The following series of tables show the commonalities and differences in responses to the strategic priorities under Theme 3 by sub-group.
Staff and administrators strongly support student retention as a high priority, with T/TT faculty and lecturer faculty less strongly supportive (Table 3-5).
| Student Retention | 1st/2nd |
3rd/4th/5th |
Not Chosen |
total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Staff | 36.3 | 24.6 | 39.2 | 100.0% |
| Administrator | 36.2 | 28.7 | 35.1 | 100.0% |
| Tenured/Tenure-Track | 24.8 | 23.4 | 51.8 | 100.0% |
| Lecturer Faculty | 15.1 | 22.6 | 62.4 | 100.0% |
Administrators most strongly support learning outcomes for the majors and for General Education. Staff, lecturer faculty, and T/TT faculty are less supportive (Table 3-6).
| Learning Outcomes | 1st/2nd |
3rd/4th/5th |
Not Chosen |
total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Administrator | 33.0 | 26.6 | 40.4 | 100.0% |
| Staff | 24.9 | 24.6 | 50.5 | 100.0% |
| Lecturer Faculty | 23.7 | 25.3 | 51.1 | 100.0% |
| Tenured/Tenure-Track | 21.6 | 18.7 | 59.7 | 100.0% |
Administrators most strongly support facilitating graduation as a high priority. Staff and T/TT faculty are somewhat less supportive (Table 3-7). Most lecturer faculty do not support this as a high priority.
| Facilitate Graduation | 1st/2nd |
3rd/4th/5th |
Not Chosen |
total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Administrator | 35.1 | 24.5 | 40.4 | 100.0% |
| Staff | 21.4 | 20.9 | 57.9 | 100.3 |
| Tenured/Tenure-Track | 18.7 | 17.6 | 63.7 | 100.0% |
| Lecturer Faculty | 9.7 | 16.1 | 74.2 | 100.0% |
Lecturer faculty are the strongest supporters for improving instruction, followed by staff and T/TT faculty (Table 3-8). Less support is shown among administrators, although the majority of all groups does consider this to be one of their five top priorities.
| Improve Instruction | 1st/2nd |
3rd/4th/5th |
Not Chosen |
total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lecturer Faculty | 45.7 | 19.4 | 35.0 | 100.0% |
| Staff | 36.5 | 24.1 | 39.4 | 100.0% |
| Tenured/Tenure-Track | 33.8 | 21.2 | 45.0 | 100.0% |
| Administrator | 28.7 | 30.9 | 40.4 | 100.0% |
Preparing students for employment or graduate school is most highly ranked by staff. T/TT faculty and lecturer faculty are also supportive of this strategy (Table 3-9). Administrators are less supportive although a majority of all groups does consider this to be one of their five top priorities.
| Employ/Grad School | 1st/2nd |
3rd/4th/5th |
Not Chosen |
Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Staff | 34.1 | 38.6 | 27.8 | 100.5 |
| Tenured/Tenure-Track | 27.3 | 39.2 | 33.5 | 100.0% |
| Lecturer Faculty | 26.4 | 44.6 | 29.0 | 100.0% |
| Administrator | 19.2 | 38.3 | 42.6 | 100.0% |
Lecturer faculty are the most supportive of student mastery of knowledge and skills, followed by T/TT faculty (Table 3-10). Administrators and staff are relatively less supportive, although again a majority of all groups does support this strategy as a priority.
| Master Knowl/Skills | 1st/2nd | 3rd/4th/5th | Not Chosen | total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lecturer Faculty | 34.9 | 36.0 | 29.0 | 100.0% |
| Tenured/Tenure-Track | 30.2 | 30.9 | 38.9 | 100.0% |
| Administrator | 24.5 | 30.9 | 44.7 | 100.0% |
| Staff | 23.3 | 30.2 | 46.6 | 100.0% |
Lecturer faculty and T/TT faculty again support the strategy of preparing students for lifelong learning as a high priority (Table 3-11). Only about half of staff and administrators rank this strategy as a priority.
| Lifelong Learning | 1st/2nd | 3rd/4th/5th | Not Chosen | total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lecturer Faculty | 32.8 | 36.0 | 31.2 | 100.0% |
| Tenured/Tenure-Track | 28.4 | 35.3 | 36.3 | 100.0% |
| Staff | 20.6 | 28.6 | 50.8 | 100.0% |
| Administrator | 16.0 | 26.6 | 57.5 | 100.0% |
There is relatively little support for making local and global community connections, student research, campus life, campus climate, or campus diversity a priority. These last several strategies may have been given a lower priority than other issues because they are not perceived to be a pressing problem. They may also have “split the vote” so to speak, as they may be different ways of expressing the same set of issues. Nevertheless, none stands out with the clarity of the other strategies that were more highly rated as priorities in Theme 3.
