2016 Faculty Survey
Table of Contents
Faculty Breakdown ...................................................................................................................................... 2
Technology Awareness ................................................................................................................................ 3
Tool Use ...................................................................................................................................................... 4
OWL Faculty Comment Themes.................................................................................................................... 4
Tool Importance .......................................................................................................................................... 5
Tool Satisfaction .......................................................................................................................................... 7
OWL ......................................................................................................................................................................7
Blackboard Collaborate ..........................................................................................................................................7
TurnItIn .................................................................................................................................................................8
TurningPoint (Clickers) ...........................................................................................................................................8
Reasons for Non-Usage of Tools ................................................................................................................... 8
Adoption of New Technology ..................................................................................................................... 10
2016 Specific Questions ............................................................................................................................. 12
Clicker Comfort .................................................................................................................................................... 12
Clicker Familiarity ................................................................................................................................................ 13
Media Streaming ....................................................................................................................................... 13
Solstice ................................................................................................................................................................ 14
1
Faculty Breakdown
There were 1020 recorded survey responses to the faculty survey, and 569 gave their faculty affiliations.
Table 1: This table lists the university faculties that are represented in this survey. Also included is the percentage of respondents from each faculty,
and the number that the percentage represents. The faculties are listed in descending order.
Faculty
Science
Social Science
Health Sciences
Education
Arts and Humanities
Affiliates
Schulich School of Medicine and Dentistry
Engineering
Information and Media Studies
Law
Richard Ivey School of Business
The School of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies
Don Wright Faculty of Music
Percentage Count
16%
16%
15%
12%
9%
9%
8%
7%
3%
2%
1%
1%
1%
92
91
84
67
51
50
46
40
16
10
7
7
8
Table 2: This pie chart reiterates that there is representation from all faculties. However, most of the respondents are from Science (16%), Social
Science (16%), Health Sciences (15%) and Education (12 %). The least well represented faculties are Music (1%) The School of Graduate and
Postdoctoral Studies (1%) and Ivey (1%). The faculties with medium representation are Law (2%), FIMS (3%), Engineering (7%), Schulich (8%), Arts
and Humanities (9%), and the Affiliates (9%)
FACULTY BREAKDOWN
Arts and Humanities
Affiliates
Ivey
Education
Social Science
Engineering
Graduate and
Postdoctoral Studies
Science
Health Sciences
Music
Schulich
Law
FIMS
2
Technology Awareness
When the faculty were asked about the following technologies, almost all instructors were familiar with OWL,
TurnItIn and TurningPoint Clickers. There has been an increase in the number of instructors who are familiar
with Clickers. Last year it was 55% of replies. This year it has increased to 60% of replies. It is also interesting to
see how popular the Course Readings Tool is, despite it being a new tool to OWL. Comparing the awareness of
Course Readings to VoiceThread, which is also a new tool shows that there is some work to do in publicising
the VoiceThread tool.
Table 3: This table describes the number of people who are aware or unaware of a given technology. The first column contains the name of the tool.
The second column gives the percentage of respondents who said they were aware of the technology, the third column gives the number of
respondents that column two represents. The table lists the tools with high awareness first.
Tool
Aware of Tool (%)
Aware of Tool (#)
OWL
TurnItIn Originality Reports
TurningPoint (Clickers)
Blackboard Collaborate
Course Readings
VoiceThread
Instruct
Respondus
StudyMate
96%
83%
60%
45%
42%
16%
13%
11%
7%
538
444
312
237
217
83
65
56
35
Figure 1: This bar chart shows that a large percentage of respondents were aware of OWL (96%), TurnItIn (83%), and TurningPoint (60%). However,
the percentage was substantially lower for StudyMate (7%), Respondus (11%), Instruct (13%), and VoiceThread (16%). Course Readings (42%) and
Blackboard Collaborate (45%), fall a little below the halfway mark in awareness.
TECHNOLOGY AWARENESS BY NUMBER OF INSTRUCTORS
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
OWL
Blackboard
Collaborate
Respondus
StudyMate
TurnItIn
Originality
Reports
Yes
TurningPoint
(Clickers)
Instruct
VoiceThread
Course
Readings
No
3
Tool Use
If the instructors were familiar with a tool, we asked them if they used it in their classroom. Of the 458
responding instructors who are aware of OWL, 95% use it in their classes. 65% of respondents use TurnItIn
and 56% use Course Readings. However even though a 60% of respondents are aware of Clickers, of the 228
respondents to this question, only 62 of them (27%) use TurningPoint Clickers in their classrooms. Blackboard
shares the distinction of having high response (188 respondents), but low usage (74 people or 39%)
Table 4: This table shows each tool, and how many respondents said they used it in their class. The first column has the tool name. The second
column has the percentage of respondents that said they used the tool. The third column has the number of individual respondents who reported
using the tool.The fourth column contains the total number of respondents who replied to each option.
Note that in the Tool Awareness section above, the total respondents for each question were very similar. However, since this question was only
displayed if the instructor indicated that they had heard of the tool, the totals for each tool vary quite a bit.
Tool
OWL
TurnItIn
Course Readings
VoiceThread
Blackboard Collaborate
Instruct
Respondus
StudyMate
TurningPoint (Clickers)
Used Tool (%)
95%
65%
56%
42%
39%
37%
33%
29%
27%
Used Tool (#)
434
238
99
27
74
18
14
6
62
Total Respondents
458
368
178
65
188
49
42
21
228
Figure 2: This bar chart shows that a large number of respondents used OWL (95% of 458 respondents), TurnItIn (65% of 368 respondents), and
Course Readings(56% of 178 respondents). The least used tools were studymate (29% of 21 respondents), respondus (33% or 42 respondents),
instruct(37% of 49 respondents) and voicethread (37% or 49 respondents). In the middle range was blackboard collaborate(39% of 188 respondents)
and turningpoint (27% of 228 respondents)
TOOL USE BY NUMBER OF INSTRUCTORS
500
400
300
200
100
0
OWL
Blackboard
Collaborate
Respondus
StudyMate
TurnItIn
Yes
TurningPoint
(Clickers)
Instruct
VoiceThread
Course
Readings
No
OWL Faculty Comment Themes
- Faculty want a user-friendly interface for OWL
- Faculty would like faster, more responsive performance from OWL
- Faculty would like to be able to customize their student’s learning experience more
- Faculty are frustrated with documentation
4
Tool Importance
If the instructors said they used a tool in their course, we asked them how integral that tool was to their
teaching. These graphs show the division of these users showing how many people answered in each
category. 78% of respondents indicated that OWL was very integral or quite integral to their teaching.
Table 5: This table lists the top 4 most used tools, and then shows the number of respondents who placed the tool on a scale from not at all integral
to teaching to very integral to teaching. The scale levels from best score to lowest score are “very integral”, “quite integral”, “somewhat integral”,
“not very integral”, or “not integral at all”. The final row of the table also includes the total number of respondents for each tool. Note that the
instructors only saw this question if they were aware of the tool, so the total number of respondents differ for each question. OWL and TurnItIn have
the most total respondents, while Blackboard and Collaborate have the fewest.
Tool
OWL
Blackboard Collaborate
TurnItIn
TurningPoint Clickers
Very
Integral
205
13
42
11
Quite
Integral
123
21
52
13
Somewhat
Integral
59
24
78
21
Not Very
Integral
18
7
34
8
Not at all
Integral
15
3
9
3
Total
Respondents
420
68
215
56
Table 6: This bar chart represents the first line of the table above. It shows that 49% of the 420 instructors that responded think that OWL is very
integral to their course. 29% of them think that OWL is quite integral, and 14% think OWL is somewhat integral. Only 4% of instructors think OWL is
not very integral, and 4 % think it is not at all integral
OWL IMPORTANCE BY NUMBER OF INSTRUCTORS
Very integral
Quite integral
Somewhat integral
Not very integral
Not at all integral
0
50
100
150
200
250
Table 7: This bar chart represents the second line of the table above. It shows that 19% of instructors of the 68 instructors that responded think that
Blackboard Collaborate is very integral to their course. 31% of them think that Collaborate is quite integral, and 35% think that Collaborate is
somewhat integral. 10% of instructors think Collaborate is not very integral, and 4% think it is not at all integral
BLACKBOARD COLLABORATE IMPORTANCE BY NUMBER OF INSTRUCTORS
Very integral
Quite integral
Somewhat integral
Not very integral
Not at all integral
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
5
Table 8: This bar chart represents the third line of the table above. It shows that 20% of instructors of the 215 instructors that responded think that
TurnItIn is very integral to their course. 24% of them think that TurnItIn is quite integral, and 36% think TurnItIn is somewhat integral. Only 16% of
instructors think TurnItIn is not very integral, and 4 % think it is not at all integral
TURNITIN IMPORTANCE BY NUMBER OF INSTRUCTORS
Very integral
Quite integral
Somewhat integral
Not very integral
Not at all integral
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Table 9: This bar chart represents the first line of the table above. It shows that 20% of instructors of the 56 instructors that responded think that
TurningPoint is very integral to their course. 23% of them think that TurningPoint is quite integral, and 38% think TurningPoint is somewhat integral.
Only 14% of instructors think TurningPoint is not very integral, and 5% think it is not at all integral
TURNINGPOINT (CLICKERS) IMPORTANCE BY NUMBER OF INSTRUCTORS
Very integral
Quite integral
Somewhat integral
Not very integral
Not at all integral
0
5
10
15
20
25
6
Tool Satisfaction
If the instructors indicated that they used a tool in their course, we asked them how satisfied they were with
the tool. A total of 64% of instructors indicated that they are “quite satisfied” or “very satisfied” with OWL.
Table 10: This table lists the top 4 most used tools, and then provides the number of respondents who thought were very satisfied, quite satisfied,
somewhat satisfied, not very satisfied, or not at all satisfied with the given tools. It also includes the total number of respondents for each tool. Note
that the instructors only saw this question if they were aware of the tool, so the total number of respondents differ for each question. OWL and
turnItIn have the most total respondents, while Blackboard and Collaborate have the fewest.
Tool
OWL
Blackboard
Collaborate
TurnItIn
TurningPoint Clickers
Very
satisfied
79
11
Quite
satisfied
189
24
Somewhat
satisfied
105
23
Not very
satisfied
35
5
Not at all
satisfied
12
5
Total
Respondents
420
68
48
14
100
17
55
21
7
1
5
3
215
56
OWL
Figure 3: This bar chart represents the first line of the table above. It shows that 19% of instructors of the 420 instructors that responded are very
satisfied with OWL. 45% of them are quite satisfied with OWL, 25% are somewhat satisfied with OWL. 8% are not very satisfied with OWL. Only 3%
of instructors are not satisfied at all with OWL.
OWL SATISFACTION BY NUMBER OF INSTRUCTORS
Very satisfied
Quite satisfied
Somewhat satisfied
Not very satisfied
Not at all satisfied
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
Common Reason for high satisfaction: OWL is easy to use
Common Reason for low satisfaction: The OWL interface is not attractive/user friendly
Blackboard Collaborate
Figure 4: This bar chart represents the second line of the table above. It shows that 16% of instructors of the 68 instructors that responded are very
satisfied with Blackboard Collaborate. 35% of them are quite satisfied with Blackboard Collaborate, 34% are somewhat satisfied with Blackboard
Collaborate. 7% are not very satisfied with Blackboard Collaborate. 7% of instructors are not satisfied at all with Blackboard Collaborate.
BLACKBOARD COLLABORATE SATISFACTION BY NUMBER OF INSTRUCTORS
Very satisfied
Quite satisfied
Somewhat satisfied
Not very satisfied
Not at all satisfied
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Common Reason for high satisfaction: BBC allowed for personalized online teaching
Common Reason for low satisfaction: Instructors can’t see a visual list of students
7
TurnItIn
Figure 5: This bar chart represents the third line of the table above. It shows that 22% of instructors of the 215 instructors that responded are very
satisfied with TurnItIn. 47% of them are quite satisfied with TurnItIn, 26% are somewhat satisfied with TurnItIn. 3% are not very satisfied with
TurnItIn. Only 2% of instructors are not satisfied at all with TurnItIn.
TURNITIN SATISFACTION BY NUMBER OF INSTRUCTORS
Very satisfied
Quite satisfied
Somewhat satisfied
Not very satisfied
Not at all satisfied
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Common Reason for high satisfaction: The tool is an effective plagiarism detector and deterrent
Common Reason for low satisfaction: The instructor didn’t require TurnItIn or was philosophically opposed
TurningPoint (Clickers)
Figure 6: This chart represents the fourth line of the table above. It shows that 25% of instructors of the 56 instructors that responded are very
satisfied with TurningPoint Clickers. 30% of them are quite satisfied with TurningPoint, 38% are somewhat satisfied with TurningPoint. 2% are not
very satisfied with TurningPoint. Only 5% of instructors are not satisfied at all with TurningPoint.
TURNINGPOINT (CLICKERS) SATISFACTION BY NUMBER OF USERS
Very satisfied
Quite satisfied
Somewhat satisfied
Not very satisfied
Not at all satisfied
0
5
10
15
20
25
Most Common Reason for high satisfaction: fun, engaging way to interact with large classrooms
Most Common Reason for low satisfaction: Not adapted for newer versions of Office software
Reasons for Non-Usage of Tools
We asked the instructors if they were aware of certain tools. If they were aware of them but did not use them,
we asked them why. The numbers below represent actual number of respondents.
Figure 7: This table describes the answer to the question: "Below are a list of possible reasons instructors might not integrate learning technologies
into their courses. Please select the reason(s) why you do not use the following tools in your course(s). Please select all that apply."
In the first row the reasons for not using a tool are listed. In the second row, the table shows the number of people who gave that reason for not
using OWL. The third row shows the same for Blackboard Collaborate. The fourth row deals with TurnItIn, and the fifth row deals with TurningPoint.
The last column of each row shows the total number of responses for each tool. This differs quite a bit, as there were many fewer instructors who
did not use OWL than instructors who did not use TurningPoint
8
Not sure I
have
access
OWL
BBC
TurnItIn
TurningPoint
Does not
lend itself
to my
teaching
style
6
31
24
55
5
26
9
20
Does not
lend itself
to my
course
content
3
46
70
53
Figure 8: This chart is a visual representation of the second row of
the table above. It shows that 23% of the 22 respondents to this
question were not sure they had access to OWL. 27% believed OWL
did not lend itself to their teaching styles. 14% thought OWL did not
lend itself to their course content. 32% were not sure how to use
OWL, and 27% believed they did not have the support required to use
it. 41% listed other reasons.
OWL: REASONS FOR NON-USAGE
0
2
4
6
8
Do not
know how
to use it
7
43
20
29
Do not
have the
support
required
to use it
6
7
7
22
TURNITIN: REASONS FOR NONUSAGE
20
40
60
80
Does not lend itself to my
teaching style
Does not lend itself to my
course content
Do not know how to use it
Do not know how to use it
Do not have the support
required to use it
Do not have the support
required to use it
Figure 9: This chart is a visual representation of the third row of the
table above. It shows that 26% of the 109 respondents to this
question were not sure they had access to Blackboard Collaborate.
31% believed Collaborate did not lend itself to their teaching styles.
46% thought Collaborate did not lend itself to their course content.
43% were not sure how to use Collaborate, and 7% believed they did
not have the support required to use it. 21% listed other reasons.
BBC: REASONS FOR NON-USAGE
0
10
20
30
40
50
Figure 11: This chart is a visual representation of the fifth row of the
table above. It shows that 13% of the 154 respondents to this
question were not sure they had access to TurningPoint Clickers.36%
believed TurningPoint did not lend itself to their teaching styles. 34%
thought TurningPoint did not lend itself to their course content. 19%
were not sure how to use TurningPoint, and 14% believed they did
not have the support required to use it. 27% listed other reasons.
CLICKERS: REASONS FOR NONUSAGE
0
Not sure I have access
Do not have the support
required to use it
22
109
117
154
Not sure I have access
Does not lend itself to my
course content
Do not know how to use it
9
21
20
42
0
Does not lend itself to my
teaching style
Does not lend itself to my
course content
Total
Figure 10: This chart is a visual representation of the fourth row of
the table above. It shows that 8% of the 117 respondents to this
question were not sure they had access to TurnItIn. 21% believed
TurnItIn did not lend itself to their teaching styles. 60% thought
TurnItIn did not lend itself to their course content. 17% were not sure
how to use TurnItIn, and 6% believed they did not have the support
required to use it. 17% listed other reasons.
Not sure I have access
Does not lend itself to my
teaching style
Other
10
20
30
40
50
60
Not sure I have access
Does not lend itself to my
teaching style
Does not lend itself to my
course content
Do not know how to use it
Do not have the support
required to use it
9
Adoption of New Technology
We asked the instructors how likely they would be to integrate the following technologies into their teaching.
Instructors are very interested in A video streaming service, Tracking in OWL, E-book/OWL integration, and
Learning Analytics. They are not as interested in Micro-credentials or Western Hosted Blogs.
Table 11: This table shows what the respondents thought of several potential technologies.
The first column lists 9 different technologies. The second column lists how many people didn't think the technology was applicable to their course.
The third technology shows how many people would be very likely to adopt the technology, the fourth column shows how many people would be
quite likely to adopt the technology. The fifth shows how many would be somewhat likely. The sixth not very likely, and the seventh not likely at all.
The final column shows the total respondents for each tool.
Tool
Wireless Screen
Sharing/Streaming
Western hosted
blogs
Tracking in OWL
Online Collaborative
Document Editing
Gamification /
Micro-credentials /
Games for learning
Learning Analytics
Video Streaming
Service
eBook integration
with OWL
E-Portfolios
Other
(N/A)
Very likely
Quite
likely
Somewhat
likely
Not very
likely
Not at
all likely Total
73
56
57
60
63
68
377
65
103
40
91
28
69
73
69
95
27
75
21
376
380
48
79
69
73
61
50
380
81
70
53
76
42
64
58
73
68
57
79
40
381
380
49
110
74
64
45
41
383
70
138
85
38
71
44
71
54
42
40
40
61
379
375
61
22
7
11
6
5
112
10
Table: This table shows visually the information in the above table. Highlights from the chart include the data that the respondents were most
enthusiastic about a video streaming service, tracking in owl and eBook integration with OWL. However, gamification, and western hosted blogs
were not as popular
ADOPTION OF NEW TECHNOLOGY
Wireless Screen Sharing/Streaming
Western hosted blogs
Tracking in OWL
Online Collaborative Document Editing
Gamification / Micro-credentials / Games for learning
Learning Analytics
Video Streaming Service
eBook integration with OWL
E-Portfolios
0
Not Applicable (N/A)
Very likely
20
Quite likely
40
60
80
Somewhat likely
100
120
Not very likely
140
160
Not at all likely
11
2016 Specific Questions
Clicker Comfort
We asked respondents the question “Some clicker systems require course content to be stored in the cloud,
potentially on a server hosted in the United States. How comfortable are you with this?” The responses are
listed in the charts below
Table 12: This table lists different levels of comfort in the first column, and then shows the percentage of respondents who agree with that level of
comfort when it comes to keeping clicker data stored in the united states in the second column. The third column keeps the count of people who
agree with the statement in the first column. The last row shows the totals.
Comfort level
Very comfortable
Comfortable
Neither comfortable or
uncomfortable
Uncomfortable
Very uncomfortable
Total
Percentage
26%
22%
Count
40
33
23%
12%
17%
100%
34
18
26
151
Figure 12: This table shows that respondents are divided, however more people are very comfortable (26%) or comfortable (22%) with having
servers in the USA than are listed as being very uncomfortable (17%) or uncomfortable (12%).
COMFORT WITH A SERVER IN THE USA FOR CLICKERS
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Very comfortable
Comfortable
Neither comfortable or uncomfortable
Uncomfortable
Very uncomfortable
12
Clicker Familiarity
We asked respondents how familiar they were with different clicker providers. There was very similar
familiarity across the board.
Figure 13: This chart lists three different clicker providers, and lists how many respondents are familiar with each brand. The numbers are very
similar for each brand. Turning Technologies received 38 instructors familiar with the brand, and TopHat and iClicker received 39 each.
Clicker Brand
Turning Technologies
Top Hat
iClicker
Count Familiar
38
39
39
Figure 14: This chart shows that iClicker, Top Hat and Turning Technologies are all similarly known on campus.
CLICKER BRAND FAMILIARITY
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Turning Technologies
Top Hat
iClicker
Media Streaming
We asked instructors if their course would benefit from a streaming service. 55% responded that their course
would benefit, and 45% responded that it would not.
Figure 15: This chart shows how many respondents would be able to effectively use a streaming service in their course. Respondents are split, with
55 % of the 143 respondents agreeing that their courses would benefit, and 45% claiming that it would not benefit
Would your course benefit from a
streaming service
yes
no
Total
percentage
55%
45%
100%
Count
78
65
143
Figure 16: This chart shows that 78 out of 143 respondents (55%) believe that their courses would benefit from a streaming service, and that 65 out
of 143 respondents (45%) believe their courses would not benefit. The yes vote is slightly more than the no vote.
DO YOU TEACH A COURSE THAT WOULD BENEFIT FROM A WESTERN
HOSTED STREAMING SERVICE
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
yes
no
13
Solstice
We asked instructors if it would be useful for students to easily project from their computer or mobile device
to share with the rest of the class. 68% responded that it would be useful. 32% responded that it would not be
useful.
Table 13: This table shows that 74 out 109 respondents thought it would be useful. This represents 68%. It also shows that 35 out of the 109
students thought it would not be useful ( 32%)
Would it be useful for students to
easily project from their computer
or mobile device to share with the
rest of the class
yes
no
Total
Percentage
68%
32%
100%
Count
74
35
109
Figure 14: This chart illustrates that most instructors believe the ability to project from mobile screens to share with the class would be a benefit
WOULD IT BE USEFUL FOR STUDENTS TO BE ABLE TO EASILY PROJECT
FROM THEIR COMPUTER OR MOBILE DEVICE TO SHARE WITH THE CLASS
no
yes
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
14