SIGCSE-LIBARTS-COMM Archives

SIGCSE-LIBARTS-COMM

SIGCSE-LIBARTS-COMM@LISTSERV.ACM.ORG

Options: Use Classic View

Use Monospaced Font
Show HTML Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Amanda Holland-Minkley <[log in to unmask]>
Tue, 16 Jan 2018 18:02:05 +0000
text/plain (11 kB) , text/html (24 kB)
As promised below, I've got ahead and worked up a Qualtrics survey based on the feedback you all provided. You can view the survey at the following link:



https://washjeff.co1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_3rASQI6L2M6UB1P



I'll go ahead and clear any submitted responses before sending this out to the full SIGCSE list so feel free to play around with the survey as you like. One note, the yes/no question about whether you've had an opportunity to represent the liberal arts computing perspective (question 6) has a conditional next question for if the response is yes, so you might want to select "Yes" before going on to the next page to review that wording as well.



Let me know if you can think of any additional changes or additions we should include. If we send this out in the next week or so, that should let us give people a couple of weeks to respond and still be able to look at the results before SIGCSE'18 and perhaps let Doug incorporate them into the special session.



Thanks,

Amanda



From: Amanda Holland-Minkley

Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2017 1:23 PM

To: [log in to unmask]

Subject: RE: Draft survey on providing voice for liberal arts computing education



Thanks for the additional input Angela, Megan, and Madeline - a few replies to all three messages here.



Regarding Megan's question here about intent, the high-level goal is to get information about what people mean when they say they think it would be helpful for a permanent group to be a voice for liberal arts computing. We have a general sense from discussion on this list and the sessions held at SIGCSE last year that there is a desire for this to be part of a permanent group's charge, but while we have some good detailed information about the types of internally-facing support a permanent group would provide (data sharing, collaboration, etc.) there is less detail for our final report on what the external "voice" role of the permanent group might look like.



So, breaking this down by question, I thought our goals would be:

- Who do we want as the audience for this voice? This is addressed through the broad question that just literally asks this.

- Do what degree are these conversations already taking place in an ad hoc manner? This is addressed through asking about who people are already talking to - I think I can reorder the questions to make this flow better.

- Demographic questions: Contextualize answers based on type of relationship with liberal arts computing



Right now, I think our goal is to understand the breadth of what a permanent group *might* do, but not necessarily to set priorities or be able to tease out specifically what messages might go to what groups. Rather, the goal is to get some broad data for a final report that can back up our assertion that there is sufficient demand for a "voice" like this and enough work to be done in that role that it makes sense for a group to exist to supply that voice.





On the details side then:

I can definitely add a definition of how we are considering "liberal arts computing" to the top of the survey as well as in the email when we send out the link. I'll go back into our two special session proposals and extract something from there.



And, yes, I did have an error under the third question where the option should be "If yes" not "If no" - thanks to Angela and a few other people who spotted that for me off list!



For the demographic questions, I can move them to the top, per Angela's recommendation that that will help faculty know that "No" and "None" are acceptable answers and they are still welcome to continue completing the survey. I will be using Qualtrics so I'll follow Madeline's tip that I can add open-ended text to the selections about their relationships to liberal arts computing to request institution names as well.





I'm just wrapping up my grading obligations for the term, so I'm going to suggest that as a next step I'll actually start assembling the Qualtrics survey based on this feedback so we can start seeing a draft as it would appear. That will likely aid with a next round of revisions.



Thanks again, all, and I hope you are also wrapping up your semesters well!

Amanda



Dr. Amanda M. Holland-Minkley

Professor, Computing and Information Studies

Washington & Jefferson College



From: SIGCSE-LIBARTS-COMM [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Megan Olsen

Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2017 2:50 PM

To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>

Subject: Re: Draft survey on providing voice for liberal arts computing education



Hi Amanda,



Do we know exactly what we hope to learn from each aspect of the survey, to help guide us in how the survey is formed? If the goal is just to determine likely audiences, you probably need fewer questions. But I think our goals are probably broader.



I wonder about the current first question, and if we want a rating instead of a checkbox? I think it depends on what we hope to learn from each question. For the first question I would check off almost all of them, but some are much more common than others. Do we care about the level of commonality, or just that it has been done? What do we learn from finding out conversations people have?



Similarly, do we care if people are on the "telling about" versus "being told about" end of that conversation? Current survey may not make this distinction clear.



And finally, on the second question I can see many people believing that quite a few are important, but we currently have no way to tease out the level of importance. Should we instead ask for top three? Or have a follow up question asking which of those chosen are their top three choices, so we can also get all of them? If most people check all options on the current question, we haven't gained any help in focusing.



Thanks,

Megan



Associate Professor, Computer Science

Loyola University Maryland



On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 2:06 PM, Angela Berardinelli <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:

Hello, everyone,



My two cents...



To address Madeline's concern, perhaps we can include the definition of "liberal arts computing" that the committee came up with at the top of the survey to help respondents understand what we mean?  Or at least include it in the email when we send out the link?



I think the last two questions should be moved to the beginning as the first two questions, to help the survey respondent put the rest of the questions into context.  It would also let them know that answering "None" to their involvement in liberal arts computing is okay, but we still want their input on the subsequent questions.



Should the option for elaboration under the third question say "If yes..." instead of "If no..."?  Or am I misunderstanding the question?



Thanks,

Angela







----------------------------------------------------



Angela Berardinelli, PhD



----------------------------------------------------



Assistant Professor



Department of Mathematics and Information Technology



Mercyhurst University



----------------------------------------------------



E-mail:       [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>



Direct Line:  814-824-2421<tel:814-824-2421>



Website:      math.mercyhurst.edu/~aberardine<http://math.mercyhurst.edu/~aberardine>



Office:       Old Main Tower 403



Mail:         501 East 38th Street



              Erie, PA 16546



----------------------------------------------------





On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 8:02 AM Madeline E. Smith <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:

Hi Amanda (& everyone else),



The phrasing of "liberal arts computing educator/education" seems potentially confusing. Are we interested in educators/education at liberal arts institutions?



I suggest separating the last two questions. People may not consider themselves to be involved but fit into one of those categories, and that could be useful to know.



We might also add the option to enter the name(s) of institutions when someone checks off a relationship type. Would help us to get more information about the types of institutions that people consider to be liberal arts.



-Madeline



--

Madeline E. Smith

Computer Science, Colgate University

www.colgate.edu/mesmith<http://www.colgate.edu/mesmith>







On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 10:58 AM, Amanda Holland-Minkley <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:

Following on Doug's recent distribution of the final document for the SIGCSE 2018 special session, we discussed as a group over the summer that one of the places we could use some more information is about the type of voice a permanent group might provide for liberal arts computing so we can better understand that need.



I've drafted a very short survey that we could send to the sigcse-members list. I thought about the goals of the survey as understanding likely audiences and likely messaging for whatever voice a permanent group might provide. I tried to keep it mostly closed questions to make it easier to complete and easier to analyze.



I've included that text below to get some feedback. Suggestions both about structure and if the set of questions seems complete as well as wording suggestions or additions to the lists of options are all welcome. I'm hoping this is a starting point you can all help improve.



Best,

Amanda





Draft Survey to SIGCSE Mailing List



The SIGCSE Committee on Computing Education in the Liberal Arts has been working to identify any distinctive needs of liberal arts computing educators. We have gathered evidence that the liberal arts computing community would benefit from a permanent group that would support collaboration and information sharing within the community. There is also some evidence that a permanent group could provide a useful voice for liberal arts computing to external audiences. This survey seeks to gather additional information on this need.



What audiences have you most engaged in discussing or advocating for liberal arts computing?

[CHECK ALL THAT APPLY]

__ Current students and their families

__ Prospective students and their families

__ Potential employers of students/graduates

__ Graduate programs

__ Funding agencies

__ Educational policy groups

__ Faculty and staff at your own institution

__ Computer science faculty at other institutions

__ Media

__ Other: _____

__ None



Which audiences would most benefit from having access to an organized voice for liberal arts computing?

[CHECK ALL THAT APPLY]

__ Current students and their families

__ Prospective students and their families

__ Potential employers of students/graduates

__ Graduate programs

__ Funding agencies

__ Educational policy groups

__ Faculty and staff at your own institution

__ Computer science faculty at other institutions

__ Media

__ Other: _____

__ None



Have you personally been asked to or had the opportunity to represent the liberal arts computing perspective within a broader discussion of computing education?

__ Yes

__ No

If no, please describe: _____



What message or perspective do you think most exemplifies the voice of liberal arts computing?

[FREE ENTRY TEXT BOX]



Do you consider yourself to be involved in liberal arts computing education?

__ Yes

__ No



If yes, what is the nature of your relationship to liberal arts computing (select your current primary connection)?

[CHECK ONE]

__ Currently employed in liberal arts computing education

__ Previously employed in liberal arts computing education

__ Graduate of a liberal arts computing program

__ Interested in liberal arts computing education







Dr. Amanda M. Holland-Minkley

Professor, Computing and Information Studies

Washington & Jefferson College






ATOM RSS1 RSS2