Download 2. Access Database - Reporting

Creating a Faculty Activity
Database: Three Practical
Solutions and a Wish List
Chris Fastnow ([email protected])
Montana State University
Abstract
Faculty activity and productivity are gaining attention as calls for
accountability in higher education get louder. A central database with
information on faculty instructional, research, creative, and service
activities offers decision makers and those who support them access to
quick, accurate, and consistent information on faculty activity.
However, collecting and reporting that information presents a
logistical hurdle that most central data management systems have not
yet addressed. I will discuss a wish list for a faculty activity database
tool and our campus's experiences with three methods that we have
used to collect and access information on faculty activity: a simple
Excel-based survey, an Access database with a web interface
developed by our IT professionals, and a hierarchical database system
with a web-based or desktop user interface developed by members of
our faculty. Each has benefits and drawbacks for both the faculty
member and the IR office, but all provide workable solutions to a
difficult data collection task.
Content Warning
 Shameless Plug Alert
 Downer Alert
Requisite Road Map
 Why develop a Faculty
Activity Database
 Wish List
 Three approaches to
collecting the data
 Conclusion
Why Develop a Faculty
Activity Database







Accountability
Decision support
Benchmarking
Annual reviews
Centralized response capacity
Expertise list
Marketing
Why Develop a Faculty
Activity Database
 Benefits of centralized collection
 Common definitions
 Credible data
 Single intrusion
 Drawbacks
 Faculty resistance
 Getting the right tool
Why Develop a Faculty
Activity Database
Convincing Faculty
 Decrease burden on Faculty
 Easy annual review reporting
 Avoids duplication of effort
 Decrease burden on department heads
 Single format for annual reviews
 Single request for information
 Eases reporting requirements to central
administration
Wish List
Data Collection Tool






Web based
Flexible survey design/modification
Error checks and easy interface
Secure login
Detailed data
Rollover of some data from year to year
Wish List
Analysis/Reporting Tool
 Web based
 Secure login with differential access to
data
 Dynamic querying
 Keyword searching
 Canned reports – individual annual review
report, discipline Delaware Survey report
Three Tools
1. University of Delaware’s FIPSE-funded
Faculty Out-of-Classroom Activity Study
Excel-based questionnaire
2. Access database with web interface
3. NeuroSys hierarchical database with web
interface
1. Excel Questionnaire
Faculty Questionnaire
1. Excel Questionnaire
Department Summary
1. Excel Questionnaire
We edit file, send to
Deans (annual review
cycle)
Deans send to
department heads
Department heads
send to faculty
U Del IR Office sends
file to us
Faculty respond,
return to department
heads
We create reports
Department heads
tally responses, send
to us (and Deans)
1. Excel Questionnaire
Benefits





Easy for end users
Standardized
Flexible across units
Conforms to U Del’s protocol
Simple to tally across the university
1. Excel Questionnaire
Drawbacks




Too many steps
Extra work for department head
Uneven interpretation
Loss of specific information
2. Access Database - Collection
2. Access Database - Collection
2. Access Database - Reporting
2. Access Database - Reporting
Delaware question asks for total
undergraduate advisees by
department…
2. Access Database - Reporting
…but we want to know whom faculty
advised. No other central source for
this information.
2. Access Database - Reporting
Want to know who has papers,
articles, books, or grants on math
teachers?
2. Access Database - Reporting
Details, by type of research output,
within the College of Education,
Health, and Human Development
2. Access Database
Benefits
 Fairly easy web interface
 Definitions readily available → more
consistent data
 More detail
 Query capacity
2. Access Database
Drawbacks





User error
Difficult to modify for subgroups
Scalability over time and users
Separate databases (security)
Querying limited to Access users
3. NeuroSys - Design
3. NeuroSys - Collection
3. NeuroSys - Reporting
3. NeuroSys
Benefits




Web interface
Flexible, customizable
Secure
“Ground floor opportunity”
3. NeuroSys
Drawbacks





Still developing
Faculty resistance
User error
Labor intensive
Lacks on-the-fly reporting
Wish List: Collection
Excel
Web based entry
Flexible
Access
NeuroSys
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
Dummy-proof
Secure login
Detailed data
Rollover data
√
Wish List: Reporting
Excel
Access
NeuroSys
√
√
√
Web-based reporting
Secure/differential
access
√
√
Dynamic querying
Keyword searching
Canned reports
√
√
√
Next Steps for Us
 Limited NeuroSys build-up
 RFP with my wish list
Challenges Across Methods
 Developing useful questionnaires
 Creating a culture where faculty
update data regularly
 Distribution of responsibility for
hosting, funding – colleges, ITC,
central administration
 Benchmark data
Want to see more?
 University of Delaware’s Institutional Research and
Planning
www.udel.edu/IR/fipse/index.html
 Access-Based Demo Site
www2.montana.edu/ehhd/demo
ID = msudelaware
Password = workload
 NeuroSys Demo Site
neurosys.cns.montana.edu
ID = guest
Password = guest
 Nth-Degree Analytics survey/reporting tool demo
www.nth-degree.com/demo