Faculty Survey - Fall 2016

Survey Interpretation
Survey Text
Survey Results
Other Surveys

Survey Interpretation

Computer Lab Management (CLM) periodically surveys faculty who teach in our computer classrooms. CLM uses this information to improve the quality of service in the computer classrooms.

The survey results(especially questions #2, #6 and #7) show that overall faculty are quite happy with the computer classrooms. However, there were several questions and/or concerns raised by faculty so CLM will follow up on these items:

  • There were concerns about the projection screen covering the whiteboard. In Summer 2016 we replaced the projector in 2020 & 2060 SciLab with two large TVs which then avoided the whiteboard being covered. The feedback has been mostly positive so we will investigate if a similar change is possible in other classrooms.
  • One instrctor mentioned that the projection controls are better in SCC and Olson that in Hutchison. We are planning to upgrade the projection systems in the three Hutchison classrooms to match the other classrooms in Summer 2017.
  • There were several concerns about the layout of the desks. Currently several rooms have design trade-offs which make some aspect of teaching in the room problematic. We are always looking for feedback from faculty to improve the design of our rooms. For future renovations CLM will investigate alternative room layouts.

Survey Text

On 11/29/2016 Computer Lab Management sent an email to faculty who had taught in the computer rooms during Fall 2016 asking them to fill out this survey.

Survey Results

There were 24 responses.

Question 2. Please rate the following aspects of our services:

  Needs significant improvement Needs some improvement Needs little or no improvement No opinion
Classroom availability (able to reserve times needed) 1 1 17 5
Support from computer lab managers 0 0 20 4
Support from the Computer Room Consultant (CRC) 0 0 18 5
Preparedness of the classroom (room cleared out, whiteboard supplies, etc.) 0 4 24 0
Equipment reliability 1 1 22 0
Computer speed and usability 0 4 20 0
Classroom interruptions 0 2 22 0
Larger classrooms (to accommodate more students) 1 4 16 3
Larger classrooms (to allow more workspace at each station) 0 4 18 2
Smaller classrooms 1 1 15 7
Temperature control (room was too hot or too cold) 0 3 19 2
Cleanliness of the classroom 0 3 21 0
Classroom environment (for example: quieter, better layout) - Please specify below 1 4 18 1
Other - Please specify below 2 2 4 5

Classroom environment and Other reasons:

  • Everything worked well in the classroom. The layout was a bit tricky for keeping the students focused. Is there any way I could put the students' computers on pause while we are doing something else in the classroom? Also, it would be nice to have an overhead projector available at times. (21 Olson)
  • The latest version of Excel is a pain. Not only is the interface loaded with nonsense (while obscuring choices it emphasizes "suggested choices") but all of this baggage makes the program run slower. Any chance of going back.
  • The fan can be rather loud in that room. And it can get hot. (90B Shields)
  • The classroom was a tremendous help overall. There are only three ways the equipment or environment could have arguably been improved. For some reason we occasionally had difficulty with both the sound and the projector. The sound sometimes was needed and I could not figure out how to turn it on. Occasionally the projector would not move from laptop to computer, so we could not see my screen.. Not sure why. The lab tech was able to solve the projector problem, but not the sound problem. Also, on the days when we wanted to have small group discussions, it was a little difficult for students to hear themselves in small groups due to the noise. On one day, six students stepped out to converse in the hall so that they can hear one another. ( forgive formatting oddities. Phone.)
  • Pest control: there are cockroaches in the labs, which sends the students into a panic. (21 Olson)
  • My only complaint is that I reserved the room for after the building was closed, so one of the days it took us about 15 minutes to get into the building. That was frustrating. Other than that, the experience was incredibly positive! (73 Hutchison)
  • The screen and boards are not set up to allow for teacher movement. When the screen was down, I lost 60% of the board space; if I wanted to stand in front of the classroom I was directly in the line of the projector. I was blinded by the light and my silhouette blocked the information on the screen. Such an arrangement ended up confining me to a small corner of the room behind the teacher computer, which isn't good for inclusive, welcoming pedagogy. It stifled discussion at times, and I had to fight against my classroom arrangement in order to facilitate discussion among more than just the front row of students. (73 Hutchison)
    Additionally, the computer classrooms don't allow much flexibility for teachers of writing. The students certainly appreciate being able to access writing tools and the internet at all times, but because they are each tied to a workspace, it's very difficult for them to speak to their classmates or work in groups when the class plan requires that. Rather than allowing them to look at and talk to each other, the individual computer workstations draw their attention to the computer and away from their peers (and often away from the professor). I was able to overcome some of this, and my excellent group of students worked around the classroom design, but the class arrangement didn't lend itself to composition pedagogy.
    This is perhaps a scheduling problem more than the fault of classroom design: I'm not sure why writing classes are scheduled in computer classrooms. Ideally, mobile workstations would solve a lot of these problems!
  • Availability of software needs improvement. For my class we used two major programs, one of which was installed without a valid license. This meant the program (rhinoceros) stopped working midway through the quarter and students were unable to save their projects until the licenses were renewed. Many students lost work and office hours had to be moved to another computer lab while the problem persisted.
  • Really liked having support from the Computer Room Consultants. Also very much appreciated the short orientation before the quarter started, to learn how the projector, screen and lights worked. Overall a great room to teach in!
  • (Note: This applies to Olson 1, 27, and 241.) I wish I could use the computer display and still have a large swath of white board available for writing. The display covers the entire center, leaving only the far corners of the white board, which can't be seen by students sitting near the front at the opposite side of room.
    Also, having board/screen against same wall as the door means late arrivals frequently have to walk in front of the screen to get to their seats.

Question 3. How would you rate your overall experience teaching in CLM Computer Classrooms this quarter compared with previous quarters?

Better 2
Same 9
Worse 3
N/A 9

"Better" Reasons given: