Browsing by Author "Hall, Molly R."

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    AC 2011-851: Impact of an NSF ADVANCE Institutional Transformation Grant at a STEM-Dominant University
    Hall, Molly R.; Layne, Margaret E. (American Society For Engineering Education, 2011)
    The National Science Foundation’s ADVANCE program was established to increase the representation and advancement of women in academic science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) careers. Virginia Tech has used its ADVANCE funding to take a comprehensive approach to institutional transformation, incorporating activities to increase the pipeline of women preparing for academic science and engineering careers, improve recruitment and retention of women, develop women leaders, update work-life policies, and warm department climate. Prior to the conclusion of the grant, the university reviewed all activities for impact and potential sustainability. Assessment activities included tracking numbers of women at various levels across the university, individual activity evaluations, campus-wide faculty surveys, tracking of policy utilization, interviews, and focus groups. Such a mixed-methods approach combines quantitative and qualitative indicators of change and provides deeper insight into the impact of interventions on the experiences of women faculty. This paper uses feedback on the impact of ADVANCE program activities from focus groups of female engineering professors and quantitative data from faculty surveys to explore perceptions of climate and worklife balance in the college of engineering.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Quality in Higher Education: Perspectives from Front-Line Faculty in the United States
    Hall, Molly R. (Virginia Tech, 2015-04-27)
    The purpose of this study was to explore perceptions of front-line faculty members in the United States related to quality and quality management in higher education. The study's three research questions were: (1) How do front-line faculty members in the United States define quality in higher education? (2) How do front-line faculty members in the United States describe how quality in higher education should be measured? and (3) Assuming that quality management activities will continue to be mandated by external and internal entities, what do front-line faculty members in the United States believe could be done to make quality management activities more meaningful to front-line faculty members? The research design for this study was a basic qualitative study with a constructivist interpretive framework. Maximum variation sampling was utilized and data collection consisted of semi-structured interviews with 20 front-line faculty members who worked at three different types of higher education institutions located in Virginia: (1) a public, research-extensive university; (2) a public, comprehensive university; and (3) a private, liberal arts college. The constant comparative method was utilized throughout the data analysis process and served as the basis for the study's thematic analysis. The primary finding for Research Question 1 was all 20 faculty participants defined quality in higher education either partially or solely in terms of student outcomes. These outcomes included student learning outcomes, vocational outcomes, and contribution to society outcomes. In regards to Research Question 2, many participants believed that student growth should be a primary indicator of quality in higher education; measuring quality in higher education is difficult; and measuring quality in higher education is necessary or important. Multiple participants expressed dissatisfaction with the indicators currently used to measure quality in higher education. For Research Question 3, participants shared 24 specific barriers they believed prevented quality management activities from being meaningful to front-line faculty members. Participants also shared 24 specific implementation strategies for how quality management activities could be more meaningful to front-line faculty members. These results have multiple implications for future quality management policy, practice, and research.