DSU 2010-2011 Faculty Construct Report

2010-11 HERI Faculty Survey
CIRP Construct Reports

Full-time Undergraduate Faculty
Dickinson State University

Office of Institutional Research and Planning OIRP-7-23-11 (SJS) Telephone (701) 483-2984 DSU.OIRP@dsu.nodak.edu
CIRP Construct Mean Report

Table of Contents 1. CIRP Construct Mean Reports How to Read the CIRP Construct Mean Reports a. Student-Centered Pedagogy b. Undergraduate Education Goal: Personal Development c. Scholarly Productivity d. Civic Minded Practice e. Civic Minded Values f. Job Satisfaction: Workplace g. Job Satisfaction: Compensation h. Career Related Stress i. Institutional Priority: Commitment to Diversity j. Institutional Priority: Civic Engagement k. Institutional Priority: Increase Prestige l. Social Agency 2. CIRP Construct Percentage Reports How to Read the CIRP Construct Percentage Reports a. Student-Centered Pedagogy b. Undergraduate Education Goal: Personal Development c. Scholarly Productivity d. Civic Minded Practice e. Civic Minded Values f. Job Satisfaction: Workplace g. Job Satisfaction: Compensation h. Career Related Stress i. Institutional Priority: Commitment to Diversity j. Institutional Priority: Civic Engagement k. Institutional Priority: Increase Prestige l. Social Agency
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29
comparison group 1: Public Universities comparison group 2: Public/Private Universities and Public 4yr Colleges
2010-2011 Faculty Construct
Page 2
2010-11 HERI FacultySurvey Overall Web Response Report

Survey: Date: 2010-2011 Faculty Survey 7/14/2011 9:25
Ace Code
2026
School
Dickinson State
Assigned Tickets
164
Returns Accessed
11
Returns Returns Returns Saved Submitted Opted Out

1 67 1
Response Rate*
41%
Special Note: Overall response rate percentage does not include opt-outs or e-mail bounce backs.
Page 3
How to Read the CIRP Construct Mean Reports

CIRP Constructs are designed to capture the experiences and outcomes institutions are often interested in understanding, but that present a measurement challenge because of their complex and multifaceted nature. To measure these broad underlying areas more precisely, we use Item Response Theory (IRT) to combine individual survey items into global measures that capture these areas. CIRP Constructs are more than a summation of related items; IRT uses response patterns to derive construct score estimates while simultaneously giving greater weight in the estimation process to survey items that tap into the construct more directly. This results in more accurate construct scores. Constructs are particularly useful for benchmarking. They allow you to determine if the experiences and outcomes for your students differ from your comparison groups. Two sets of reports are generated for CIRP Constructs. The Mean Report shows comparative information based on the mean score of a construct. The Percentage Report shows comparative information based on the percentage of students who score in the high, average, and low score group of a construct. We suggest you use the report that best fits your needs as an institution.
Undergraduate Education Goal: Personal Development Measures the extent to which faculty believe that personal development is as central goal for undergraduate education. Total Sample University Total (n) Mean Standard Deviation Significance Effect Size 25th percentile 75th percentile
Note: Significance * p<.05, ** p<.01, *** p<.001
CIRP Construct Definition Summarizes the theoretical rationale for creating the construct. Standard Deviation Measures the variability around the mean. A small standard deviation indicates that the responses for the construct tend to be very close to the mean, whereas a large standard deviation indicates that the responses are spread over a larger range of response options. Statistical Significance Uses t-test to examine the difference between the mean construct score for your institution and the comparison group. Constructs with mean differences that are larger than would be expected by chance are noted with one, two, or three stars, which correspond to the three standard levels of significance (*p< .05, **p< .01, and ***p< .001). Statistical significance measures the extent to which a difference is occurring by chance, not the extent to which a difference is important. Large sample sizes (like those in the comparison groups) tend to generate statistical significance even though the magnitude of the difference may be small and not practically significant. In order to provide additional context to statistical significance, effect sizes are provided.
Comp 1 The first comparison group is based on your institution's type and control. Comp 2 The second comparison group is based on a similar grouping of institution type and control. Mean The arithmetic mean is computed for each CIRP Construct. The HERI Faculty Survey Constructs have been scaled to a mean of 50 and a standard deviation of 10. Effect Size Determines the practical significance of the mean difference between your institution and the comparison group. It is calculated by dividing the mean difference by the standard deviation of the comparison group. Generally, an effect size of .2 is considered small, .5 medium, and .8 large. A positive sign indicates that your institutions mean is greater than the mean of the comparison group; a negative sign indicates your mean is smaller than the mean of the comparison group. Note that a negative effect size is sometimes preferred (e.g., a negative effect size on the "Career Related Stress" CIRP Construct suggests your faculty score lower than comparison schools).
Men Comp 2 14,906 50.3 7.84 *** 0.16 45.4 55.0 Your Inst 506 53.8 8.49 48.4 58.3 Comp 1 1,603 51.8 8.29 *** 0.24 45.4 58.3 Comp 2 5,572 51.7 8.22 *** 0.26 45.4 58.3 Your Inst 861 50.3 7.25 45.4 55.0
Women Comp 1 3,426 49.2 7.51 *** 0.14 44.3 54.4 Comp 2 9,334 49.5 7.50 ** 0.10 45.0 54.4
Your Inst 1,367 51.6 7.92 45.4 57.6
Comp 1 5,029 50.1 7.86 *** 0.19 45.1 55.0
Total 75.3
UG Ed Goal: Personal Development Mean
Men 75.3
Women 75.3
57.6
58.3
58.3
58.3
55.0
55.0
55.0
54.4
54.4
51.6
45.4 45.1
50.1
45.4
50.3
53.8
48.4
51.8
45.4 45.4
51.7
50.3
45.4 44.3
49.2
45.0
49.5
35.4 Your Inst Comp 1 Comp 2
Survey items and estimation 'weights': Indicate the importance to you of each of the following education goals for undergraduate students: * Help students develop personal values (4.92) * Provide for students' emotional development (2.91) * Develop moral character (2.87) * Enhance students' self-understanding (2.65)
For more information about IRT and the CIRP Construct development process, see the CIRP Constructs Technical Report at www.heri.ucla.edu
Survey Items and Estimation "Weights" The survey items used in the creation of the CIRP Construct are presented in the order in which they contribute to the construct along with the estimation weights generated in IRT. Items that tap into a trait more effectively are given greater weight in the estimation process.
Charts Provide a visual display of relevant construct scores for your institution and two comparison groups. The Y axis is defined by the highest and lowest possible construct score. Mean scores are represented by circles. The numbers at the top and bottom of the vertical line are values for the 75th and 25th percentile.
Page 4
Student-Centered Pedagogy
Full-time Undergraduate Faculty
Student-Centered Pedagogy Measures the extent to which faculty use student-centered teaching and evaluation methods in their course instruction. Total Comp 1 4,209 48.2 9.14 0.08 42.1 54.1 Men 74.2 Student-Centered Pedagogy Mean
54.1 54.3
Dickinson State University Total (n) Mean Standard Deviation Significance Effect Size 25th percentile 75th percentile
Your Inst 59 49.0 7.62 43.7 52.1
Comp 2 13,028 48.5 8.99 0.05 42.4 54.3
Your Inst 33 48.2 7.90 43.7 51.7
Men Comp 1 2,422 46.4 8.86 0.19 40.6 52.2
Comp 2 7,266 46.8 8.80 0.16 41.1 52.4
Your Inst 26 50.0 7.28 44.7 54.3
Women Comp 1 1,787 51.2 8.83 -0.13 45.2 56.7
Comp 2 5,762 51.1 8.63 -0.13 45.1 56.6
Total 74.2 Student-Centered Pedagogy Mean
Women 74.2 Student-Centered Pedagogy Mean

54.3 56.7 56.6
52.1
51.7
52.2
52.4
49.0
43.7 42.1
48.2
42.4
48.5
48.2
43.7 40.6
46.4
41.1
46.8
50.0
44.7 45.2
51.2
45.1
51.1
Survey items and estimation 'weights': In how many of the courses that you teach do you use each of the following? * Cooperative learning (small groups) (2.30) * Reflective writing/journaling (1.37) * Student presentations (1.85) * Experiential learning/Field studies (1.30) * Group projects (1.82) * Using student inquiry to drive learning (1.26) * Class discussions (1.70) * Student-selected topics for course content (1.21) * Student evaluations of each others work (1.53) 2010-2011 Faculty Construct
Page 5
Undergraduate Education Goal: Personal Development

Full-time Undergraduate Faculty Undergraduate Education Goal: Personal Development Measures the extent to which faculty believe that personal development is a central goal for undergraduate education. Total Comp 1 4,133 46.9 8.75 *** 0.44 40.8 52.0 Men Comp 1 2,380 45.9 8.56 0.26 39.5 51.4 Women Comp 1 1,753 48.6 8.82 ** 0.63 42.0 55.2
Your Inst 59 50.8 8.13 46.7 55.8
Comp 2 12,828 47.4 8.79 ** 0.39 40.8 53.5
Your Inst 33 48.1 8.08 43.0 53.2
Comp 2 7,165 46.3 8.62 0.20 40.8 51.6
Your Inst 26 54.2 6.95 49.2 62.3
Comp 2 5,663 48.9 8.81 ** 0.59 42.8 55.3
Total 62.3 UG Ed Goal: Personal Development Mean 62.3 UG Ed Goal: Personal Development Mean
52.0 53.5
Men 62.3
53.2 51.4 51.6
Women
62.3
55.8
55.2
55.3
50.8 46.9
46.7 40.8 40.8
54.2
49.2 42.0
47.4
48.1
43.0 39.5
45.9
40.8
46.3
48.6
42.8
48.9
Page 6
Scholarly Productivity
Full-time Undergraduate Faculty Scholarly Productivity A unified measure of the scholarly activity of faculty. Total Comp 1 4,216 54.2 9.11 *** -1.12 46.7 60.9 Men Comp 1 2,423 55.6 9.04 *** -1.03 49.1 61.8 Women Comp 1 1,793 51.9 8.77 *** -1.25 46.6 57.9
Your Inst 59 43.9 7.24 38.1 48.1
Comp 2 13,034 53.8 9.22 *** -1.07 46.6 60.2
Your Inst 33 46.3 8.32 38.1 49.1
Comp 2 7,265 55.3 9.32 *** -0.97 49.1 61.6
Your Inst 26 41.0 4.09 38.1 43.4
Comp 2 5,769 51.5 8.57 *** -1.23 46.2 57.7
Total 83.9 Scholarly Productivity Mean 83.9 Scholarly Productivity Mean
Men 83.9 Scholarly Productivity Mean
Women
60.9
60.2
61.8
61.6
57.9
57.7
48.1
54.2 43.9
46.7 46.6
53.8
49.1
55.6 46.3
49.1 49.1
55.3
43.4
51.9 41.0
46.6 46.2
51.5
38.1
38.1 Your Inst
38.1
38.1 Your Inst
38.1 Comp 1 Comp 2
Comp 1
Comp 2
38.1 Your Inst
Comp 1
Comp 2
Survey items and estimation 'weights': How many of the following have you published? * Articles in academic and professional journals (3.09) * How many of your professional writings have been published or accepted for publication in the last two years (2.53) * Chapters in edited volumes (2.11)
Page 7
Civic Minded Practice

Full-time Undergraduate Faculty Civic Minded Practice A unified measure of faculty involvement in civic activities. Total Comp 1 4,216 49.8 7.97 * 0.32 43.5 55.4 Men Comp 1 2,423 49.1 7.63 ** 0.50 43.5 55.0 Women Comp 1 1,793 51.0 8.35 0.10 43.8 58.0
Your Inst 59 52.4 7.51 46.9 57.3
Comp 2 13,040 49.9 7.91 * 0.32 43.5 55.3
Your Inst 33 52.9 8.24 46.5 57.3
Comp 2 7,269 49.2 7.69 ** 0.48 43.5 55.0
Your Inst 26 51.8 6.60 47.6 54.6
Comp 2 5,771 50.9 8.13 0.12 43.8 57.3
Total 75.2 Civic Minded Practice Mean 75.2 Civic Minded Practice Mean
Men 75.2 Civic Minded Practice Mean
Women
57.3
55.4
55.3
57.3
55.0
55.0
58.0 54.6
57.3
52.4
46.9
49.8
43.5 43.5
49.9
52.9 49.1
46.5 43.5 43.5
49.2
51.8
47.6 43.8
51.0
43.8
50.9
38.3 Your Inst
38.3 Your Inst
38.3 Your Inst
Comp 1
Comp 2
Comp 1
Comp 2
Comp 1
Comp 2
Survey items and estimation 'weights': * Collaborated with the local community in research/teaching (1.87) * Do you use your scholarship to address local community needs? (1.78) * Community service as part of coursework (1.64) * Engaged in public service/professional consulting without pay? (1.51) * Community or public service (1.35) * Advised student groups involved in service/volunteer work (1.33)
Page 8
Civic Minded Values

Full-time Undergraduate Faculty Civic Minded Values A unified measure of the extent to which faculty believe civic engagement is a central part of the college mission. Total Comp 1 4,216 48.4 9.24 0.25 42.1 54.4 Men Comp 1 2,423 46.6 9.12 0.27 40.6 52.6 Women Comp 1 1,793 51.2 8.71 0.18 45.7 56.8
Your Inst 59 50.7 7.59 45.9 54.2
Comp 2 13,039 48.6 9.23 0.22 42.8 54.9
Your Inst 33 49.1 7.25 44.8 51.6
Comp 2 7,269 46.9 9.17 0.24 41.2 52.7
Your Inst 26 52.8 7.63 47.2 58.7
Comp 2 5,770 51.3 8.64 0.17 45.9 57.4
Total 68.7 Civic Minded Values Mean

54.2 54.4 54.9
Men 68.7 Civic Minded Values Mean

51.6 52.6 52.7
Women 68.7 Civic Minded Values Mean

58.7 56.8 57.4
50.7
45.9 42.1
48.4
42.8
48.6
49.1
44.8 40.6
52.8
47.2 45.7
46.6
41.2
46.9
51.2
45.9
51.3
Survey items and estimation 'weights': * Encourage students to become agents of social change (2.37) * Colleges should encourage students to be involved in community service activities (2.22) * Instill in students a commitment to community service (2.15) * Colleges should be actively involved in solving social problems (1.75) * Colleges have a responsibility to work with their surrounding communities to address local issues (1.64) * Influencing social values (1.31)
Page 9
Job Satisfaction: Workplace

Full-time Undergraduate Faculty Job Satisfaction: Workplace A unified measure of the extent to which faculty are satisfied with their working environment. Total Comp 1 4,212 49.4 8.56 -0.16 44.0 55.6 Men Comp 1 2,420 49.2 8.46 -0.05 44.0 55.6 Women Comp 1 1,792 49.7 8.72 -0.30 43.9 56.1
Your Inst 59 48.1 8.56 40.9 55.5
Comp 2 13,032 49.6 8.59 -0.18 44.0 55.9
Your Inst 33 48.8 9.10 40.9 56.2
Comp 2 7,264 49.6 8.52 -0.10 44.0 55.9
Your Inst 26 47.2 7.89 41.8 50.4
Comp 2 5,768 49.7 8.71 -0.29 44.0 56.1
Total 65.4 Job Satisfaction: Workplace Mean

55.5
Men 65.4 Job Satisfaction: Workplace Mean 49.6

44.0
Women 65.4 Job Satisfaction: Workplace Mean

50.4
55.6
55.9
56.2
55.6
55.9
56.1
56.1
48.1
40.9 44.0
49.4
48.8
40.9 44.0
49.2
44.0
49.6
47.2
41.8 43.9
49.7
44.0
49.7
Survey items and estimation 'weights': How satisfied are you with the following aspects of your job? * Professional relationships with other faculty (2.55) * Competency of colleagues (1.92) * Autonomy and independence (1.57)
* Departmental leadership (1.51) * Course assignments (1.33)
Page 10
Job Satisfaction: Compensation

Full-time Undergraduate Faculty Job Satisfaction: Compensation A unified measure of the extent to which faculty are satisfied with their compensation packages. Total Comp 1 4,212 51.6 8.24 -0.13 45.8 56.0 Men Comp 1 2,420 52.2 8.35 -0.19 46.4 56.7 Women Comp 1 1,792 50.7 7.98 -0.03 44.8 55.8
Your Inst 59 50.5 6.06 46.2 53.6
Comp 2 13,032 51.9 8.47 -0.15 45.8 56.3
Your Inst 33 50.6 6.68 45.9 55.1
Comp 2 7,264 52.6 8.59 -0.23 46.5 57.9
Your Inst 26 50.5 5.30 47.4 52.8
Comp 2 5,768 50.7 8.17 -0.04 44.9 55.9
Total 74.4 Job Satisfaction: Compensation Mean

53.6 56.0 56.3
Men 74.4 Job Satisfaction: Compensation Mean

55.1 56.7 57.9
Women 74.4 Job Satisfaction: Compensation Mean

52.8 55.8 55.9
50.5
46.2 45.8
51.6
45.8
51.9
50.6
45.9 46.4
52.2
46.5
52.6
50.5
47.4 44.8
50.7
44.9
50.7
Survey items and estimation 'weights': How satisfied are you with the following aspects of your job? * Opportunity for scholarly pursuits (2.18) * Retirement benefits (1.48) * Salary (1.40)
* Teaching load (1.27) * Job security (1.26) * Prospects for career advancement (1.25)
Page 11
Career Related Stress

Full-time Undergraduate Faculty Career Related Stress Measures the amount of stress faculty experience related to their career. Total Comp 1 4,212 51.2 7.71 -0.20 46.1 56.5 Men Comp 1 2,421 50.4 7.61 -0.09 45.1 55.7 Women Comp 1 1,791 52.5 7.68 -0.37 47.0 57.9
Your Inst 59 49.7 7.75 43.4 55.7
Comp 2 13,023 51.2 7.78 -0.20 46.1 56.6
Your Inst 33 49.7 8.61 43.4 55.7
Comp 2 7,257 50.4 7.70 -0.09 44.9 55.8
Your Inst 26 49.6 6.67 44.1 54.4
Comp 2 5,766 52.6 7.70 -0.38 47.2 57.8
Total 76.1 Career Related Stress Mean

55.7 56.5 56.6
Men 76.1 Career Related Stress Mean

55.7 55.7 55.8
Women 76.1 Career Related Stress Mean

54.4 57.9 57.8
49.7
43.4 46.1
51.2
46.1
51.2
49.7
43.4 45.1
50.4
44.9
50.4
49.6
44.1 47.0
52.5
47.2
52.6
Survey items and estimation 'weights': Please indicate the extent to which each of the following has been a source of stress for you during the last two years: * Lack of personal time (1.52) * Colleagues (1.14) * Teaching load (1.38) * Research or publishing demands (1.13) * Committee work (1.25) * Self-imposed high expectations (1.09) * Institutional procedures/red tape (1.17) * Students (1.08)
Page 12
Institutional Priority: Commitment to Diversity

Full-time Undergraduate Faculty Institutional Priority: Commitment to Diversity Measures the extent to which faculty believe their institution is committed to creating a diverse multicultural campus environment. Total Comp 1 4,182 49.9 8.74 ** 0.35 44.8 57.0 Men Comp 1 2,405 50.0 8.43 * 0.38 44.8 57.0 Women Comp 1 1,777 49.6 9.24 0.33 43.1 55.6
Your Inst 59 53.0 8.48 47.9 59.2
Comp 2 12,949 49.7 8.87 ** 0.37 44.8 56.1
Your Inst 33 53.2 8.40 49.1 58.1
Comp 2 7,221 49.9 8.58 * 0.38 44.8 57.0
Your Inst 26 52.7 8.74 46.6 59.2
Comp 2 5,728 49.3 9.28 0.36 43.1 55.4
Total 71.3 Inst Priority: Commitment to Diversity Mean

59.2 57.0 56.1
Men 71.3 Inst Priority: Commitment to Diversity Mean

58.1 57.0 57.0
Women 71.3 Inst Priority: Commitment to Diversity Mean

59.2 55.6 55.4
53.0
47.9 44.8
49.9
44.8
49.7
53.2
49.1 44.8
50.0
44.8
49.9
52.7
46.6 43.1
49.6
43.1
49.3
Survey items and estimation 'weights': Indicate how important you believe each priority listed below is at your college or university: * To create a diverse multi-cultural campus environment (3.21) * To increase the representation of minorities in the faculty and administration (3.05) * To develop an appreciation for multiculturalism (2.79)
* To recruit more minority students (2.41) * To increase the representation of women in the faculty and administration (1.76)
Page 13
Institutional Priority: Civic Engagement

Full-time Undergraduate Faculty Institutional Priority: Civic Engagement Measures the extent to which faculty believe their institution is committed to facilitating civic engagement among students and faculty. Total Comp 1 4,181 48.4 8.61 0.09 42.1 54.5 Men Comp 1 2,404 48.0 8.39 0.05 42.0 54.5 Women Comp 1 1,777 49.1 8.91 0.11 42.2 56.1
Your Inst 59 49.2 8.50 43.3 55.6
Comp 2 12,951 48.8 8.54 0.05 42.2 55.6
Your Inst 33 48.4 7.38 43.4 50.5
Comp 2 7,221 48.3 8.33 0.01 42.1 54.5
Your Inst 26 50.1 9.80 40.8 57.6
Comp 2 5,730 49.4 8.81 0.08 43.3 56.1
Total 69.6
55.6 55.6
Men 69.6 69.6
Women
Inst Priority: Civic Engagement Mean
57.6
54.5
54.5 50.5
54.5
56.1
56.1
49.2
43.3 42.1
48.4
42.2
48.8
48.4
43.4 42.0
48.0
42.1
48.3
50.1
49.1
42.2 43.3
49.4
33.9
40.8
Your Inst
Comp 1
Comp 2
Survey items and estimation 'weights': Indicate how important you believe each priority listed below is at your college or university: * To provide resources for faculty to engage in community-based teaching or research (4.27) * To create and sustain partnerships with surrounding communities (2.50) * To facilitate student involvement in community service (1.29)
Page 14
Institutional Priority: Increase Prestige

Full-time Undergraduate Faculty Institutional Priority: Increase Prestige Measures the extent to which faculty believe their institution is committed to increasing its prestige. Total Comp 1 4,185 53.0 8.28 *** -0.62 46.5 60.3 Men Comp 1 2,408 52.5 8.16 *** -0.82 46.5 60.1 Women Comp 1 1,777 53.8 8.41 * -0.39 47.9 62.3
Your Inst 59 47.9 6.85 42.3 51.0
Comp 2 12,957 52.4 8.89 *** -0.51 46.3 60.3
Your Inst 33 45.8 6.47 42.3 49.2
Comp 2 7,227 52.2 8.81 *** -0.73 46.3 60.3
Your Inst 26 50.5 6.48 46.3 53.9
Comp 2 5,730 52.6 9.01 -0.23 46.3 60.3
Total 65.0 65.0
Men 65.0
Women
62.3 53.9
Inst Priority: Increase Prestige Mean
51.0
60.3
60.3
60.1
60.3
60.3
53.0 47.9
46.5 46.3
52.4
49.2
52.5 45.8
46.5 46.3
52.2
50.5
46.3 47.9
53.8
52.6
46.3
42.3
42.3
Survey items and estimation 'weights': Indicate how important you believe each priority listed below is at your college or university: * To increase or maintain institutional prestige (3.54) * To enhance the institution's national image (3.43) * To hire faculty "stars" (1.47)
Page 15
Social Agency
Full-time Undergraduate Faculty Social Agency Measures the extent to which faculty value political and social involvement as a personal goal. Total Comp 1 4,216 49.0 8.52 * 0.33 43.4 54.7 Men Comp 1 2,423 47.9 8.43 0.28 41.9 53.5 Women Comp 1 1,793 50.8 8.37 0.35 45.1 55.5
Your Inst 59 51.8 8.98 45.8 57.2
Comp 2 13,034 49.1 8.67 * 0.31 43.4 54.7
Your Inst 33 50.2 9.11 45.9 56.2
Comp 2 7,268 48.0 8.64 0.26 41.9 53.5
Your Inst 26 53.7 8.57 45.6 59.4
Comp 2 5,766 50.8 8.45 0.35 45.1 55.9
Total 72.5 Social Agency Mean

57.2 54.7 54.7
Men 72.5 Social Agency Mean

56.2
Women 72.5 Social Agency Mean

59.4 55.5 55.9
53.5
53.5
51.8
45.8 43.4
49.0
43.4
49.1
50.2
45.9 41.9
53.7
45.6 45.1
47.9
41.9
48.0
50.8
45.1
50.8
Survey items and estimation 'weights': Indicate the importance to you personally of each of the following: * Participating in a community action program (2.32) * Becoming a community leader (1.84) * Influencing social values (1.49)
* Helping to promote racial understanding (1.40) * Keeping up to date with political affairs (1.06)
Page 16
How to Read the CIRP Construct Percentage Reports

CIRP Constructs are designed to capture the experiences and outcomes institutions are often interested in understanding, but that present a measurement challenge because of their complex and multifaceted nature. To measure these broad underlying areas more precisely, we use Item Response Theory (IRT) to combine individual survey items into global measures that capture these areas. CIRP Constructs are more than a summation of related items; IRT uses response patterns to derive construct score estimates while simultaneously giving greater weight in the estimation process to survey items that tap into the construct more directly. This results in more accurate construct scores. Constructs are particularly useful for benchmarking. They allow you to determine if the experiences and outcomes for your students differ from your comparison groups. Two sets of reports are generated for CIRP Constructs. The Mean Report shows comparative information based on the mean score of a construct. The Percentage Report shows comparative information based on the percentage of students who score in the high, average, and low score group of a construct. We suggest you use the report that best fits your needs as an institution. Undergraduate Education Goal: Personal Development Measures the extent to which faculty believe that personal development is as central goal for undergraduate education. Total Comp 1 4,996 33.2% 33.9% 32.8% *** Men Comp 1 1,586 43.0% 31.6% 25.4% *** Women Comp 1 3,410 28.7% 35.0% 36.2%
CIRP Construct Definition Summarizes the theoretical rationale for creating the construct. Comp 1 The first comparison group is based on your institution's type and control. Comp 2 The second comparison group is based on a similar grouping of institution type and control. Statistical Significance Uses a proportional difference test to examine the difference between the percentage of students in the high group for your institution and the percentage of students in the high group in the comparison group. Differences larger than what would be expected by chance are noted with one, two, or three stars, which correspond to the three standard levels of significance (*p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001). Statistical significance measures the extent to which a difference is occurring by chance, not the extent to which a difference is practically important. Large sample sizes (like those in the comparison groups) tend to generate statistical significance even though the magnitude of the difference might be small and not practically important. Page 17
Sample University Total (n) High UG Ed Goal: Personal Development Average UG Ed Goal: Personal Development Low UG Ed Goal: Personal Development Significance (based on High score group)
Your Inst 1,361 43.6% 30.3% 26.1% -
Comp 2 14,835 30.3% 39.9% 29.8% ***
Your Inst 503 59.6% 23.5% 16.9% -
Comp 2 5,527 36.7% 39.1% 24.2% ***
Your Inst 858 34.3% 34.3% 31.5% -
Comp 2 9,308 26.5% 40.4% 33.1% **
Total
100% 100%
Men
100%
Women
80%
43.6%
33.2%
30.3%
80%
43.0% 59.6%
36.7%
80%
34.3%
28.7%
26.5%
60%
60%
60%
33.9%
40%
39.9%
40%
30.3%
31.6% 23.5%
39.1%
34.3%
40%
35.0%
40.4%
20%
26.1%
0%
32.8%
29.8%
20%
20%
16.9%
0%
25.4% Comp 1
24.2%
0%
31.5%
36.2%
33.1%
Your Inst
Comp 1
Comp 2
Your Inst
Comp 2
Your Inst
Comp 1
Comp 2
For more information about IRT and the CIRP Construct development process, see the CIRP Constructs Technical Report at www.heri.ucla.edu
not practically important.
Survey Items and Estimation "Weights" The survey items used in the creation of the CIRP Construct are presented in the order in which they contribute to the construct along with the estimation weights generated in IRT. Items that tap into a trait more effectively are given greater weight in the estimation process.
Charts Provide a visual display of construct group percentages for your institution and two comparison groups. The HERI Faculty Survey Constructs have been scaled to a mean of 50 and a standard deviation of 10. Low represents faculty who scored one-half of a standard deviation below the mean (less than 45). Average represents faculty who scored within one-half of a standard deviation of the mean (45 to 55). High represents faculty who scored one-half standard deviation or more above mean (higher than 55).
Page 18
CIRP Construct Percentage Report
Student-Centered Pedagogy
Full-time Undergraduate Faculty Student-Centered Pedagogy Measures the extent to which faculty use student-centered teaching and evaluation methods in their course instruction. Total Comp 1 4,209 23.9% 40.6% 35.5% Men Comp 1 2,422 18.0% 37.8% 44.3% Women Comp 1 1,787 31.9% 44.4% 23.7%
Dickinson State University Total (n) High Student-Centered Pedagogy Average Student-Centered Pedagogy Low Student-Centered Pedagogy Significance (based on High score group)
Your Inst 59 18.6% 50.8% 30.5% -
Comp 2 13,028 25.6% 42.3% 32.1%
Your Inst 33 15.2% 51.5% 33.3% -
Comp 2 7,266 19.3% 40.6% 40.1%
Your Inst 26 23.1% 50.0% 26.9% -
Comp 2 5,762 33.7% 44.4% 21.9%
Total
100% 100%
Men 15.2%
100%
Women 19.3%
80%
18.6%
80% 60% 40% 20% 0%
23.9%
25.6%
18.0% 37.8%
23.1%
80% 60% 40%
31.9%
33.7%
50.8%
40.6%
42.3%
51.5%
40.6%
60%
50.0%
40%
44.4%
44.4%
30.5% Your Inst
35.5%
32.1% Comp 2
20% 0%
33.3% Your Inst
44.3%
40.1%
20% 0%
26.9% Your Inst
23.7% Comp 1
21.9% Comp 2
Comp 1
Comp 1
Comp 2
Survey items and estimation 'weights': In how many of the courses that you teach do you use each of the following? * Cooperative learning (small groups) (2.30) * Student presentations (1.85) * Group projects (1.82) * Class discussions (1.70) * Student evaluations of each others work (1.53)
* Reflective writing/journaling (1.37) * Experiential learning/Field studies (1.30) * Using student inquiry to drive learning (1.26) * Student-selected topics for course content (1.21)
Page 19
Undergraduate Education Goal: Personal Development

Full-time Undergraduate Faculty Undergraduate Education Goal: Personal Development Measures the extent to which faculty believe that personal development is a central goal for undergraduate education. Total Comp 1 4,133 21.9% 37.6% 40.5% Men Comp 1 2,380 17.4% 36.6% 46.0% Women Comp 1 1,753 28.1% 38.8% 33.1%
Dickinson State University Total (n) High UG Ed Goal: Personal Development Average UG Ed Goal: Personal Development Low UG Ed Goal: Personal Development Significance (based on High score group)
Your Inst 59 33.9% 42.4% 23.7% -
Comp 2 12,828 26.9% 37.1% 35.9%
Your Inst 33 21.2% 48.5% 30.3% -
Comp 2 7,165 22.9% 36.7% 40.4%
Your Inst 26 50.0% 34.6% 15.4% -
Comp 2 5,663 32.1% 37.7% 30.3%
Total
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 100%
Men
100%
Women
33.9%
21.9%
26.9%
21.2%
80% 60% 40%
17.4% 36.6%
22.9%
80%
28.1% 50.0% 38.8% 34.6% 15.4% Your Inst 33.1% Comp 1
32.1%
37.6% 42.4% 40.5%
37.1%
48.5%
36.7%
60% 40%
37.7%
23.7%
0%
35.9%
20% 0%
30.3% Your Inst
46.0%
40.4%
20% 0%
30.3% Comp 2
Your Inst
Comp 1
Comp 2
Comp 1
Comp 2
Page 20
Scholarly Productivity
Full-time Undergraduate Faculty Scholarly Productivity A unified measure of the scholarly activity of faculty. Total Comp 1 4,216 52.1% 35.5% 12.5% Men Comp 1 2,423 59.1% 30.9% 10.0% * Women Comp 1 1,793 42.6% 41.6% 15.8% -
Dickinson State University Total (n) High Scholarly Productivity Average Scholarly Productivity Low Scholarly Productivity Significance (based on High score group)
Your Inst 59 8.5% 32.2% 59.3% -
Comp 2 13,034 41.3% 41.7% 16.9%
Your Inst 33 15.2% 42.4% 42.4% -
Comp 2 7,265 48.6% 37.7% 13.7%
Your Inst 26 0.0% 19.2% 80.8% -
Comp 2 5,769 32.1% 46.8% 21.0% -
Total
100% 80% 60% 40%
Men
100%
Women
100% 80% 60% 40% 20%
8.5% 32.2% 52.1% 41.3%
15.2% 59.1% 48.6%
0.0% 19.2% 42.6%
80% 60%
32.1%
42.4%
59.3%
20% 0%
35.5% 12.5%
41.7%
40% 20%
42.4%
30.9% 10.0%
37.7%
13.7% Comp 2
80.8%
41.6%
46.8%
16.9%
0%
0%
15.8% Your Inst Comp 1
21.0% Comp 2
Your Inst
Comp 1
Comp 2
Your Inst
Comp 1
Survey items and estimation 'weights': How many of the following have you published? * Articles in academic and professional journals (3.09) * How many of your professional writings have been published or accepted for publication in the last two years (2.53) * Chapters in edited volumes (2.11)
Page 21
Civic Minded Practice

Full-time Undergraduate Faculty Civic Minded Practice A unified measure of faculty involvement in civic activities. Total Comp 1 4,216 28.5% 42.1% 29.5% Men Comp 1 2,423 24.7% 42.6% 32.6% Women Comp 1 1,793 33.5% 41.3% 25.2%
Dickinson State University Total (n) High Civic Minded Practice Average Civic Minded Practice Low Civic Minded Practice Significance (based on High score group)
Your Inst 59 32.2% 47.5% 20.3% -
Comp 2 13,040 30.1% 42.4% 27.5%
Your Inst 33 39.4% 36.4% 24.2% -
Comp 2 7,269 26.8% 43.0% 30.2%
Your Inst 26 23.1% 61.5% 15.4% -
Comp 2 5,771 34.2% 41.7% 24.2%
Total
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 100%
Men
100%
Women
32.2%
28.5%
30.1%
80% 60%
39.4%
24.7%
26.8%
23.1%
80% 60%
33.5%
34.2%
47.5%
42.1%
42.4%
40% 20%
42.6% 36.4% 32.6% Comp 1
43.0%
40% 20% 0%
61.5%
41.3%
41.7%
20.3%
0%
29.5% Comp 1
27.5% Comp 2
24.2%
0%
30.2% Comp 2
15.4% Your Inst
25.2% Comp 1
24.2% Comp 2
Your Inst
Your Inst
Survey items and estimation 'weights': * Collaborated with the local community in research/teaching (1.87) * Do you use your scholarship to address local community needs? (1.78) * Community service as part of coursework (1.64) * Engaged in public service/professional consulting without pay? (1.51) * Community or public service (1.35) * Advised student groups involved in service/volunteer work (1.33)
Page 22
Civic Minded Values

Full-time Undergraduate Faculty Civic Minded Values A unified measure of the extent to which faculty believe civic engagement is a central part of the college mission. Total Comp 1 4,216 24.3% 39.3% 36.4% Men Comp 1 2,423 18.0% 37.1% 44.9% Women Comp 1 1,793 32.8% 42.2% 25.0%
Dickinson State University Total (n) High Civic Minded Values Average Civic Minded Values Low Civic Minded Values Significance (based on High score group)
Your Inst 59 22.0% 55.9% 22.0% -
Comp 2 13,039 26.6% 40.5% 32.9%
Your Inst 33 15.2% 57.6% 27.3% -
Comp 2 7,269 20.2% 39.6% 40.2%
Your Inst 26 30.8% 53.8% 15.4% -
Comp 2 5,770 34.8% 41.5% 23.7%
Total
100% 100%
Men 15.2%
100%
Women 20.2%
80%
22.0%
80% 60%
24.3%
26.6%
18.0% 37.1%
80% 60% 40%
30.8%
32.8%
34.8%
55.9%
40% 20%
39.3%
40.5%
57.6%
39.6%
60% 40%
53.8%
42.2%
41.5%
22.0%
0%
36.4%
32.9% Comp 2
20% 0%
27.3% Your Inst
44.9%
40.2%
20% 0%
15.4% Your Inst
25.0% Comp 1
23.7% Comp 2
Your Inst
Comp 1
Comp 1
Comp 2
Survey items and estimation 'weights': * Encourage students to become agents of social change (2.37) * Colleges should encourage students to be involved in community service activities (2.22) * Instill in students a commitment to community service (2.15) * Colleges should be actively involved in solving social problems (1.75) * Colleges have a responsibility to work with their surrounding communities to address local issues (1.64) * Influencing social values (1.31)
Page 23
Job Satisfaction: Workplace

Full-time Undergraduate Faculty Job Satisfaction: Workplace A unified measure of the extent to which faculty are satisfied with their working environment. Total Comp 1 4,212 25.3% 44.0% 30.7% Men Comp 1 2,420 25.7% 44.3% 30.0% Women Comp 1 1,792 24.9% 43.6% 31.5%
Dickinson State University Total (n) High Job Satisfaction: Workplace Average Job Satisfaction: Workplace Low Job Satisfaction: Workplace Significance (based on High score group)
Your Inst 59 27.1% 37.3% 35.6% -
Comp 2 13,032 28.2% 43.1% 28.6%
Your Inst 33 36.4% 30.3% 33.3% -
Comp 2 7,264 28.7% 43.3% 28.0%
Your Inst 26 15.4% 46.2% 38.5% -
Comp 2 5,768 27.6% 43.0% 29.4%
Total
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 100%
Men
100%
Women 15.4%
27.1%
25.3%
28.2%
80% 60%
36.4%
25.7%
28.7%
80% 60%
24.9%
27.6%
37.3%
46.2%
44.0%
43.1%
40%
30.3%
44.3%
43.3%
40%
43.6%
43.0%
35.6%
30.7% Comp 1
28.6% Comp 2
20% 0%
33.3% Your Inst
30.0% Comp 1
28.0% Comp 2
20% 0%
38.5%
31.5% Comp 1
29.4% Comp 2
Your Inst
Your Inst
Survey items and estimation 'weights': How satisfied are you with the following aspects of your job? * Professional relationships with other faculty (2.55) * Competency of colleagues (1.92) * Autonomy and independence (1.57)
* Departmental leadership (1.51) * Course assignments (1.33)
Page 24
Job Satisfaction: Compensation

Full-time Undergraduate Faculty Job Satisfaction: Compensation A unified measure of the extent to which faculty are satisfied with their compensation packages. Total Comp 1 4,212 30.5% 46.2% 23.3% Men Comp 1 2,420 33.4% 45.4% 21.2% Women Comp 1 1,792 26.5% 47.4% 26.2%
Dickinson State University Total (n) High Job Satisfaction: Compensation Average Job Satisfaction: Compensation Low Job Satisfaction: Compensation Significance (based on High score group)
Your Inst 59 22.0% 62.7% 15.3% -
Comp 2 13,032 30.3% 45.9% 23.8%
Your Inst 33 27.3% 57.6% 15.2% -
Comp 2 7,264 34.3% 44.3% 21.4%
Your Inst 26 15.4% 69.2% 15.4% -
Comp 2 5,768 25.2% 47.9% 27.0%
Total
100% 100%
Men
100%
Women 15.4%
22.0%
80% 60% 40% 20% 0%
30.5%
30.3%
80% 60%
27.3%
33.4%
34.3%
80% 60%
26.5%
25.2%
62.7%
46.2%
45.9%
40% 20%
57.6%
45.4%
44.3%
69.2%
40% 20%
47.4%
47.9%
15.3% Your Inst
23.3% Comp 1
23.8%
0%
15.2% Your Inst
21.2% Comp 1
21.4%
0%
15.4% Your Inst
26.2% Comp 1
27.0% Comp 2
Comp 2
Comp 2
Survey items and estimation 'weights': How satisfied are you with the following aspects of your job? * Opportunity for scholarly pursuits (2.18) * Retirement benefits (1.48) * Salary (1.40)
* Teaching load (1.27) * Job security (1.26) * Prospects for career advancement (1.25)
Page 25
Career Related Stress

Full-time Undergraduate Faculty Career Related Stress - Measures the amount of stress faculty experience related to their career. Total Comp 1 4,212 33.1% 46.0% 20.9% Men Comp 1 2,421 28.7% 46.2% 25.1% Women Comp 1 1,791 39.1% 45.7% 15.2%
Dickinson State University Total (n) High Career Related Stress Average Career Related Stress Low Career Related Stress Significance (based on High score group)
Your Inst 59 25.4% 40.7% 33.9% -
Comp 2 13,023 32.6% 46.2% 21.2%
Your Inst 33 27.3% 39.4% 33.3% -
Comp 2 7,257 27.9% 46.7% 25.4%
Your Inst 26 23.1% 42.3% 34.6% -
Comp 2 5,766 38.6% 45.6% 15.8%
Total
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 100%
Men
100%
Women
25.4%
33.1%
32.6%
80% 60%
27.3%
28.7%
27.9%
23.1%
80% 60%
39.1%
38.6%
40.7% 46.0% 33.9% 46.2%
39.4%
40% 20%
46.2%
46.7%
40%
42.3% 45.7% 34.6% 15.2% Your Inst Comp 1 15.8% Comp 2 45.6%
20.9% Comp 1
21.2%
0%
33.3% Your Inst
25.1% Comp 1
25.4% Comp 2
20% 0%
Your Inst
Comp 2
Survey items and estimation 'weights': Please indicate the extent to which each of the following has been a source of stress for you during the last two years: * Lack of personal time (1.52) * Colleagues (1.14) * Teaching load (1.38) * Research or publishing demands (1.13) * Committee work (1.25) * Self-imposed high expectations (1.09) * Institutional procedures/red tape (1.17) * Students (1.08)
Page 26
Institutional Priority: Commitment to Diversity

Full-time Undergraduate Faculty Institutional Priority: Commitment to Diversity Measures the extent to which faculty believe their institution is committed to creating a diverse multicultural campus environment. Total Comp 1 4,182 26.8% 35.7% 37.5% Men Comp 1 2,405 27.3% 37.2% 35.5% Women Comp 1 1,777 26.2% 33.6% 40.2%
Dickinson State University Total (n) High Institutional Priority: Commitment to Diversity Average Institutional Priority: Commitment to Diversity Low Institutional Priority: Commitment to Diversity Significance (based on High score group)
Your Inst 59 39.0% 49.2% 11.9% -
Comp 2 12,949 27.0% 36.3% 36.7%
Your Inst 33 39.4% 48.5% 12.1% -
Comp 2 7,221 26.6% 37.2% 36.2%
Your Inst 26 38.5% 50.0% 11.5% -
Comp 2 5,728 27.5% 35.1% 37.3%
Total
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 100%
Men
100%
Women
39.0%
26.8%
27.0%
80% 60% 40%
39.4%
27.3%
26.6%
80% 60% 40%
38.5%
26.2%
27.5%
35.7% 49.2% 37.5% 11.9% Your Inst Comp 1
36.3%
37.2% 48.5% 35.5% 12.1% Your Inst Comp 1
37.2%
33.6% 50.0%
35.1%
36.7%
20% 0%
36.2%
20% 0%
40.2%
11.5% Your Inst Comp 1
37.3%
Comp 2
Comp 2
Comp 2
Survey items and estimation 'weights': Indicate how important you believe each priority listed below is at your college or university: * To create a diverse multi-cultural campus environment (3.21) * To increase the representation of minorities in the faculty and administration (3.05) * To develop an appreciation for multiculturalism (2.79)
* To recruit more minority students (2.41) * To increase the representation of women in the faculty and administration (1.76)
Page 27
Institutional Priority: Civic Engagement

Full-time Undergraduate Faculty Institutional Priority: Civic Engagement Measures the extent to which faculty believe their institution is committed to facilitating civic engagement among students and faculty. Total Comp 1 4,181 24.4% 43.7% 31.9% Men Comp 1 2,404 22.1% 45.3% 32.6% Women Comp 1 1,777 27.6% 41.6% 30.8%
Dickinson State University Total (n) High Institutional Priority: Civic Engagement Average Institutional Priority: Civic Engagement Low Institutional Priority: Civic Engagement Significance (based on High score group)
Your Inst 59 25.4% 44.1% 30.5% -
Comp 2 12,951 28.9% 44.3% 26.8%
Your Inst 33 18.2% 51.5% 30.3% -
Comp 2 7,221 26.6% 45.6% 27.8%
Your Inst 26 34.6% 34.6% 30.8% -
Comp 2 5,730 31.8% 42.8% 25.4%
Total
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 100%
Men
100%
Women
25.4%
24.4%
28.9%
18.2%
80% 60%
22.1%
26.6%
80% 60%
34.6%
27.6%
31.8%
44.1%
43.7%
44.3%
40% 20% 0%
51.5%
45.3%
45.6%
40%
34.6%
41.6%
42.8%
30.5% Your Inst
31.9% Comp 1
26.8%
Comp 2
30.3% Your Inst
32.6% Comp 1
27.8% Comp 2
20% 0%
30.8% Your Inst
30.8% Comp 1
25.4% Comp 2
Survey items and estimation 'weights': Indicate how important you believe each priority listed below is at your college or university: * To provide resources for faculty to engage in community-based teaching or research (4.27) * To create and sustain partnerships with surrounding communities (2.50) * To facilitate student involvement in community service (1.29)
Page 28
Institutional Priority: Increase Prestige

Full-time Undergraduate Faculty Institutional Priority: Increase Prestige Measures the extent to which faculty believe their institution is committed to increasing its prestige. Total Comp 1 4,185 38.5% 39.7% 21.7% Men Comp 1 2,408 35.8% 41.7% 22.5% Women Comp 1 1,777 42.3% 37.0% 20.7%
Dickinson State University Total (n) High Institutional Priority: Increase Prestige Average Institutional Priority: Increase Prestige Low Institutional Priority: Increase Prestige Significance (based on High score group)
Your Inst 59 11.9% 52.5% 35.6% -
Comp 2 12,957 31.8% 38.7% 29.5%
Your Inst 33 6.1% 48.5% 45.5% -
Comp 2 7,227 30.2% 39.9% 29.8%
Your Inst 26 19.2% 57.7% 23.1% -
Comp 2 5,730 33.8% 37.1% 29.1%
Total
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%
Men
100%
Women
100%
11.9% 38.5% 52.5% 39.7% 35.6% 38.7% 31.8%
6.1% 35.8% 48.5%
80% 60% 40% 20% 0%
30.2%
19.2%
80% 60%
42.3%
57.7%
33.8%
41.7%
45.5% 22.5% Your Inst Comp 1
39.9%
40% 20%
37.0% 23.1%
37.1%
21.7% Comp 1
29.5% Comp 2
29.8% Comp 2
20.7% Comp 1
29.1% Comp 2
0%
Your Inst
Your Inst
Survey items and estimation 'weights': Indicate how important you believe each priority listed below is at your college or university: * To increase or maintain institutional prestige (3.54) * To enhance the institution's national image (3.43) * To hire faculty "stars" (1.47)
Page 29
Social Agency
Full-time Undergraduate Faculty Social Agency Measures the extent to which faculty value political and social involvement as a personal goal. Total Comp 1 4,216 24.0% 46.1% 30.0% Men Comp 1 2,423 20.3% 44.0% 35.7% Women Comp 1 1,793 28.9% 48.8% 22.3%
Dickinson State University Total (n) High Social Agency Average Social Agency Low Social Agency Significance (based on High score group)
Your Inst 59 37.3% 44.1% 18.6% -
Comp 2 13,034 25.8% 45.8% 28.3%
Your Inst 33 30.3% 51.5% 18.2% -
Comp 2 7,268 21.6% 45.5% 32.8%
Your Inst 26 46.2% 34.6% 19.2% -
Comp 2 5,766 31.1% 46.3% 22.7%
Total
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 100%
Men
100%
Women
37.3%
24.0%
25.8%
80% 60%
30.3%
20.3%
21.6%
80%
46.2%
28.9%
31.1%
46.1% 44.1% 30.0% Comp 1
45.8%
40% 20%
44.0% 51.5% 35.7%
45.5%
60% 40%
48.8% 34.6% 19.2% 22.3% Comp 1
46.3%
18.6%
0%
28.3% Comp 2
18.2%
0%
32.8% Comp 2
20%
22.7% Comp 2
0%
Your Inst
Your Inst
Comp 1
Your Inst
Survey items and estimation 'weights': Indicate the importance to you personally of each of the following: * Participating in a community action program (2.32) * Becoming a community leader (1.84) * Influencing social values (1.49)
* Helping to promote racial understanding (1.40) * Keeping up to date with political affairs (1.06)
Office of Institutional Research and Planning

OIRP-7-23-11 (SJS) Telephone (701) 483-2984 2010-2011 Faculty Construct Page 30

DSU 2010-2011 Faculty Construct Report

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

DSU 2010-2011 Faculty Construct Report

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

2010-11 HERI Faculty Survey

CIRP Construct Reports

Dickinson State University

2010-11 HERI Faculty Survey

CIRP Construct Mean Report

2010-2011 Faculty Construct

2010-11 HERI FacultySurvey Overall Web Response Report

Returns Returns Returns Saved Submitted Opted Out

2010-2011 Faculty Construct

How to Read the CIRP Construct Mean Reports

Your Inst 1,367 51.6 7.92 45.4 57.6

Comp 1 5,029 50.1 7.86 *** 0.19 45.1 55.0

35.4 Your Inst Comp 1 Comp 2

35.4 Your Inst Comp 1 Comp 2

35.4 Your Inst Comp 1 Comp 2

2010-2011 Faculty Construct

2010-11 HERI Faculty Survey

CIRP Construct Mean Report

Your Inst 59 49.0 7.62 43.7 52.1

Comp 2 13,028 48.5 8.99 0.05 42.4 54.3

Your Inst 33 48.2 7.90 43.7 51.7

Men Comp 1 2,422 46.4 8.86 0.19 40.6 52.2

Comp 2 7,266 46.8 8.80 0.16 41.1 52.4

Your Inst 26 50.0 7.28 44.7 54.3

Women Comp 1 1,787 51.2 8.83 -0.13 45.2 56.7

Comp 2 5,762 51.1 8.63 -0.13 45.1 56.6

Total 74.2 Student-Centered Pedagogy Mean

Women 74.2 Student-Centered Pedagogy Mean

24.8 Your Inst Comp 1 Comp 2

24.8 Your Inst Comp 1 Comp 2

24.8 Your Inst Comp 1 Comp 2

2010-11 HERI Faculty Survey

CIRP Construct Mean Report

Undergraduate Education Goal: Personal Development

Your Inst 59 50.8 8.13 46.7 55.8

Comp 2 12,828 47.4 8.79 ** 0.39 40.8 53.5

Your Inst 33 48.1 8.08 43.0 53.2

Comp 2 7,165 46.3 8.62 0.20 40.8 51.6

Your Inst 26 54.2 6.95 49.2 62.3

Comp 2 5,663 48.9 8.81 ** 0.59 42.8 55.3

UG Ed Goal: Personal Development Mean

26.2 Your Inst Comp 1 Comp 2

26.2 Your Inst Comp 1 Comp 2

26.2 Your Inst Comp 1 Comp 2

2010-2011 Faculty Construct

2010-11 HERI Faculty Survey

CIRP Construct Mean Report

Your Inst 59 43.9 7.24 38.1 48.1

Comp 2 13,034 53.8 9.22 *** -1.07 46.6 60.2

Your Inst 33 46.3 8.32 38.1 49.1

Comp 2 7,265 55.3 9.32 *** -0.97 49.1 61.6

Your Inst 26 41.0 4.09 38.1 43.4

Comp 2 5,769 51.5 8.57 *** -1.23 46.2 57.7

Total 83.9 Scholarly Productivity Mean 83.9 Scholarly Productivity Mean

Men 83.9 Scholarly Productivity Mean

38.1 Comp 1 Comp 2

38.1 Your Inst

2010-2011 Faculty Construct

2010-11 HERI Faculty Survey

CIRP Construct Mean Report

Civic Minded Practice

Your Inst 59 52.4 7.51 46.9 57.3

Comp 2 13,040 49.9 7.91 * 0.32 43.5 55.3