Faculty Co-designer Contributions
Faculty co-designer contributions helped the team validate the direction the project was headed. It also helped the team to refine the FD space functionality, and pathway development so that they were more likely to be perceived as interesting and valuable pursuits to all faculty within the Northern Ontario University Alliance.
Elements of data gathered from faculty co-designers – A top ten list
Element # |
Element description |
Element usage |
Stage of data gathering |
1 |
background/context |
To sort data gathered from usageTo report on any patterns forming from usage by years previous experiences |
1: questionnaire |
2 |
‘Common’ approaches to development |
To see if reproducing these connected to passport has pos effect on ‘uptake’ |
1: questionnaire |
3 |
Specific expectation of Uni/employer |
To learn about practices/supports that will be well receivedTo validate current offerings aligned to expectations so adjustments can be made |
1: questionnaire |
4 |
Motivating factors that have faculty prioritize T&L development (in relation to other priorities) |
To learn about practices/supports that will be well receivedTo validate current practices/communications aligned to these factors so adjustments can be made |
2: focus group |
5 |
Feedback on Passport chosen ‘top levels’ (rockstar) of development pathways (finishlines) to determine validity/ and value |
To adjust final pathways so they reflect motivation, expectations, and value to co-designersTo compare to leadership strategic ‘top level’ development categories |
2: focus group |
6 |
gathering/brainstorming development areas of personal interest to each co-designer |
To create patterns from individual contributions |
1: questionnaire |
7 |
Feedback on functionality of system built in draft |
First impressions, compared to long term use to determine marketing, and job aids for other faculty |
3: system use & journalling |
8 |
Analytic data on use of the system |
Frequency of ‘acceptance’ of the system oas designed |
3: system use & journalling |
9 |
Reflective feedback from use of the system |
To report on initial ‘value’ of system to usersTo identify, and implement refinements to system prior to wide spred use |
3: system use & journalling |
10 |
NOUA previous study reports provided by alliance members |
0: backgroundin |
Highlights from questionnaire contributions
- when sharing the draft map/paths it was stated that language used for the badge ‘levels’ can be mis-interpreted
- indigenization and equity within one pathway was flagged [whether these can/should be combined or should follow separate paths]
- faculty are open to many methods of developing self since covid though a return to campus for our students implied that tech-enabled development areas are now less necessary
- general descriptive language is important to the interpretation of ‘stations’ in the draft maps/pathway shared
- faculty invest a lot of time in their development (both formal and i