmental Engagement Departmental Quality Nature of Work Resources & Support Collaboration & Mentoring Tenure & Promotion Leadership Governance Departmental Relations & Appreciation

slide-13
SLIDE 13

Pitt Compared to Peers

= Pitt in Top 2 = Pitt in Middle 2 = Pitt in Bottom 2

slide-14
SLIDE 14

Within Pitt Variation

Effect Size

  • Strength of a phenomenon
  • Not a test of statistical significance
  • Emphasizes size of an effect

d =

M1 – M2 SD Effect Size d Small 0.10 Medium 0.30 Large 0.50

slide-15
SLIDE 15

Within Pitt Variation: Rank & Tenure

Status

slide-16
SLIDE 16

Within Pitt Variation: Gender

slide-17
SLIDE 17

Pitt Change from 2016 to 2019

= Small Effect Size = Medium Effect Size = Large Effect Size

slide-18
SLIDE 18

Caveats & Limitations

  • Response bias and small cell size concerns call

into question some results, especially within group comparisons

  • Averaging across groups may mask variation in

satisfaction by school and/or department

  • Quantitative results only tell part of the story
slide-19
SLIDE 19

Next Steps

✓Share interactive dashboards with Deans, Directors, and Campus Presidents ✓Share results with faculty community

✓www.provost.pitt.edu/COACHE ✓Letter to faculty ✓Presentation to Faculty Assembly

slide-20
SLIDE 20

Next Steps

✓Share interactive dashboards with Deans, Directors, and Campus Presidents ✓Share results with faculty community

  • Engage specific groups/committees on using

these results for data-driven decision-making

slide-21
SLIDE 21

QUESTIONS?