Linda Chiang, Ed.D. David Colachico, Ph.D. Azusa Pacific University Azusa, California

1. Linda Chiang, Ed.D.David Colachico, Ph.D.Azusa Pacific UniversityAzusa, California FACULTY DECISION-MAKING REGARDINGNT INTERNAL GRANTS: DOES MONEY MATTER? 2012 WASC Academic Resource Conference (ARC) Costa Mesa, California April 18-20, 2012

2. Mission Statement The Office of Faculty Development provides professional development opportunities for all faculty to prepare them for their educational roles by facilitating their learning of knowledge, skills, and attitudes relevant to the various settings within the schools and colleges of APU. Office of Faculty Development

3. to ascertain trends of the use and applications of the Internal Creative Teaching Grant (CTG) in the past 5 years • to examine these trends and investigate reasons why faculty apply/do not apply for the internal CTG offered by the Office of Faculty Development • to provide results for future policy decision making to Faculty Development Office (FDO) Purpose of the study

4. Teaching effectiveness • Mentoring • Technology Conceptual Framework

5. Survey developed and disseminated to over 200 randomly chosen faculty (44%) • Included above the sample numbers were 52 faculty (26%) who were identified as having applied for a CTG in the past 5 years. • Results were examined to determine trends and reasons for making a decision to apply/ not apply for a CTG Methodology

6. Zoomerang.com was used to develop the survey Methods (cont’d)

7. Demographics • 95 faculty responded (48% return rate) • College of Liberal Arts and Sciences (27%); Nursing (19%); and Education (18%) • 38% have taught at APU for 4-8 years Results

8. 74% responded they applied for a CTG for extra Financial Support • 52% purchased teaching equipment with monies provided by CTG • 36% hired student assistants with monies provided Results (cont’d)

9. Recipients’ Reports • 86% stated the project enriched classroom activities • 32% stated the experience refreshed their teaching spirit • 27% stated that they changed their teaching style as a result of completing the grant project Results (cont’d)

10. Areas of Greatest Support Needed • Unit released time for faculty research and development • Training and support for online teaching • Peer-to-peer mentoring • Idea exchange with colleagues Results (cont’d)

11. The faculty who received grant awards have made good use of the funding to enrich their teaching activities • Extra support is needed for training and writing grants • Areas of needed support include: a forum for exchanging ideas; technology training Conclusions

12. A follow-up study is needed adding focus groups • Exploration is needed to further understanding of faculty financial support and teaching effectiveness • Dissemination of study results is needed with administration • Workshops are needed to provide a variety of ways to orient faculty for grant writing including 1-on-1 mentoring • Forums need to be created for recipients to share their projects and results Discussion/Further Study

13. Adedokun, O. A., Dyehouse, M., Bessenbacher, A., & Burgess, W. D. (2010). Exploring faculty perceptions of the benefits and challenges of mentoring undergraduate research. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. Denver, CO. • Moss, J. (Nov 2010). A partnership in induction and mentoring: noticing how we improve our practice. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 35(7), 43-53. • Wise, A. (2011). Supporting future faculty in developing their teaching practices: an exploration of communication networks among graduate teaching assistants. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 23(2), 135-149. • Wortmann, K., Cavanaugh, C., Kennedy, K., Beldarrain, Y., Letourneau, T., & Zygouris-Coe, V. (2008). Online Teacher Support Programs: Mentoring and Coaching Models. Vienna, Virginia: International Association for K-12 Online Learning. Sample References

14. Questions? lchiang@apu.edudcolachico@apu.edu