We are currently thinking of what we provide in terms of analytics and how to get faculty engaged in analytics. At times it seems the horse does not so much not want to be led to water but is actively hostile towards a water-source. Or perhaps utterly indifferent to it may be a better way of looking at.
Just curious about how faculty utilise LA at various institutions across the world? One to get an idea as to where we fit in in the scale as well as an opportunity for sharing of successes, and failures, in LA adoption.
I think I've said this before but we started almost 3 years ago with a build it and they will come mentality. They didn't. And still don't. I have a hardy band of faculty, instructional designers and degree programme reviewers who come to me personally to seek evidence for their reporting, but we are a small group who could fit in a meeting room. Other colleagues report the same.
We have concerns that the very word LA may be scaring people off, and are trialling different words to give a better indication of what we can provide. I'll let you know if that gets any traction. "Educational Intelligence" was one word we have used in the past for non-Bb-Analytics reporting. I think we may also be in a different situation to other institutions in that we sit under Learning and Teaching (under the "Provost" if I remember my American attendees educating me at the Symposium in Texas) whereas Business Intelligence and Government Reporting sits under a different area and Student Support yet another -- so for us Bb Analytics is strictly A4L and we are only responsible, strictly, for what analytics comes out of course sites. We use and promote Retention Centre, not A4L I know, but the university at-risk work occurs elsewhere; we are focussed at the course or degree programme level.