Central Connecticut State University - CSU-AAUP [PDF]

Central Connecticut State University A Report on the Status of Academic Work Life

Study commissioned by the

CSU AAUP Study conducted by the

New England Resource Center for Higher Education (NERCHE), University of Massachusetts Boston Principal Investigator: Dr. Jay R. Dee Fall 2010

Introduction Overview of the Study Workload issues at Central Connecticut State University can be considered in the context of the university’s 2008 strategic plan, which identified four distinctive elements of the university’s identity:    

Interdisciplinary studies and cross-curricular initiatives Community engagement Workforce and state economic development International education

This most recent strategic plan can be placed into historical context. Central’s mission has evolved significantly since its founding in 1849 as a normal school for teacher training. The university now offers a comprehensive array of undergraduate and graduate programs, and is currently the largest university in the CSU system. Research and scholarship are also central elements in the university’s mission statement. As with many comprehensive universities, Central seeks to balance its teaching emphasis with its research and public service missions. Discussions of academic work at Central also need to be placed into the context of the university’s student population, which includes large numbers of part-time students (one-third of total enrollments) and transfer students (33% of all new students). In recent years, university leaders have focused increasing attention on efforts to improve student retention and graduation rates. New initiatives have focused on student advising, the first-year experience, and assessment of student learning outcomes. Central is also the only university in the CSU system to have an NCAA Division I athletics program. This report will examine a broad range of workload issues at Central, as well as characterize the academic work environments experienced by full-time and part-time faculty, librarians, coaches, trainers, and counselors. Data sources for this report include: Survey Data  Two surveys of all full-time faculty members (spring 2009, fall 2009)  Two surveys of all part-time faculty members (spring 2009, fall 2009)  Surveys of all full-time and part-time librarians, coaches, trainers, and counselors (spring 2010) Interview Data  13 interviews with full-time faculty members  5 interviews with part-time faculty members  7 interviews with academic department chairs  3 interviews with faculty search committee chairs  5 interviews with administrators  1 interview with a librarian

2

   

2 interviews with coaches/trainers 2 interviews with counselors 1 focus group with librarians (3 participants) 1 focus group with coaches/trainers (3 participants)

Institutional Data  Faculty load credit data supplied by the CSU system for four academic years: 2005-2006, 20062007, 2007-2008, and 2008-2009 How will the data be used? Survey data will be used to examine workloads and collect information regarding perceptions of the work environment. In the faculty surveys, several items collected data that will be compared to national averages. In this way, we can compare faculty workloads and perceptions of the work environment to those of faculty at similar institutions. The surveys also collect information regarding the types of pedagogical practices used by CSU AAUP members in their efforts to foster student learning. Interview data will be used to examine how workloads are experienced by full-time and part-time CSU AAUP members. These data will help us identify the organizational structures, practices, and policies that shape and influence workloads. The interviews will also provide data regarding how CSU AAUP members perceive and experience the work environment at Central. Faculty load credit data will be used to examine how full-time faculty workload is allocated to various instructional and non-instructional responsibilities. We are interested in the total amount of load credits earned by faculty members, as well as how those load credits are distributed across different domains of activity. We are also interested in the number of load credits earned by part-time faculty members, as well as the categories in which those credits are awarded. All data collection protocols were approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) at Central. Next, we will present some technical information regarding certain aspects of the research design. In particular, we will explain:    

How the national comparisons will be made with the faculty survey data What the response rates were for the surveys administered in this study How the faculty load credit data were supplied by the CSU system office How the interview and focus group participants were selected

Survey data: National comparative analyses When available, faculty survey findings from Central will be compared to data from the National Survey of Postsecondary Faculty (NSOPF). The most recent version of NSOPF (2004) relies on the 2000 Carnegie Classification of Higher Education Institutions, in which Central is classified as a public master’s I institution. Therefore, comparisons will be made to faculty data from that institutional sector. NSOPF data were collected by the National Center for Education Statistics (U.S. Department of Education) through a national faculty survey. The 2004 NSOPF included a sample of 1,080 public and

3

private postsecondary institutions, and a sample of 35,000 faculty, with a response rate of 76%. NSOPF represents the most comprehensive national database on faculty workload and faculty perceptions of academic work life. For more information about NSOPF, go to: http://www.nces.ed.gov/surveys/nsopf/ Survey data: Response rates

Full-time faculty survey 1 (spring 2009)

Full-time faculty survey 2 (fall 2009)

CSU AAUP provided a list that contained valid email addresses for 401 full-time faculty members. A total of 122 faculty responded, resulting in a response rate of 30.4%.

CSU AAUP provided a list that contained valid email addresses for 424 full-time faculty members. A total of 139 faculty responded, resulting in a response rate of 32.8%.

Part-time faculty survey 1 (spring 2009)

Part-time faculty survey 2 (fall 2009)

CSU AAUP provided a list that contained valid email addresses for 373 part-time faculty members. A total of 87 faculty responded, resulting in a response rate of 23.3%.

CSU AAUP provided a list that contained valid email addresses for 517 part-time faculty members. A total of 50 faculty responded, resulting in a response rate of 9.7%.

For the part-time faculty surveys, the response rates and the total number of respondents were low for all four CSU institutions. Therefore, part-time faculty survey data will be analyzed in a system-wide report, rather than institution-by-institution. The reason for the low response rate may be related to the survey distribution method. For the most part, the email addresses provided by the CSU AAUP were university email accounts, which part-time faculty may not check regularly. During the spring 2010 semester, surveys were distributed to all full-time and part-time librarians, coaches, trainers, and counselors working in the CSU system. At Central, a total of 10 librarians, 11 coaches/trainers, and 2 counselors completed their respective surveys. Given the small numbers of study participants, these survey data will be analyzed system-wide, rather than institution-by-institution. Faculty load credit data Faculty load credit data were supplied by the CSU system, and were limited to four academic years. Data consistency and reliability concerns precluded the ability to examine data from earlier years. The CSU system does not maintain data regarding student credit hour production by academic department. Therefore, we could not examine average course enrollments across academic departments. Note: Student credit hour production refers to the number of students enrolled in each course multiplied by the number of course credit hours.

4

For several analyses of faculty load credit data, we controlled for sabbaticals and leaves in order to report more accurately instructional and non-instructional load credit activities. To control for sabbaticals and leaves, we took the total number of load credits allocated for sabbaticals, medical leave, and unpaid leave in a given semester, and divided that number by 12. This number was viewed to be the most accurate computation of the number of faculty members on sabbatical or leave in a particular semester. We then reduced the full-time faculty headcount in that semester by the computed number of faculty on leave or sabbatical. Finally, load credits for sabbaticals, medical leave, and unpaid leave were subtracted from analyses that pertained to computing the proportion of load credits awarded for instructional and non-instructional activities. Interview and focus group participants: Selection procedures The study utilized two sources of recommendations for identifying potential study participants. Names of potential study participants were supplied by a faculty representative of the CSU AAUP at Central, and by the deans and chief academic officer at Central. The principal investigator of the study then considered the two sets of recommendations in terms of the study’s criteria for selecting study participants. The criteria for selecting study participants were: 1) served in their current role for more than one year, or chaired more than one search committee; 2) the department or unit in which the individual works has engaged in an extensive change initiative – for example, new assessment process, online program development – that is likely to have had significant implications for faculty workload; and 3) appropriate representation of the disciplinary variation at Central, including undergraduate and graduate programs. The principal investigator selected approximately equal numbers of study particpants from both the list supplied by CSU AAUP and the names recommended by the deans and chief academic officer (several names were recommended on both lists). The principal investigator contacted selected individuals via email, and inquired regarding their willingness to participate voluntarily in the study. Structure of this report This report will present the quantitative data first, in four sections. 1. Faculty workload data. This section will examine the number of hours worked per week, as reported by full-time faculty at Central, as well as faculty-reported summer activity. When available, comparisons will be made to national averages from NSOPF. 2. Faculty load credit data. This section will present an analysis of full-time and part-time faculty load credit data supplied by the CSU system office. Data were provided for four consecutive academic years: 2005-2006, 2006-2007, 2007-2008, and 2008-2009. 3. Instructional and scholarly practices. This section will discuss survey findings regarding the types of instructional practices that full-time faculty use in the classroom at Central. In particular, this section focuses on the pedagogical practices that research indicates are most closely associated with promoting academic achievement. When available, comparisons will be made to national averages from NSOPF.

5

4. Job satisfaction and the work environment. This section will describe the survey data associated with full-time faculty perceptions of the work environment at Central, as well as their levels of satisfaction with various dimensions of their job. When available, comparisons will be made to national averages from NSOPF. Then, the report will present the qualitative data in six sections. 1. Teaching loads and teaching effectiveness. This section will describe full-time faculty members’ experiences with the 4-4 teaching load at Central, as well as the relationship between the teaching load and teaching practices. Issues regarding reassigned time, overload, class sizes, and differences between undergraduate and graduate programs will be addressed in this section. 2. Tenure and promotion reviews. In recent years, Central has attempted to clarify criteria for tenure and promotion, as well as establish guidelines for what constitutes appropriate research and scholarship within each academic department. This section will examine the perspectives of faculty and administrators regarding these changes, as well as the perception among some fulltime faculty that research expectations are increasing at Central, and that the type of research that is now expected conflicts with the university’s goals for community engagement and undergraduate research. 3. The faculty load credit system. In this section, we will discuss a range of concerns that full-time faculty members raised regarding the current load credit system. Specifically, this section will focus on issues regarding: a) the load credits allocated for laboratory and studio courses, b) load credits for student research, internships, and field placements, and c) the availability of noninstructional load credits. 4. Administrative initiatives. Several recent initiatives, some associated with the 2008 strategic plan, were reported to have an impact on full-time faculty workloads. This section will examine recent initiatives regarding student advising and the assessment of student learning outcomes, the latter having particularly important implications for academic department chairs. 5. Faculty recruitment, hiring, and professional development. Here, we will examine how new full-time faculty members are recruited and hired at Central, from the perspective of faculty search committee chairs, as well as university administrators. We will also explore the types of professional development opportunities that are available for faculty once they arrive at Central. 6. Librarians, coaches, trainers, counselors, and part-time faculty members. Again, given the small sizes of these groups, the quantitative analysis of survey data will be offered in the system-wide report. In this report for Central, we will focus on the campus-specific issues that emerged from data provided in interviews and focus groups. The report concludes with a summary of the key findings and some initial recommendations for policy and practice. An appendix to the report contains selected, verbatim responses to open-ended survey items, from the spring 2009 and fall 2009 full-time and part-time faculty surveys. Data from the openended responses were selected to represent various themes and findings that were highlighted in this report.

6

Quantitative Analysis: Section 1 Faculty Workload Data Finding 1.1 Full-time faculty at Central reported working more hours per week than the national average for “public master’s I” institutions. In the spring 2009 survey, full-time faculty at Central reported working 55.0 hours per week. The national average was 53.2.

Central National average

Paid work for institution 44.1 44.4

Unpaid work for institution 6.8 4.5

External work, paid 0.9 2.2

External work, unpaid 3.2 2.2

Total 55.0 53.2

Central’s average number of hours of paid work for the institution was nearly identical to the national average; however, faculty at Central reported 2.3 more hours per week of unpaid work for the university than the national average (6.8 hours per week in contrast to the national average of 4.5). The high level of unpaid work for the institution may be attributable, in part, to how faculty members interpret and understand the collective bargaining agreement. In survey responses, some faculty explained their belief that they are paid only for their load credit activity, and any work that they perform for which they do not receive load credits (primarily, research and service) is believed to be uncompensated. Other survey respondents, however, viewed the load credit system as separate and distinct from their compensation; in which case, they viewed nearly all of their faculty activities for the institution as compensated. Full-time faculty at Central engaged in less external paid activity (e.g., consulting) than the national average, but they participated in more external unpaid activity (e.g., public service related to their faculty role) than the national average.

Finding 1.2 Full-time faculty at Central allocate more hours to undergraduate instruction, graduate instruction, and research than the national average for “public master’s I” institutions. In the spring 2009 survey, full-time faculty were asked to report on the number of hours per week that they spend on a wide range of activities. When these hours were totaled, the average number of hours worked per week was 61.0, which is higher than the 54.9 hours per week reported by the faculty for the earlier item in this survey (paid and unpaid work, for the institution and external to it). The different results for these two survey items may be explained by the structure of the survey. When asked to report hours per week devoted to specific tasks (rather than to general categories), faculty might recall a more comprehensive set of professional activities, and therefore report a higher number of hours worked.

7

Undergraduate instruction Graduate instruction Research Other (including service) Total

Central Hours 32.58 8.92 10.29 9.22 61.01

Percent 53.4% 14.6% 16.9% 15.1% 100%

National average Hours Percent 28.30 53.2% 6.28 11.8% 7.93 14.9% 10.69 20.1% 53.20 100%

The percentage of time that full-time faculty devote to undergraduate instruction at Central is nearly identical to the national average. However, given that faculty at Central work more hours per week than the national average, full-time faculty at Central devote more total hours per week to undergraduate instruction than the national average. The percentage of time that full-time faculty devote to graduate instruction at Central is slightly higher than the national average, as is the total number of hours per week devoted to graduate instruction. Faculty at Central allocate a slightly higher percentage of their time to research than the national average, and they work more hours per week on their research than the national average. In contrast, faculty at Central allocate a smaller percentage of their time and fewer total hours to service and other activities than the national average. This finding, however, must be interpreted with caution, since the “service/other” category combines a wide variety of activities, including institutional service, public service outreach, administrative responsibilities, and external consulting.

Finding 1.3 Full-time faculty at Central are engaged in significant amounts of work during the summer months, most of which connects to their work roles at the university. The academic work of full-time faculty at Central extends far beyond the nine-month contract. According to the fall 2009 survey, 43.4% of full-time faculty reported that they teach during the summer at Central. Many faculty members indicated that the 4-4 teaching load does not allow them to make sufficient progress on their research agendas during the academic year, so the summer becomes a time to engage in “catch up” work. According to the fall 2009 survey, full-time faculty spent an average of 140.7 hours over the summer, working on research and other scholarly activity – the equivalent of three-and-a-half 40-hour work weeks. Full-time faculty at Central also reported spending an average of 39.2 hours during the summer preparing for classes for the next academic year, as well as 31.2 hours on administrative responsibilities. In total, full-time faculty at Central reported that they spent 239 hours on academic work during summer 2009 (not including summer teaching). This is the equivalent of nearly six 40-hour work weeks, during the months for which faculty are not “on contract.” National data for comparative purposes are not included in NSOPF.

8

Summer Activity

Average number of hours spent on activity during summer 2009

Preparing for classes for the next academic year

39.2

Research and other scholarly activity

140.7

Supervising students in internships or field placements

5.3

Administrative responsibilities (department chair, program coordinator)

31.2

Advising students within your department or program (include work with student clubs)

5.4

Thesis direction (includes master’s and doctoral theses/dissertations)

3.2

Unpaid (pro bono) professional service and outreach activities to external organizations, such as K-12 schools, community organizations, and state agencies (do not include paid consulting work)

6.8

Unpaid (pro bono) service to academic professional associations and journals in my field or discipline

7.2

Total hours of academic work during summer 2009 (average)

9

239.0

Quantitative Analysis: Section 2 Faculty Load Credits Finding 2.1 For full-time faculty at Central, 82.4% of total load credits were awarded for activity that pertains directly to instruction. Across the eight semesters for which data were provided, full-time faculty at Central earned an average of 11.94 load credits per semester. Among these load credits, an average of 9.84 were for instruction (courses, labs, supervision of student teachers, independent studies, thesis supervision, and supplemental lab credits), while 2.10 were for non-instructional activities. Thus, 82.4% of load credits were awarded for faculty activity that pertains directly to instruction.

Faculty Load Credit (FLC) Categories in Data Provided by CSU System Office Instructional load credit activities      

Non-instructional load credit activities       

Courses Labs Supervision of student-teachers Independent studies Thesis supervision Supplemental credits for labs

Special assignments Administrative duties Reassigned time for curriculum development Reassigned time for research Online course development Reassigned time for external grants Other non-instructional assignments

Load credits awarded to faculty at Central by semester

Total load credits per full-time faculty member Instructional load credits per full-time faculty member Non-instructional load credits per full-time faculty member

Total load credits per full-time faculty member Instructional load credits per full-time faculty member Non-instructional load credits per full-time faculty member

Fall 2005

Spring 2006

Fall 2006

Spring 2007

12.07

11.57

11.86

11.96

9.96

9.83

9.99

9.73

2.11

1.74

1.87

2.23

Fall 2007

Spring 2008

Fall 2008

Spring 2009

Overall average

12.04

11.94

12.14

11.95

11.94

9.92

9.76

9.87

9.69

9.84

2.12

2.18

2.27

2.26

2.10

10

Across the four years of data, 74.2% of all load credits were awarded for teaching courses. The other instructional categories included independent studies (2.9%), labs/studios (2.3%), thesis supervision (0.6%), supplemental lab (0.3%), and supervision of student-teachers (0.1%). Among the non-instructional categories, administrative duties accounted for 6.7% of all load credits awarded to faculty at Central. Other non-instructional categories included reassigned time for curriculum development (4.3%), reassigned time for research activity (4.1%), special assignments (0.9%), other non-instructional (0.7%), and external grants (0.5%). Sabbaticals comprised 2.1% of all load credits.

Distribution of Load Credits Across Activities: Four-Year Totals (includes sabbaticals, leaves) Activity FT Sabbatical FT Med Leave FT Unpaid Leave FT Courses FT Lab FT Student-Teach Supervise FT Ind Study FT Thesis FT Special Assign FT Admin Duties FT Reassign Curriculum FT Reassign Grants FT Online FT Supp Lab FT Research Activity FT Other Non-Instruct

LC 828.00 156.79 36.00 29874.10 942.86 33.00 1163.40 243.16 355.75 2686.50 1725.50 185.36 0.00 112.25 1666.60 275.38 40284.65

% 2.1% 0.4% 0.1% 74.2% 2.3% 0.1% 2.9% 0.6% 0.9% 6.7% 4.3% 0.5% 0.0% 0.3% 4.1% 0.7% 100%

11

When we control for sabbaticals and leaves, we find that 76.1% of all load credits are awarded for teaching courses. The other instructional categories included independent studies (3.0%), labs/studios (2.4%), thesis supervision (0.6%), supplemental lab (0.3%), and supervision of student-teachers (0.1%). Among the non-instructional categories, controlling for sabbaticals and leaves, administrative duties accounted for 6.8% of all load credits awarded. The other non-instructional categories included reassigned time for curriculum development (4.4%), reassigned time for research activity (4.2%), special assignments (0.9%), other non-instructional (0.7%), and external grants (0.5%).

Distribution of Load Credits Across Activities: Four-Year Totals (controls for sabbaticals, leaves) Activity FT Courses FT Lab FT Student-Teach Supervise FT Ind Study FT Thesis FT Special Assign FT Admin Duties FT Reassign Curriculum FT Reassign Grants FT Online FT Supp Lab FT Research Activity FT Other Non-Instruct

LC 29874.10 942.86 33.00 1163.38 243.16 355.75 2686.50 1725.54 185.36 0.00 112.25 1666.55 275.38 39263.83

% 76.1% 2.4% 0.1% 3.0% 0.6% 0.9% 6.8% 4.4% 0.5% 0.0% 0.3% 4.2% 0.7% 100%

Finding 2.2 Central consistently fulfilled the contractually obligated number of load credits regarding reassigned time for research; however, faculty reported that the current allocation of load credits for research is insufficient. According to the collective bargaining agreement (August 2007 – August 2011), Central is obligated to award 64.8 load credits per semester for reassigned time for research (article 10.6.4). Central has exceeded that minimum standard in all eight semesters, including those prior to the current collective bargaining agreement. The average per semester was 208.3.

Reassigned time for research

Fall 2005

Spring 2006

Fall 2006

Spring 2007

Current Collective Bargaining Agreement Fall Spring Fall Spring 2007 2008 2008 2009

overall average

195.0

162.8

192.3

209.2

190.1

208.3

12

214.5

252.3

250.3

Reassigned time for research comprised 4.2% of the total load credits awarded to faculty at Central. The comparable percentages at the other CSU institutions were 1.4% at Eastern, 3.3% at Southern, and 2.2% at Western. Several full-time faculty members at Central, who were interviewed for this study, indicated that the number of load credits awarded for research activity remains insufficient to address faculty goals and institutional expectations for research and creative activity.

Finding 2.3 Central consistently fulfilled the contractually obligated number of load credits for reassigned time for curriculum development. According to the collective bargaining agreement (August 2007 – August 2011), Central is obligated to provide 132 load credits per semester for reassigned time for curriculum development, faculty development, and instructional enhancement (article 10.6.5). Central has exceeded that minimum standard in all eight semesters, including those prior to the current collective bargaining agreement. The average per semester was 215.7.

Reassigned time for curriculum development

Fall 2005

Spring 2006

Fall 2006

Spring 2007


overall average

227.5

137.7

171.3

240.5

226.0

215.7

208.0

258.0

256.5

Reassigned time for curriculum development comprised 4.4% of the total load credits awarded to faculty at Central. The comparable percentages at the other CSU institutions were 4.5% at Eastern, 10.3% at Southern, and 7.7% at Western. Comparatively, the load credits that Central awarded for curriculum development were comparable to Eastern but fewer than those awarded by Southern and Western.

Finding 2.4 Central awarded fewer sabbatical load credits per faculty member per year than the other CSU institutions. Average sabbatical load credits per year Eastern Southern Western Central

Average full-time faculty headcount

162 265.6 115.5 207

193.75 420.3 207.5 422.25

Average sabbatical load credits, per full-time faculty member, per year 0.836 0.632 0.557 0.490

In the four academic years for which data were provided, Central awarded 828 load credits for sabbatical (an average of 207 sabbatical load credits per year). The average full-time faculty headcount across those years was 422.25. Thus, Central awarded 0.490 sabbatical load credits per faculty member,

13

per year. Compared to the other three CSU institutions, Central awarded fewer sabbatical load credits per full-time faculty member.

Finding 2.5 At Central, nearly one-third of all load credits awarded for instruction were earned by part-time faculty members. Across the four academic years for which data were provided, part-time faculty accounted for 32.5% of all load credits awarded for instruction. They earned 33.3% of the load credits awarded for teaching courses, and 31.8% of the load credits awarded for teaching labs. They seldom taught independent studies (only 2.5%), but accounted for 85.5% of the load credits awarded for supervising student teachers. The 2007-2011 collective bargaining agreement specifies that no more than 20% of instructional load credits should be attributable to part-time faculty. The discrepancy between the contractual standard and the percentage obtained in calculations for this study should be a subject for discussion between CSU AAUP and university administration.

Grand Total All Terms

Courses Lab Student-Teach Supervise Ind study Thesis Supp Lab Grand Total

PT Load Credits 14892.92 440.00 195.00 30.09 0.50 0.00 15558.51

FT Load Credits 29874.15 942.86 33.00 1163.38 243.16 112.25 32368.80

Total Load Credits 44767.07 1382.86 228.00 1193.47 243.66 112.25 47927.31

% of Load Credits by PT 33.3% 31.8% 85.5% 2.5% 0.2% 0.0% 32.5%

Finding 2.6 Among the CSU institutions, Central occupies a middle-range (along with Western) in terms of the percentage of load credits awarded for non-instructional activities. Some full-time faculty members, who participated in interviews for this study, argued that Central does not supply enough load credits for non-instructional activities. Faculty at Central earned an average of 2.10 non-instructional load credits per semester. Comparatively, faculty at Eastern received fewer (1.70), faculty at Western received a similar amount (2.27), and faculty at Southern received more (3.18) than faculty at Central.

14

Eastern Central Western Southern

Total FLCs

Instructional FLCs

% of total

12.78 11.94 12.16 11.81

11.08 9.84 9.89 8.63

86.7% 82.4% 81.3% 73.1%

Noninstructional FLCs 1.70 2.10 2.27 3.18

% of total

13.3% 17.6% 18.7% 26.9%

Finding 2.7 The academic departments that carried the highest total number of load credits per semester included anthropology (12.72), biology (12.64), modern languages (12.39), reading (12.37), and technology education (12.28). Also among the “top 10” departments were communication (12.25), physics and earth sciences (12.25), computer science (12.21), art (12.21), and biomolecular sciences (12.20). Three of these departments (biology, biomolecular sciences, and physics and earth sciences) have large numbers of lab-based courses. This finding has important implications for the current method of assigning load credits for laboratory courses. See table on page 16.

Finding 2.8 The academic departments that carried the highest number of instructional load credits per semester were anthropology (10.91), psychology (10.90), biomolecular sciences (10.90), manufacturing and construction management (10.90), and communication (10.88). Also among the “top 10” departments were engineering (10.75), art (10.60), political science (10.53), biology (10.52), and mathematical sciences (10.49). See table on page 17.

15

Department Total Load Credits per Full-time Faculty, Adjusted for Sabbaticals and Leaves

Total Load Credits/FT FTE Department Accounting Anthropology Art Biology Biomolecular Sciences Chemistry Communication Computer Electronic & Graphics Computer Science Counseling & Family Therapy Criminology & Criminal Justice Design (Graphic Information) Economics Educational Leadership Engineering English Finance Geography History Management & Organization Management Information Systems Manufact and Construct Mgt Marketing Mathematical Sciences Modern Languages Music Nursing Philosophy Physical Education Physics & Earth Sciences Political Science Psychology Reading Social Work Sociology Special Education Teacher Education Technology Education Theater University Total (all departments)

Mean 11.83 12.72 12.21 12.64 12.20 11.82 12.25 11.86 12.21 11.34 12.00 10.93 11.95 11.72 12.08 12.05 11.74 11.72 11.95 11.73 12.16 12.13 11.78 12.00 12.39 11.53 10.18 11.62 11.61 12.25 11.58 12.00 12.37 12.05 11.82 11.57 11.65 12.28 11.76 11.94

Excludes sabbatical and leave load credits from total and from FTE.

16

Minimum 10.54 12.06 11.31 11.54 11.35 10.58 11.93 11.03 11.74 7.52 10.82 9.40 10.50 10.00 11.06 11.58 10.20 10.90 11.51 10.14 11.20 10.87 10.67 11.24 11.35 9.58 7.33 10.62 9.44 11.83 9.76 10.93 11.76 11.11 10.65 9.04 10.68 9.80 9.85 7.33

Maximum 12.51 14.42 12.90 13.75 12.98 14.15 12.94 13.04 12.82 12.69 12.79 13.28 12.31 12.31 13.25 12.50 12.56 12.77 12.39 12.55 13.25 13.15 12.33 12.72 13.63 12.36 12.50 12.78 12.44 12.62 12.90 12.94 14.04 13.00 13.13 12.70 12.31 13.76 13.08 14.42

Department Instructional Load Credits per Full-time Faculty, Adjusted for Sabbaticals and Leaves Instructional Load Credits/FT FTE Department Accounting Anthropology Art Biology Biomolecular Sciences Chemistry Communication Computer Electronic & Graphics Computer Science Counseling & Family Therapy Criminology & Criminal Justice Design (Graphic Information) Economics Educational Leadership Engineering English Finance Geography History Management & Organization Management Information Systems Manufact and Construct Mgt Marketing Mathematical Sciences Modern Languages Music Nursing Philosophy Physical Education Physics & Earth Sciences Political Science Psychology Reading Social Work Sociology Special Education Teacher Education Technology Education Theater University Total (all departments)

Mean 8.26 10.91 10.60 10.52 10.90 9.94 10.88 9.24 10.30 8.95 9.56 8.99 9.57 9.64 10.75 10.39 7.81 9.96 9.12 8.83 7.44 10.90 8.94 10.49 9.93 8.59 7.77 9.31 9.98 10.09 10.53 10.90 10.00 9.77 10.10 9.72 9.74 10.34 8.03 9.84

Excludes sabbatical and leave load credits from total and from FTE.

17

Minimum 7.27 9.39 9.85 9.31 10.06 9.22 10.25 8.34 9.30 6.66 8.73 7.60 9.00 9.11 10.14 10.03 6.70 8.90 8.26 7.73 6.48 9.77 8.00 10.06 9.37 7.72 4.67 8.25 9.07 9.36 8.76 9.76 8.25 9.00 9.48 8.58 9.05 7.60 6.60 4.67

Maximum 9.26 13.02 11.47 11.57 11.73 12.09 11.36 10.96 11.80 9.78 10.22 11.03 10.00 10.35 11.81 10.73 8.70 11.12 9.95 9.81 8.00 11.75 9.73 11.13 11.18 9.25 9.33 10.67 10.44 10.80 12.04 11.56 13.29 10.25 10.96 11.50 10.17 12.36 9.51 13.29

Finding 2.9 In order to award one load credit for each laboratory hour taught, Central would need to allocate 50.5 additional load credits per year (beyond those already designated as supplemental lab credits). Central awarded 943 load credits to full-time faculty for teaching labs during the four academic years for which data were supplied by the CSU system. As noted in the collective bargaining agreement, faculty receive 0.75 load credits for teaching one hour of a laboratory course (e.g., 2.25 load credits for teaching a 3-hour lab). If faculty had received one load credit for each hour of laboratory courses that they taught, then Central would have awarded a total of 1,257 load credits during the four years for which data were supplied by the CSU system. The difference between these scenarios amounts to 314 load credits over four years (1257 vs. 943), or 78.5 load credits per year. The collective bargaining agreement calls for supplemental lab credits to be awarded, in order to address this gap. Central is obligated to award 27.0 load credits per semester for supplemental lab credit (article 10.6.4), or 54 load credits per academic year. Central did not meet this minimum threshold in any of the semesters examined in this study.

Supplemental lab credit

Fall 2005

Spring 2006

Fall 2006

Spring 2007


10.8

8.6

11.2

18.0

19.3

15.1

15.5

13.7

overall average per semester 14.0

Across the four years of data, Central awarded an average of 14.0 supplemental lab credits per semester, or 28 load credits per year. Thus, the additional “cost” of awarding one load credit for each laboratory hour taught by full-time faculty would be an additional 50.5 load credits per year. Current annual supplemental lab allocation 28.0 + 50.5 = 78.5 (the annual gap between the two scenarios described above)

18

Quantitative Analysis: Section 3 Instructional and scholarly practices Pedagogical practices in undergraduate courses NSOPF collects national data regarding faculty teaching practices in undergraduate courses. We collected comparative data from full-time faculty at Central who teach undergraduate courses. Full-time faculty members at Central are more likely than the national average for faculty in “public master’s I” institutions to use pedagogical practices, which research has shown to be effective in promoting student learning. These pedagogical practices include:    

Assessments of multiple drafts of students’ written work Student presentations Group and team projects Peer feedback on student work

Faculty at Central are also more likely than the national average to require undergraduate students to write term/research papers, as well as participate in laboratory, shop, or studio assignments. These types of assignments are also associated with promoting an active, engaged learning environment. Faculty at Central are more likely than the national average to use essay and short-answer exams in their courses. These approaches indicate that faculty at Central are not relying solely on multiple choice exams to evaluate student learning. However, essay and short-answer exams do not generate the active, engaged learning environments that are most closely associated with promoting student achievement in college courses. Faculty at Central are less likely than the national average to incorporate service-learning or co-op experiences into their courses.

Finding 3.1 Faculty members who teach undergraduate courses at Central use multiple-choice exams at rates comparable to the national average for faculty in “public master’s I” institutions. Multiple-choice exams Central National average

All Classes 29.9% 32.1%

Some classes 26.4% 26.4%

19

Not used 43.7% 41.5%

Finding 3.2 Faculty members who teach undergraduate courses at Central are more likely to use essay exams in their courses than the national average for faculty in “public master’s I” institutions. Essay exams Central National average



Not used 26.1% 37.3%

Finding 3.3 Faculty members who teach undergraduate courses at Central are more likely to use short-answer exams in their courses than the national average for faculty in “public master’s I” institutions. Short-answer exams Central National average



Not used 21.2% 34.8%

Finding 3.4 Faculty members who teach undergraduate courses at Central are more likely to use term/research papers and writing assignments in their courses than the national average for faculty in “public master’s I” institutions. Term/research papers and writing assignments All Classes Central 55.1% National average 49.2%


Not used 6.7% 17.7%

Finding 3.5 Faculty members who teach undergraduate courses at Central are more likely to assess multiple drafts of students’ written work than the national average for faculty in “public master’s I” institutions. Multiple drafts of written work All Classes Central 22.1% National average 21.0%


Not used 33.7% 52.5%

Finding 3.6 Faculty members who teach undergraduate courses at Central are more likely than the national average to require student presentations in at least some of their courses. Oral presentations Central National average



20

Not used 26.7% 32.1%

Finding 3.7 Faculty members who teach undergraduate courses at Central are more likely than the national average to have students work on group and team projects in at least some of their courses. Group and team projects Central National average



Not used 32.6% 40.6%

Finding 3.8 Faculty members who teach undergraduate courses at Central are more likely than the national average to use peer feedback techniques in at least some of their courses. Student evaluations of each other’s work All Classes Central 14.9% National average 18.7%


Not used 48.3% 59.2%

Finding 3.9 Faculty members who teach undergraduate courses at Central are more likely than the national average to use laboratory, shop, or studio assignments in at least some of their courses. Laboratory, shop, or studio assignments All Classes Central 18.2% National average 23.8%


Not used 45.5% 53.7%

Finding 3.10 Faculty members who teach undergraduate courses at Central are somewhat less likely than the national average to have students participate in service-learning or co-op experiences. Service-learning or co-op experiences requiring interactions with the community or business/industry All Classes Some classes Not used Central 4.6% 20.7% 74.7% National average 10.5% 19.4% 70.1%

21

Innovation in Teaching In addition to examining teaching practices in undergraduate courses, we explored the types of changes that faculty were making to their courses, both undergraduate and graduate. The spring 2009 faculty survey identified full-time faculty who had taught at Central for at least two years, and asked those faculty to describe recent changes that they had made to their courses within the previous two academic years. The findings suggest that large majorities of faculty members at Central are actively engaged in updating their courses to build students’ academic skills, to foster student engagement in academic work, to incorporate perspectives on diversity into course content, and to experiment with new teaching methods. Faculty at Central are also revising syllabi and course requirements in order to keep pace with changing developments in their academic fields and disciplines, as well as to fulfill external expectations from professional accreditation associations. Also, more than 78% of full-time faculty at Central reported that they are actively engaged in using new instructional technologies to foster student learning.

Finding 3.11 Over the previous two years, 78.7% of faculty members have revised their syllabi to devote more attention to building students’ academic skills.

Revised syllabus to devote more attention to building students’ academic skills in reading, writing, or math

Did this for all of my courses Did this for some of my courses Not necessary or relevant to my courses Did not do this, lack of time Did not do this, lack of support or professional development

46.8% 31.9% 19.1% 2.1% 0.0%

Finding 3.12 Over the previous two years, 90.4% of faculty members have changed their teaching practices to get students more involved in their own learning.

Changed teaching practices to get students more involved in their own learning (e.g., through hands-on projects, group work, student-led presentations)


22

57.4% 33.0% 9.6% 0.0% 0.0%

Finding 3.13 Over the previous two years, 60.8% of faculty members have incorporated more perspectives from diverse cultural or ethnic traditions into their courses.

Changed class readings and discussion topics to include more perspectives from different cultural or ethnic backgrounds and traditions


30.4% 30.4% 32.6% 6.5% 0.0%

Finding 3.14 Over the previous two years, 91.4% of faculty members have experimented with new teaching approaches.

Experimented with new teaching approaches


44.1% 47.3% 3.2% 4.3% 1.1%

Finding 3.15 Over the previous two years, 63.5% of faculty members substantially revised their syllabi to reflect major changes in their academic fields or disciplines.

Substantially revised syllabus to reflect significant changes in my discipline or field (not just updating the readings, but re-envisioning the course based on new developments in the field or discipline)


28.0% 35.5% 24.7% 11.8% 0.0%

Finding 3.16 Over the previous two years, 78.5% of faculty members incorporated new instructional technologies into their teaching practices.

Incorporated new technologies into my teaching practices (e.g., web sites, blogs)


23

32.3% 46.2% 11.8% 8.6% 1.1%

Finding 3.17 Over the previous two years, 43.1% of faculty members revised their syllabi to bring courses into alignment with external expectations associated with accreditation or professional licensure.

Revised syllabus to bring course into alignment with external expectations associated with accreditation or professional licensure


23.7% 19.4% 50.5% 4.3% 2.2%

Scholarly activities The spring 2009 faculty survey also asked faculty members to describe the extent of their involvement in a range of scholarly activities. Some key findings include: 

More than 87% of full-time faculty at Central reported involvement in scholarly work that spans multiple disciplines.



78% of full-time faculty at Central reported involvement in mentoring new faculty.



More than 68% of full-time faculty at Central reported that they collaborate with other scholars on a research team.

Conduct research on college teaching and learning (scholarship of teaching and learning) Participate in teaching enhancement workshops

Great Extent 17.9%

Some Extent 38.9%

Not at All 43.2%

9.5%

58.9%

31.6%

Engage in academic work that spans multiple disciplines

42.1%

45.3%

12.6%

Mentor new faculty

16.8%

61.1%

22.1%

8.4%

40.0%

51.6%

26.3%

42.1%

31.6%

Collaborate with the local community in research

5.3%

37.9%

56.8%

Collaborate with the local community in teaching (e.g., service learning projects)

5.3%

34.7%

60.0%

Team-teach courses with other faculty Collaborate with other scholars on a research team

24

Quantitative Analysis: Section 4 Job Satisfaction and the Academic Work Environment This section of the report contains four parts, which focus on: 1) faculty job satisfaction, 2) time and work schedule pressures, 3) institutional support for faculty work, and 4) organizational climate.

Section 4.1 Faculty job satisfaction NSOPF collects national data on faculty job satisfaction. In spring 2009, we collected comparative data from full-time faculty at Central. Some of the findings suggest the potential for concern regarding faculty morale. Full-time faculty members at Central were less satisfied than the national average for faculty at “public master’s I” institutions on the following dimensions:  

Institutional support for instructional technology Workload

Full-time faculty members at Central were also less likely than the national average to believe that:    

Good teaching is rewarded by the institution Women faculty are treated fairly at the institution Faculty members from racial and ethnic minority groups are treated fairly at the institution Part-time faculty members are treated fairly at the institution

Full-time faculty members at Central reported satisfaction levels that were consistent with (within 5% of) national averages for:     

Faculty autonomy regarding decisions about course content and teaching methods Quality of facilities and equipment available for instruction Institutional support for teaching improvement Salary Overall job satisfaction

Full-time faculty members at Central reported satisfaction levels that were higher than the national average for: 

Benefits available in faculty compensation packages

Note: satisfaction level includes both “very satisfied” and “somewhat satisfied” responses.

25

Very satisfied

The authority you have to make decisions about the content and teaching methods in your instructional activities

17.9%

1.1%

0.0%

National average

77.8%

17.9%

3.6%

0.7%

Somewhat dissatisfied

Very dissatisfied

Somewhat satisfied

Central

27.2%

50.0%

18.5%

4.3%

National average

43.0%

42.4%

11.3%

3.3%


Very dissatisfied

Somewhat satisfied

Central

24.5%

44.7%

22.3%

8.5%

National average

28.8%

43.6%

19.9%

7.7%


Very dissatisfied

Very satisfied

Institutional support for teaching improvement (including grants, release time, and professional development funds)

Very dissatisfied

81.1%

Very satisfied

The quality of equipment and facilities available for classroom instruction


Central

Very satisfied

Institutional support for implementing technology-based instructional activities (teaching with technology)

Somewhat satisfied

Somewhat satisfied

Central

12.8%

52.1%

29.8%

5.3%

National average

23.9%

40.8%

25.1%

10.2%

26

Very satisfied

Your workload

27.4%

31.6%

28.4%

National average

24.0%

40.8%

24.8%

10.4%


Very dissatisfied

Somewhat satisfied

Central

7.4%

41.1%

31.6%

20.0%

National average

13.9%

39.5%

28.0%

18.5%


Very dissatisfied

Somewhat satisfied

Central

40.4%

42.6%

13.8%

3.2%

National average

29.5%

45.3%

18.3%

6.9%


Very dissatisfied

Very satisfied

Your job at this institution, overall

Very dissatisfied

12.6%

Very satisfied

The benefits available to you


Central

Very satisfied

Your salary

Somewhat satisfied

Somewhat satisfied

Central

29.5%

50.5%

16.8%

3.2%

National average

36.2%

48.4%

12.3%

3.0%

27

Agree Strongly

Faculty at this institution are rewarded for good teaching.

60.6%

25.5%

4.3%

National average

25.1%

50.6%

16.6%

7.7%

Agree Somewhat

Disagree Somewhat

Disagree Strongly

Central

19.8%

36.3%

29.7%

14.3%

National average

50.9%

35.5%

10.4%

3.2%

Agree Somewhat

Disagree Somewhat

Disagree Strongly

Central

26.4%

38.5%

23.1%

12.1%

National average

50.9%

36.9%

9.3%

2.9%

Agree Strongly

Part-time faculty are treated fairly at this institution.

Disagree Strongly

9.6%

Agree Strongly

Faculty who are members of racial or ethnic minority groups are treated fairly at this institution.

Disagree Somewhat

Central

Agree Strongly

Women faculty members are treated fairly at this institution.

Agree Somewhat

Agree Somewhat

Disagree Somewhat

Disagree Strongly

Central

11.7%

37.2%

38.3%

12.8%

National average

19.1%

40.3%

26.3%

14.3%

28

Section 4.2 Time and work schedule pressures The spring 2009 faculty survey included four items that measured the extent of time pressure experienced by faculty members. Full-time faculty at Central reported high levels of dissatisfaction with:  

Time available for research and creative activity Time available for keeping current in their field or discipline

On the other hand, a majority of survey respondents reported some level of satisfaction with:  

Time available for advising students (67.3% somewhat or very satisfied) Time available for class preparation (63.1% somewhat or very satisfied)

Time available for working with students as an advisor, mentor

Very satisfied

Somewhat satisfied


Very dissatisfied

30.5%

36.8%

26.3%

6.3%

26.3%

36.8%

30.5%

6.3%

10.5%

15.8%

35.8%

37.9%

10.5%

15.8%

43.2%

30.5%

Time available for class preparation

Time available for research, creative, and other scholarly activities Time available for keeping current in your field

Section 4.3 Institutional support for faculty work The spring 2009 faculty survey included nine items that measured faculty satisfaction with different dimensions of institutional support for faculty work. The majority of full-time faculty survey respondents were very or somewhat satisfied with:        

Institutional support to experiment with new teaching approaches Institutional support for technology-based instruction (although this was less than the national average) Quality of equipment and facilities available for classroom instruction Quality of equipment and facilities available for research Institutional support for teaching improvement Institutional support for faculty to engage in public/community outreach Office space and equipment Support services (secretarial and/or professional staff)

29

The majority of survey respondents were very or somewhat dissatisfied with: 

Institutional support for research, creative, and other scholarly activities

This section of the survey also asked faculty to report on their level of satisfaction with the availability of child care. Nearly three-quarters of survey respondents (72.3%) indicated that the availability of child care is not applicable to them. However, among the faculty for whom child care is applicable, approximately 88% were somewhat or very dissatisfied.

Very satisfied

Somewhat satisfied

Institutional support to experiment with new teaching approaches

21.3%

42.6%

25.5%

10.6%

Institutional support for implementing technology-based instructional activities (teaching with technology) *

27.2%

50.0%

18.5%

4.3%

The quality of equipment and facilities available for classroom instruction *

24.5%

44.7%

22.3%

8.5%

The quality of equipment and facilities available for research (including labs, libraries, and research technology)

15.1%

37.6%

36.6%

10.8%

Institutional support for teaching improvement (including grants, release time, and professional development funds) *

12.8%

52.1%

29.8%

5.3%

9.6%

30.9%

42.6%

17.0%

7.6%

48.9%

30.4%

13.0%

Office space and equipment

25.5%

40.4%

20.2%

13.8%

Support services (secretarial and/or professional staff support)

33.7%

38.9%

20.0%

7.4%

Institutional support for research, creative, and other scholarly activities (including grants, release time, and research administration) Institutional support for faculty to engage in public/community outreach


Very dissatisfied

* These data were also reported earlier in this report as comparisons to national averages from NSOPF data.

Very satisfied

Somewhat satisfied


Very dissatisfied

Not applicable

19.1%

72.3%

Availability of child care at this institution 1.1%

2.1%

30

5.3%

Section 4.4 Organizational climate The spring 2009 full-time faculty survey included 17 items that measured different dimensions of organizational climate. At Central, high levels of agreement were reported for:   

Faculty having a voice in what occurs within their departments (88.5% agreed strongly or somewhat) Faculty feeling that they can talk openly with their colleagues (84.9% agreed strongly or somewhat) Faculty feeling that they are part of an institutional community (75.6% agreed strongly or somewhat)

Conversely, the highest levels of disagreement were registered for:  

Administrators at this institution consider faculty concerns when making policy (71.3% disagreed strongly or somewhat) Faculty are sufficiently involved in campus decision making (62.1% disagreed strongly or somewhat)

Some measure of concern was also reported regarding tenure and promotion criteria. A majority of respondents disagreed strongly or somewhat that:  

The institution’s faculty evaluation and reward system is a good fit with their scholarly research and teaching interests (54.1% disagreed strongly or somewhat) The criteria for tenure and promotion at this institution are clear (51.6% disagreed strongly or somewhat) Agree Strongly

Agree Somewhat

Disagree Somewhat

Disagree Strongly

It is easy to talk openly with faculty in this institution.

43.0%

41.9%

12.9%

2.2%

It is easy to talk openly with administrators at this institution.

11.7%

35.1%

34.0%

19.1%

Diverse values and beliefs are respected at this institution.

17.9%

42.1%

29.5%

10.5%

Administrators at this institution consider faculty concerns when making policy.

6.4%

22.3%

40.4%

30.9%

Faculty are sufficiently involved in campus decision making.

7.4%

30.5%

36.8%

25.3%

I have a voice in what goes on at this institution.

2.1%

53.7%

28.4%

15.8%

My department does a good job of mentoring new faculty.

31.3%

42.7%

16.7%

9.4%

I have a voice in what goes on in my department.

63.2%

25.3%

10.5%

1.1%

31

Agree Strongly

Agree Somewhat

Disagree Somewhat

Disagree Strongly

This institution provides sufficient support for faculty development.

7.3%

41.7%

35.4%

15.6%

This institution’s faculty evaluation and reward system is a good fit with my scholarly research and teaching interests.

8.3%

37.5%

38.5%

15.6%

The work environment at this institution fosters a balance between work and personal life.

9.4%

34.4%

25.0%

31.3%

Faculty at this institution are rewarded for good teaching. *

9.6%

60.6%

25.5%

4.3%

Faculty at this institution are rewarded for being good researchers.

12.9%

43.0%

34.4%

9.7%

Faculty at this institution are rewarded for serving the public/community.

5.4%

47.3%

37.6%

9.7%

The criteria for tenure and promotion at this institution are clear.

11.8%

36.6%

35.5%

16.1%

I feel that I am a part of the institutional community.

24.5%

51.1%

20.2%

4.3%

I plan to stay at this university as long as possible.

39.8%

32.3%

16.1%

11.8%

* These data were also reported earlier in this report as comparisons to national averages from NSOPF data.

32

Qualitative Analysis: Section 1 Teaching Loads and Teaching Effectiveness Full-time faculty at Central expressed several concerns regarding the 4-4 teaching load. In particular, study participants indicated that the 4-4 load is a significant impediment in their efforts not only to provide excellent teaching, but also to establish productive research agendas. These concerns were more prevalent among junior faculty, as well as faculty whose fields or specializations do not allow them to teach multiple sections of the same course each semester. Study participants also indicated that the university makes no distinction between undergraduate and graduate teaching loads, even though preparing to teach a graduate-level course is typically viewed as more demanding. Many faculty and several administrators expressed strong support for the university’s class size caps, which in their view, help maintain high-quality instruction. In contrast, faculty expressed concerns about the availability of reassigned time for research. Reassigned time enables faculty to receive a reduced teaching load periodically in order to advance elements of their research agendas. Some faculty reported that the amount of reassigned time for research was insufficient, but other faculty noted that the process enabled most faculty to receive reassigned time when they requested it. Finally, faculty members, department chairs, and administrators discussed differences in teaching loads among the university’s schools, with most of the attention directed toward teaching loads in the School of Business. Challenges with the teaching load The overarching concern regarding the 4-4 teaching load is that faculty do not want to compromise their pedagogical approaches or shortchange their efforts to promote student learning. As a department chair in arts and sciences noted, “Students, regardless of level, need a lot of feedback on their writing, so a 44 load involving as many as 100 students is challenging.” Several interview participants indicated that junior faculty members, in particular, struggle with the 4-4 teaching load. A department chair in a professional field noted that “the new faculty work hard on teaching, but they have no time to get a research agenda established.” A tenured faculty member in arts and sciences recalled her first few years on the job: I almost left the job. It was too much. I was physically spent. Having a family at the same time is very challenging… I also feel that our efforts are underappreciated, and that people don’t realize how much work goes on behind the scenes to be a good teacher. The biggest need right now is to do something about the credit load. Some faculty spoke of altering or scaling back their research agendas due to the 4-4 teaching load. A faculty member in the sciences explained that “the reason I gave up field research was because of the heavy teaching load. There is no way that I could have the time to go out and collect data like I used to do, before I came here. My shift in scholarly focus is due to time and energy constraints.”

33

In addition to junior faculty, workload concerns were expressed strongly by faculty whose fields or specializations do not allow them to teach multiple sections of the same course each semester. A faculty member in arts and sciences explained that “most of the faculty in my department have three different preparations each semester, because two of their four classes are the same. But I, and some others too, have four different preparations each semester. And it is just overwhelming to teach four different courses each semester in addition to everything else that we are expected to do.” Faculty who teach primarily in graduate programs also mentioned that they seldom have the opportunity to teach multiple sections of the same course. A faculty member in arts and sciences also explained that “graduate courses require a lot of faculty preparation time, more than the undergraduate courses. You are really dealing with much more advanced texts [in graduate courses], and it takes more time to develop lessons and assignments from them.” Similarly, a department chair in arts and sciences indicated that “the university treats graduate and undergraduate students the same in terms of load credit, even though graduate courses require a greater investment of time on the part of faculty than undergraduate courses.” This department chair argued that Central should allocate additional load credits for faculty who teach graduate courses: “load credit should be calculated in terms of the complexity and volume of the work.” In contrast to their concerns about course loads, faculty strongly endorsed the university’s class size caps. An administrator outlined the class size limits: For a three-credit class, you cannot go over 40 students. Writing intensive courses are capped at 20 to 25. Upper-level classes are capped at 25 to 40. Developmental math is capped at 15 to 20. There are some larger lectures that run at 40, but most classes are smaller. There are very few 150-student lectures, but the faculty get six [load credits] for that. Our class sizes are pretty good, when you compare them with large universities. Faculty, as well as several administrators, supported the class size caps. Several faculty indicated that they would not want the class size caps raised, even in exchange for teaching three courses per semester, rather than four. Reassigned time and the teaching load Faculty referred to reassigned time for research as a way to accommodate expectations for both highquality teaching and research. Some study participants reported that the amount of reassigned time for research was insufficient, while others indicated that most faculty who apply for the credits receive them. A junior faculty member in a professional field noted that “getting reassigned time for research would be great, but it is very competitive.”A department chair in arts and sciences argued that “reassigned time *for research+ is insufficient to cover the work that is carried out. The faculty in my department, especially the junior faculty, are very productive and tend to publish based on their own motivations, without relying on reassigned time. But that behavior can jeopardize their ability to actually get reassigned time to do it. And that just leads to burnout in the long run.” On the other hand, a tenured faculty member in arts and sciences explained that reassigned time is available for those who request it. The dean’s office has a pool of credits that faculty can apply for, to get release time for research. It seems that everyone who has a solid application receives the credits.

34

Preference seems to be given to assistant professors who need more research time. But each faculty member does not apply for the credits every year, so there seems to be enough [credits] to go around. A department chair explained that the School of Arts and Sciences attempts to distribute reassigned time to as many faculty members as possible, but doing so means that the load credits are awarded in small increments to faculty who are already carrying an overload. “If a faculty member is carrying one credit of overload, the dean will sometimes add two credits of reassigned time to round it up to three. I know that the dean wants to extend reassigned time to as many faculty as possible, but it suggests that you need to take on extra work in order to increase your chances of getting reassigned time, and that is essentially unfair.” On the other hand, a faculty member in arts and sciences explained that “the dean’s office is less likely to give reassigned research time if a faculty member has too many overload credits.” The logic, here, is that faculty should drawn down their overload credits first, before seeking reassigned time for research. A faculty member in arts and sciences, however, noted that faculty in her relatively small department are almost always carrying an overload just to provide the necessary courses, and therefore, these faculty receive less reassigned time for research. “We can’t get away from the overloads due to the demands of the curriculum and the small size of the department. But then, we can’t get reassigned time for research. So we get zapped both ways.” In addition to reassigned time for research, some faculty argued for a more flexible workload structure, especially regarding work-life balance issues. A faculty member in arts and sciences stated that “we need a system where if a faculty member needs to reduce her load, say for example, because they are starting a family, they could do so, and get partial salary and partial benefits. For example, if someone can do only 9 credits, then they are allowed to do that with their salary and benefits adjusted to 9 credits.” Equity in teaching loads Many study participants referred to an equity issue regarding teaching loads in the School of Business. An administrator noted that “a lot of people are not happy about the fact that the business school faculty have a 3-3 load. They [business faculty] claim that it is for accreditation and because they do more research. But I know faculty in other schools who produce more scholarship than they do, without the course release that they receive.” A department chair in arts and sciences raised the same issue. “They [business faculty] have a 3-3 teaching load, they say, based on accreditation requirements, even though they aren’t accredited yet and they don’t seem to be getting any closer to being accredited. So why do they have this special dispensation, as it were?” A faculty member in arts and sciences explained that “the real issue is not that they shouldn’t have a lighter teaching load, but that everyone should.” Study participants from the School of Business were aware of these equity arguments, and offered explanations as to why their teaching loads differ. They referred to the expectations of their external accrediting body (AACSB), high level research expectations within their school, and class sizes (student contact hours).

35

Members of the business school linked their efforts toward AACSB accreditation with higher research expectations and thus the need to maintain a 3-3 teaching load. A faculty member in the business school noted that “we are seeking accreditation, and that drives up research expectations.” Another member of the business school explained that faculty are held accountable for these higher research expectations. “Business faculty can maintain the three-course teaching load only if they meet criteria determined by the faculty. Those who don’t meet the criteria within a five-year period will be assigned a four-course teaching load.” Nevertheless, one faculty member in the business school indicated that he was not aware of such guidelines. “I know that the university expects me to produce a higher proportion of research based on receiving the course releases, but I haven’t been able to find any specific guidelines about those expectations.” Members of the business school also pointed toward their class sizes as a justification for the 3-3 load. As a faculty member explained, “Instead of teaching four classes with 30 students in each class, faculty in the School of Business teach 40 students in each of their three classes. I know that many people who teach in other schools at Central feel that we have an advantageous situation, but the reality is that this is not the case, if you focus on student count, rather than number of classes.” Another faculty member stated that “I think we have the highest student contact hours at the university.” Other faculty members indicated that the School of Business has the highest number of majors and largest number of transfer students at Central, thus increasing faculty members’ advising responsibilities. Some faculty in the business school, however, described course enrollments that were not substantially different from the other schools in the university. A faculty member in business explained that “the School of Business is also managing class size to maximize contact hours; 25 to 30 students in each class is the norm.” The data supplied by the CSU system did not allow us to calculate student credit hours (that is, course credit hours multiplied by course enrollment); thus, we cannot confirm the larger course enrollments claimed by the business school. The faculty load credit data, supplied by the CSU system, did confirm that the academic departments in the School of Business receive the most reassigned time for research at Central. As a percentage of total load credits, reassigned time for research comprises 19.5% of all load credits earned by faculty in accounting, 21.2% for faculty in finance, 17.8% for faculty in management and organization, 21.0% for faculty in management information systems, and 18.3% for faculty in marketing. The departments with the next largest percentages of reassigned time for research include English (5.9%), computer science (5.5%), and educational leadership (4.8%). Eleven departments had 1% or less of their load credits as reassigned time for research.1 Thus, there is a large gap between the departments in the School of Business and the other academic units at Central. Given the frequency with which this issue was raised by study participants, faculty and administrators at Central should gather student credit hour data and examine the range of student contact hours across the various academic departments of the university. In conclusion, the main issues regarding teaching load were:

1

The departments include anthropology, art, communications, computer electronic graphics, design graphic information, geography, music, political science, social work, technology education, and theater.

36

1. Junior faculty and their need to establish both teaching excellence and robust research agendas. A potential action, here, would be to develop a standard policy for providing a reduced teaching load for all new junior faculty (this matter is also addressed in the section of this report that focuses on “faculty recruitment, hiring, and professional development”). 2. Faculty with four different course preparations each semester. If teaching multiple sections of the same course is not possible, then additional load credits could be provided for faculty who have four different course preparations each semester. 3. Graduate teaching loads. Rather than creating separate graduate and undergraduate faculties, which may be unwieldy and unworkable, Central could instead consider allocating different amounts of load credit for undergraduate and graduate courses. 4. Equity in reassigned time. Multiple, interrelated actions may be warranted. a. Administrators and faculty at Central can systematically examine the amount of reassigned time for research provided to each academic department. b. They can also gather student credit hour data and examine the range of student contact hours across the various academic departments. c. Regarding the equity issues raised in terms of teaching loads, administrators can clarify the higher research expectations for faculty in the School of Business. If such guidelines for research productivity already exist, then administrators can communicate them more extensively. d. To establish greater perceptions of equity, Central could provide larger amounts of reassigned time for research to faculty in schools other than business. The university could create a number of multi-year awards of reassigned time for research, for those who have demonstrated significant scholarly productivity. Faculty could receive a 3-3 teaching load over two or three consecutive years to accommodate more expansive lines of research inquiry (rather than simply rely on single-semester allocations of reassigned time for research). e. The relationship between faculty overloads and reassigned time for research should be addressed by administrators and faculty. Some faculty members believed that they were penalized for having an overload, and were less likely to receive reassigned time for research as a result. On the other hand, other faculty described how deans would combine one overload credit with two credits of reassigned time for research, thus distributing reassigned time (course releases) to larger numbers of faculty. Yet this approach was interpreted by some faculty as an expectation that faculty would need to carry an overload before they would be considered for reassigned time. Administrators and faculty at Central need to untangle these issues and communicate more clearly whether there is an intended linkage between overload and reassigned time, or whether the issues should be decoupled entirely.

37

Qualitative Analysis: Section 2 Promotion and tenure reviews The research mission of Central constitutes a source of uncertainty and ambiguity for many faculty members. As with other public comprehensive universities, Central seeks to provide excellent teaching, as well as produce high quality research. While in the research university, research is viewed to be an end unto itself, in the public comprehensive university, research is intended to inform teaching (linked to the student experience), as well as intended to serve the public (generally linked to the community, state, or region). Nevertheless, the research agendas of public comprehensive universities may drift toward the research university model, either due to the preferences and priorities of newly hired faculty, or due to administrative efforts to reshape the mission of the institution. Several faculty described administrators at Central as being caught up in a “chase for prestige” in which they equate excellence with the research university model. This chase for prestige, they argue, creates an emphasis on the types of scholarship that are typically produced at prestigious research universities, including peer-reviewed publications in scholarly journals. This emphasis, some faculty argue, serves as a disincentive for faculty to engage in other forms of scholarship, such as community engagement or research with undergraduate students. These other forms of scholarship, however, are also espoused as university priorities at Central. Thus, faculty indicate that they are receiving mixed signals and, therefore, they report high levels of uncertainty regarding administrative priorities for the future of the university. Critical events regarding promotion and tenure recommendations Many study participants referred to decisions by the current President, in his first year in office (20052006), to overturn several promotion and tenure (P&T) recommendations that had been made by the university’s P&T committee. A faculty member in arts and sciences, for example, noted that “in the President’s first year, six cases were recommended by the P&T committee for P&T, and one was denied by the P&T committee. The President denied all the ones that had been recommended by the committee, and reversed the one that the committee had denied.” Another faculty member in arts and sciences indicated that “the President overturned a number of promotions to full professor rank, overruling the decisions made by promotion and tenure committees.” Many of the faculty interviewed for this study recalled strong feelings of anger around these decisions. They referred to this incident as a violation of shared governance. They also pointed toward equity issues regarding how the criteria were changed “in mid-stream.” Some faculty also pointed toward concerns regarding gender equity. A faculty member in arts and sciences argued that: The President denied tenure to a bunch of faculty because he said that they had published a lot, but in a lump. He didn’t understand the way academic journals publish and the varying time it takes for different journals. It was also discriminatory towards women, since women have to take time out to have children and raise them, and they might not have been able to get publications out at constant intervals, but instead in a lump. These decisions appeared to heighten faculty concerns regarding the university’s research expectations. Many faculty members sensed a trend toward the research university model and traditional forms of

38

academic publication. A department chair in a professional field, for example, referred to the President’s “declaration” that “preference would be given to traditional academic publication in P&T, and that led to anxiety among the faculty with regard to expectations *for research+.” Some faculty interpreted the university’s research expectations as a disincentive for faculty to engage in other forms of scholarship, such as research with undergraduate students and community engagement. A faculty member in arts and sciences noted that “the President has made it clear that local conferences do not count [toward P&T], and that has discouraged faculty from working with students [on research], since those projects would probably only get presented at local conferences.” Similarly, a faculty member in a professional field argued that “the current [P&T] system is misaligned, and leads to disincentives for faculty to spend time working with public schools on school improvement, or on other issues in the community.” These comments are noteworthy, because administrators at Central are also promoting faculty involvement in both undergraduate research and community engagement. Thus, faculty report that they are receiving mixed messages regarding the type of research that the university values: traditional forms of publication, or multiple forms of scholarship. Departmental promotion and tenure criteria During academic year 2008-2009, many departments at Central created their own guidelines for the promotion and tenure process. Several study participants described this initiative as a positive response to the controversy surrounding the President’s rejection of previous P&T committee recommendations. A department chair in arts and sciences explained that “because of the hullabaloo that happened when the President first came to Central, there have been efforts to standardize the P&T process, though not in the sense of an expectation that faculty members fit the same mold across disciplines. Each department was asked to document what they considered to be important for P&T, and we have written and ratified our guidelines.” Similarly, a department chair in a professional field noted that “the Provost asked each department to define their tenure and promotion expectations, what the criteria mean to each department. This is to help people on the university-wide P&T

39

Issues regarding research expectations are linked directly to how the mission of the university is being interpreted. As a faculty member in arts and sciences explained, “I think the university should follow its mission and not strive to become a different type of university. We are a teaching university, and it is unrealistic to expect us to become a research university with the current 4-4 teaching load. Research at institutions like Central should focus on teaching and [addressing needs in+ the community.” On the other hand, a department chair in arts and sciences argued that the recent discussions around promotion and tenure criteria had clarified the expectations, and had not substantially changed them. “I don’t think that the current expectations for research and creative activity are out of line.”

committee who are not in the field to understand the expectations for the field. The departmental guidelines have to be reviewed and approved by the senate, AAUP, human resources, and the Provost.” In a related development, the university has established a process whereby administrators communicate with P&T committees when their evaluations differ. A faculty member in arts and sciences explained that “recently, there has been a change, where if an administrator reverses a committee’s recommendations, then they have to meet with the committee to discuss it. I think this is a positive development.” Several department chairs described the processes by which their departments developed P&T guidelines. A department chair in a professional field explained that “in the process of developing the guidelines, we considered what we value in a faculty member… The guidelines represent what we view as valid [faculty activity] in our department.” Another department chair in a professional field described the departmental guidelines as a “road map for junior faculty to prepare to meet expectations for promotion and tenure.” Some faculty debated whether the new guidelines more clearly articulate current expectations, or whether they codify new expectations regarding the quantity and type of faculty scholarship. A faculty member in arts and sciences explained that “different people have different opinions on the departmental guidelines. Some faculty think that it raises the standards, while others think that it clarifies the criteria.” Some academic departments were more confident than others in terms of whether their departmental guidelines would be viewed as valid and legitimate by university administration and by university-wide P&T committees. A faculty member in a professional field argued that “the P&T criteria are in flux, especially around community engagement. Our school is trying to articulate how we value community engagement as valid for P&T, but I am not sure if it will be accepted at the Provost level or the campuswide P&T committee.” Several faculty expressed uncertainty regarding whether various forms of scholarship would be considered valid by university administration, even if these forms of scholarship were endorsed in departmental guidelines. These feelings of uncertainty resulted in much second-guessing among faculty members, regarding whether they should engage in alternative forms of scholarship. A faculty member in arts and sciences, for example, stated that “I have been working with local school districts… This activity is highly valued in my department, but it might not be viewed favorably by the President, who seems to favor national and international activities.” Other study participants, however, were more confident that the promotion and tenure process would endorse and recognize multiple forms of faculty scholarship. A department chair in a professional field, for example, referred to the work of a university-wide committee on external partnerships as a venue for creating new guidelines on community-engaged scholarship. “A new committee on partnership wrote guidelines that DECs [Departmental Evaluation Committees] can use for evaluating the scholarship of engagement. These guides can give evidence to administration that the scholarship of engagement is given more weight than simply service.” Similarly, a faculty member in a professional field expressed confidence that the guidelines developed in his department would be upheld by administration, even though the guidelines give preference to conference presentations with students, rather than peer-reviewed publications. “In our department,

40

for scholarly activity, we prefer that faculty present research with their students at professional conferences, and we assign a high value to that. That will be what we emphasize.” Composition of promotion and tenure committees The university P&T committee is comprised of elected members, two from each school, with additional members serving at large. Given that the School of Arts and Sciences is the largest academic unit at Central, most of the at-large members of the P&T committee are faculty from that school. Some faculty members outside the School of Arts and Sciences expressed concerns that the composition of the university’s P&T committee could create problems in terms of interpreting and evaluating the various forms of scholarship that are prevalent in different academic departments. A department chair in a professional field, for example, stated that “the A&S [Arts and Sciences] faculty don’t have a deep understanding of applied scholarship.” A department chair in arts and sciences argued that the new P&T guidelines established at the department level would inform decisions made at the university P&T committee. “We just submitted guidelines that spell out the particulars of faculty work in our department. I think this might be a way to solve real or perceived problems that can arise when the university P&T is populated by faculty from arts and sciences.” Other faculty outside the School of Arts and Sciences, however, were still concerned regarding whether their departmental guidelines would be viewed as valid by the university P&T committee. A faculty member in a professional field noted that “each department is expected to establish its own P&T guidelines, but it is difficult for smaller departments to gauge the *university’s+ expectations, because they are not able to send regular representation to P&T committees. And therefore, they are not in a position of being able to bring that type of information back to their respective departments.” A department chair in a professional field argued for a structural change in the university’s P&T process. “I would prefer a school-wide process, rather than a university-wide P&T process. Instead of what we have now, the recommendations would go from the department, then to the dean and a school-wide P&T committee, and then to administration.” Conclusions regarding promotion and tenure at Central In conclusion, it is important to reiterate some of the quantitative survey findings that were discussed previously (see pages 32 -33). The spring 2009 faculty survey indicated that a majority of respondents disagreed strongly or somewhat that:  

The institution’s faculty evaluation and reward system is a good fit with their scholarly research and teaching interests (54.1% disagreed strongly or somewhat) The criteria for tenure and promotion at this institution are clear (51.6% disagreed strongly or somewhat)

Ambiguity around promotion and tenure criteria was related, in part, to perceptions regarding how the university’s mission is being interpreted. Some faculty argued that administrators are “chasing prestige” and attempting to move Central toward a research university model, while maintaining the instructional loads of a teaching university (that is, the 4-4 teaching load). Other faculty, however, were confident

41

that their departmental P&T guidelines would be viewed as valid by administration, even if they emphasized alternative forms of scholarship. University leaders, including faculty and administration, should address the ambiguity that surrounds the research mission of Central. A university-wide statement that endorses multiple forms of scholarship could establish greater confidence that the P&T guidelines from all departments will be viewed as valid and legitimate by administration and by university P&T committees. Central could also establish stronger communication between departmental evaluation committees (DECs) and the university’s P&T committee. While faculty in some departments were quite confident in the P&T guidelines that they created, others were concerned that their department’s guidelines would be dismissed, ignored, or misinterpreted. Forums for open discussion among DEC chairs, P&T committee chairs, and university administrators may help all parties understand and interpret the broad range of scholarly contributions made by faculty at Central. Several faculty argued that university administrators are advocating for traditional forms of scholarship (peer-reviewed publications and national/international presentations), which serves as a disincentive for faculty to engage in other forms of scholarship, such as research with undergraduate students or community engagement. Yet, these other forms of scholarship are also espoused as university priorities. Community engagement, for instance, is one of the four distinctive elements of the university’s identity, as outlined in the 2008 strategic plan. And research with undergraduate students could serve an important role in socializing and preparing students for the professions that they seek to enter, thus serving a workforce and state economic development goal (another of the four distinctive elements of Central’s identity). University leaders need to address the “mixed messages” that some faculty report they have received. Faculty and administrators can examine the extent to which P&T guidelines serve the goals of the university’s strategic plan. Multiple forms of scholarship may advance the university’s strategic goals, and should be deemed valid contributions in the realm of research and creative activity. Finally, the university should consider promotion and tenure policies in relation to issues of work-life balance. Policies could permit a stoppage of the tenure clock for faculty members who have significant life events, such as starting a family or caring for an elderly parent. Publication patterns may be less consistent for faculty who experience these types of significant life events, and university administrators and P&T committees should acknowledge the legitimacy of that type of variability in faculty research productivity.

42

Qualitative Analysis: Section 3 The faculty load credit system Full-time faculty raised several concerns regarding the faculty load credit system, which accounts for instructional and non-instructional activity. In particular, faculty who teach laboratory or fine arts studio courses reported significant dissatisfaction with the partial load credits that they receive for these courses. Faculty receive 0.75 load credits for each student contact hour associated with a laboratory or studio course (article 10.2 in the collective bargaining agreement). The collective bargaining agreement also calls for supplemental lab credits to be awarded, but the number of supplemental lab credits is insufficient to bring all 3-hour labs up to 3 faculty load credits. The collective bargaining agreement calls for Central to award a minimum of 27 supplemental lab credits per semester (article 10.6.4), yet Central has not fulfilled this minimum threshold in any of the semesters examined in this study (see the analysis on page 18). Faculty also expressed concerns regarding the amount of load credit associated with guiding student research projects, internships, and field placements. Further, some faculty noted that load credits for non-instructional activity are not allocated in sufficient numbers. Load credits for labs and studios Across the university, there are different permutations of faculty load credits, course credit hours, and student contact hours, especially in departments that emphasize labs, studios, individual lessons, internships, or student research projects. The typical lecture-lab course, however, was described by many study participants in the following way: Student contact hours: 6 hours Student course credits: 4 credits (3 for the lecture, 1 for the lab) Faculty load credits: 5.25 (3 for the lecture, 2.25 for the lab) Faculty members who teach lecture-lab courses generally viewed the load credits as insufficient relative to the amount of effort necessary to teach these courses effectively. A faculty member in the sciences explained that “the department does not have a lab technician, so faculty are responsible for setting up their own lab.” Another faculty member in the sciences explained that teaching lecture-lab courses entails not only preparation of the lab space and equipment, but also extensive grading of student work. “A lot of heavy duty writing goes on in the labs; students are writing many lab reports, so there is a lot of grading. The work is at least equal to, or more than, a lecture. We could do away with the writing for students in the labs, but that would compromise the quality of the course.” A faculty member who teaches fine arts studio courses expressed a high level of dissatisfaction with the current system. “I get 0.75 credit for 1 hour of teaching. If I added all that up, for all of the years that I have been here, it would amount to years of release time. I’ve never had the time to put it together. I need to sit down with the union and figure all this out. It is unfair, and it makes me sad when I say it.”

43

Despite concerns regarding load credit allocations, faculty and administrators argued that the current configuration of lecture-lab courses is a significant benefit for student learning. An administrator expressed support for having the same faculty member teach both the lecture and lab components of a course. “The combination of lecture and lab being taught with the same instructor is very effective. Some have tried to suggest that all of the lectures of the lecture-lab courses should be combined into the 150-student size lecture. But then the students would be divided into individual labs with different instructors. And we would lose the continuity and consistency that we currently have in our lecture-lab courses.” In order to preserve the pedagogical advantages of the current lecture-lab courses, administrators and faculty at Central should consider various options to address workload issues that pertain to these courses. The university could allocate additional supplemental lab credits so that all faculty receive one load credit for each hour of student contact time. Alternatively, the university could explore the costs of hiring laboratory technicians who could prepare and maintain laboratory teaching spaces, thus alleviating faculty from such tasks. Load credits for internships and field placements Faculty expressed concerns about the load credits allocated for supervising internships and field placements that require site visits. Currently, these instructional activities are viewed as equivalent to supervising an independent study, but faculty noted that internships and field placements often require much more effort. As a faculty member in arts and sciences explained, “A faculty member who supervises internships that include site visits gets the same load credit as someone who oversees a directed study. For the directed study, the faculty member may only spend 5 hours per semester. But for supervising internships with site visits, the faculty member could be spending 3 hours per week for each student.” A faculty member in the sciences described the workload issues associated with supervising internships. Many of the sciences have internships. It seems that each faculty member in my department is working with several students each semester who need help finding internships or setting up research projects for them. Since many of us don’t have research labs on campus that we can just plug students into, we spend a lot of time developing particular research projects for individual students. This is the most useful kind of teaching that we do, but it is very time consuming, and it also receives the least amount of load credit. Furthermore, curricula in professional programs frequently have large clinical or field placement components. This curriculum requires faculty to invest significant amounts of time cultivating relationships at clinical or field placement sites, such as schools, hospitals, and social service agencies. Moreover, additional time is needed to travel to supervise students in the field. A faculty member in a professional program noted that “faculty should be getting more load credit for this time-intensive activity.” Specifically, faculty who supervise student-teachers reported their dissatisfaction with receiving 0.5 load credits for each student-teacher supervised in the field (article 10.2.1). A faculty member noted that “this issue has been talked about for years, but nothing has been done.”

44

The CSU system supplied four years of faculty load credit data. In these four years, Central awarded a total of 228 load credits for student-teacher supervision; of these, 85.5% were earned by part-time faculty members. Administrators and faculty at Central should consider a range of issues regarding load credits for internships and field-based instruction. Internships and field placements are essential professional preparation experiences for students. As such, these instructional approaches are directly tied to the 2008 strategic plan and its espousal of workforce and state economic development as a distinctive component of Central’s identity. Greater incentives and supports can be developed for faculty who supervise internships and field placements. The supervision of internships and field placements requires a more extensive commitment of faculty time than the supervision of independent studies, and the load credits allocated to such instructional activities should reflect the workload associated with these tasks. Currently, in terms of field-based instruction, only the load credits for student-teacher supervision are codified in the collective bargaining agreement. Although the amount of load credits awarded for student-teacher supervision may be viewed as inadequate, the parameters described in article 10.2.1 could be used as a basis for allocating load credits in other fields and disciplines where faculty also supervise field-based internships. Non-instructional load credits Finally, practices regarding the allocation of non-instructional load credits were described as lacking transparency and consistency. While load credit allocations for some non-instructional activities are specified in the collective bargaining agreement (such as load credits for administrative responsibilities in 10.6.1), many other non-instructional activities are awarded load credit through side letters (article 10.4) or through individual arrangements between faculty members and university administrators (article 10.6.2). Although current arrangements permit a great deal of discretion to support a wide range of faculty contributions to the university, the ad hoc processes associated with allocating these load credits have generated some measure of concern regarding transparency. As a department chair in arts and sciences noted, “If you don’t know, and you don’t ask, you probably won’t get it *load credits for noninstructional work+.” Several faculty described activities (such as assessment and accreditation work) for which they do not receive load credits, but for which faculty in other department do receive load credits for comparable work. Inconsistency and lack of transparency in the allocation of non-instructional load credits may make faculty reluctant to assume non-instructional assignments. A department chair in a professional field noted that “when I ask faculty to help, they seem not willing to help unless they can receive load credits.” A level of resentment may emerge, if faculty do not believe that the system for allocating load credits is fair. To enhance transparency in the process, the university could issue an annual report on the allocation of non-instructional load credits. The assignments for each allocation could be listed in the report. When such a report is distributed, faculty would be able to call attention to activities in which they are currently engaged, for which they are not receiving load credits, but for which other faculty are receiving

45

load credits for comparable work. In this way, faculty can advocate for greater equity in the allocation of non-instructional load credits, and administrators can address specific cases and seek to align comparable tasks with similar amounts of load credit.

46

Qualitative Analysis: Section 4 Administrative initiatives University leaders have advanced numerous organizational changes at Central in recent years. These initiatives have focused on student advising, the first-year experience, and the assessment of student learning outcomes, as well as several initiatives related to the strategic plan, which focus on community engagement and internationalization, to name just a few. The full-time faculty interviewed for this study acknowledged the importance of moving the university forward and improving institutional outcomes, especially in terms of student learning, retention, and graduation rates. While faculty generally agreed with administrators that changes in university practices were needed, they expressed concerns regarding a lack of consultation for these types of decisions. Faculty indicated that the administration tends to issue new policies and develop new structures without involving faculty in the decision-making process in a meaningful way. Further, as the assessment of student learning outcomes becomes a greater priority for the institution, department chairs are reporting significant implications for their workloads. Concurrently, chairs report that they receive minimal training for their roles. New initiatives at Central Administrators interviewed for this study referred to the four areas of distinctiveness in Central’s strategic plan. They also mentioned a university-wide Retention and Graduation Council, which seeks to identify and offer recommendations to address problems that lead to student attrition. One administrator pointed toward significant improvements in retention and graduation rates in recent years, and this administrator attributed these outcomes to a stronger focus on the student experience. “From surveys like NSSE *National Survey of Student Engagement], we are now more aware of how the behavior of those who come into contact with students can have an impact on their success.” This focus on student engagement has important implications for faculty members regarding the pedagogical approaches that they use in their courses. Earlier this report, we presented data that show that faculty at Central are using, at higher levels than the national average, pedagogical practices that promote student engagement (see pages 19 – 22). However, these data also show that faculty at Central are less likely than the national average to incorporate service-learning or co-op experiences into their courses, and they may be relying on short-answer exams more extensively than the national average. Given the vital role that faculty play in institutional efforts to improve student outcomes, Central must take steps to ensure that its new initiatives are attentive to faculty workloads, and that related policies and practices serve as incentives for faculty to use teaching practices that promote higher levels of student engagement, academic success, personal growth, and degree attainment. Several faculty members interviewed for this study offered praise for administrative efforts to update institutional policies and practices. A faculty member in a professional field noted that “several years ago, we had a period of a lot of administrative turnover, and a lot of interim administrators in place who were reluctant to make major decisions. So we were kind of falling behind the times. The administration now is trying to align the university with the current trends in higher education, and I think the

47

university is becoming a better place as a result.” Similarly, a faculty member in arts and sciences stated that “the higher ups are doing a good job in bringing the university towards a new direction.” Nevertheless, faculty members indicated significant concerns about administrators moving forward with initiatives without consultation and support of the faculty. Shared governance concerns A department chair in arts and sciences stated that “the administration’s biggest problem is that it tends to announce a new policy or plan without including faculty in the decisionmaking process.” Faculty offered several examples of administrative decisions that were made, in their view, without appropriate consultation with the faculty. A faculty member in arts and sciences identified an administrative decision that was made without sufficient faculty involvement. “The administration does come across as heavy-handed at times. For example, they went ahead and started using a voluntary undergraduate assessment tool that they did not consult the faculty about. The faculty probably would not have supported it, but at least they should have been consulted.” A faculty member in a professional field offered two contrasting examples: a program that was developed with extensive faculty involvement and support, and an unpopular initiative that moved forward without sufficient consultation. Institutional initiatives are not effective without the support of the faculty. The first-year experience is an example of a faculty-supported initiative that has worked well. But the advising center is an initiative that is not popular among the faculty. A department chair in arts and sciences also identified the decision to create a university-wide advising center as “an example of administration’s unilateral decision making.” A department chair in a professional field described how student advising was restructured at Central. “Under the new model, freshmen and sophomores will be advised at the advising center. After their sophomore year, students are moved to a school-based advising center… The administration

48

New initiatives may displace resources from core academic programs. A department chair in a professional field, for example, indicated that “there are several trends for administration, like internationalization or the first-year program, but there is never any funding to go with it.” Specifically, this chair noted that “if a faculty member does get involved with one of these initiatives like first-year experience or community engagement, that means that the department will be offering one fewer class, or offering a class just once a year instead of every semester, or we have to increase class sizes,” because there are not extra funds to hire part-time faculty to teach the courses that those faculty would have taught.

made the decision to restructure advising without consulting with everyone.” Student advising Study participants indicated that administrators wanted a more consistent and standard advising experience for students. Faculty, on the other hand, viewed advising as a component of their teaching, and they expressed concerns regarding whether advising center staff could convey critical information regarding their academic programs and majors. A faculty member in a professional field described how colleagues in her department view advising: “They tend to see advising as a form of teaching, and not just course selections. The administration tries to sell the initiative as a way to reduce faculty workload, but the faculty do not see it the same way.” Some administrators also noted how faculty in their schools want to maintain a strong role in student advising. One administrator recalled that “when the administration raised a debate about taking advising away from the schools, the faculty in my school felt very strongly that they should be advising students as early as possible. They feel strongly about providing quality advising.” And another administrator explained, “I was very heartened to see that when this restructuring took place, the faculty in this school expressed a clear desire to have a meaningful advising relationship with students and felt that they needed to have a relationship with students early on in a student’s academic career.” Faculty remain concerned about the level of coordination between the advising center and the academic departments. A department chair in arts and sciences argued that “the university-wide center for advising has caused some challenges for our department. Our curriculum is front-loaded. Students take very specific classes in very specific sequences. There is a risk that students may be advised incorrectly at the center, which could set them back in their progress toward the degree.” A faculty member in a professional field expressed similar concerns: “I hold a dim view of the advising that students receive from the central advising office, before they choose their major. Students often come to me, missing critical information.” Faculty acknowledged the importance of providing students with a consistent and positive advising experience, but they questioned how the administration was attempting to achieve that goal. And they disagreed that the advising center was reducing their workloads. Assessment An administrator explained that the Senate approved an assessment policy, which states that each department will develop an assessment plan and will produce an annual assessment report. Another administrator described the university’s general approach to working with academic departments on issues regarding assessment. We are trying to integrate assessment into departments in ways that are manageable. We are conscious of the amount of work involved in conducting assessment, and we encourage departments to limit the number of outcomes that they will assess, and focus on course-based assessment rather than activities that take place outside the classroom, and assess both content knowledge as well as student skills such as problem solving or writing.

49

Nevertheless, department chairs described assessment as “an imposing amount of work.” A department chair in a professional field stated that “I am bombarded with more and more requests for assessment reporting.” Another department chair questioned whether the university has sufficient mechanisms in place to coordinate the gathering and dissemination of assessment data. “I am being asked to report data that can be found in other places, such as the dean’s office. Administrative data collection is not being coordinated. So I am responding to a lot of knee-jerk reactions, like, when someone has been told to do something and they need some piece of data to justify it.” Several department chairs offered praise for the Office of Institutional Research and Assessment and its collaborative approach toward working with faculty. A department chair in arts and sciences noted that “the good news is that the Office of Assessment is excellent. They know the right questions to ask and can collect good information, but it doesn’t have enough staff to crunch all the numbers.” Department chairs and workload Expectations for assessment, as well as for other institutional initiatives, put pressure on department chair workloads. An administrator noted that “there is a greater mindfulness among the chairs of increased demands being placed on them.” Some department chairs referred to a “council of chairs,” which was formed approximately five years ago to address the increasing responsibilities of the chair. This group has advocated for more consultation between university administrators and department chairs. An administrator explained that there is now an informal agreement that any new responsibilities for chairs will be discussed and cleared with them first, before changes are implemented. This form of consultation was highly valued by the chairs who were interviewed for this study; however, they also reiterated the need to address the heavy volume of chair workloads. New staffing models, for example, may be necessary to provide chairs with the support that they need to assess student learning outcomes, gain accreditation for their programs, and continue to provide leadership and management for their departments. In a related issue, chairs mentioned that they do not receive training or mentoring for their roles as chair. A department chair in arts and sciences noted that “chairs can attend one or two meetings at the beginning of the year for new chairs, and they provide training for specific duties like what’s required for a purchase card or how to approve a time sheet. But there really is no training on how to be a chair.” Conclusions regarding new initiatives and workloads Many new initiatives at Central have enhanced student learning and strengthened retention and graduation rates, according to both administrators and faculty members. Yet faculty raised important concerns regarding how decisions are made, and how those decisions affect their workloads. While some programs such as first-year experience were described as having a great deal of faculty involvement in planning and implementation, other initiatives, such as the advising center, were viewed as imposed by the administration. Faculty also raised concerns regarding the resources allocated toward new initiatives. In terms of assessment, for example, department chairs called for additional technical support and greater coordination of data gathering (to reduce duplication of effort and improve efficiency). Similarly, chairs were concerned that resources were not available to cover the courses of faculty members who decide to teach in special programs, such as first-year experience or community engagement.

50

These workload and resource issues are critical considerations for the university’s strategic plan. For example, if community engagement is a distinctive feature of Central’s identity, then it is important to examine why faculty at Central are less likely than the national average to incorporate service-learning into their courses. Administrators and faculty members at Central need to consider whether existing policies, practices, and resource allocations support the strategic goals of the university. As Central continues to implement its strategic plan, administrators and faculty members should work together to identify the resources that are necessary to advance the strategic goals of the university. University resources, including the deployment of faculty workloads, should be aligned with elements of the strategic plan. For example, funds need to be identified for departments to hire part-time faculty to cover courses when full-time faculty become engaged in special programs, such as first-year experience or community engagement. University leaders should also consider staffing arrangements to support assessment. Additional staff may be needed in the Office of Institutional Research and Assessment, or the university could release a faculty member from his/her instructional duties in order to serve as an assessment coordinator for a particular school or grouping of academic departments. Stronger communication between the administration and faculty also needs to be established. The longterm success of any strategic initiative in higher education is tied to the level and extent of collaboration between faculty and administration. Existing governance bodies, including the faculty senate, can serve as venues for greater communication and information sharing. New venues, however, may also need to be created so that faculty and administrators can interact earlier in the decision-making process. Ongoing implementation committees, for example, could be established in relation to the university’s strategic goals, and serve as venues for faculty and administrators to make decisions regarding resource allocation and the alignment of those resources with strategic priorities. Administrators could also convene regular open meetings, either university-wide or within each school, for the purpose of discussion and dialogue regarding the future vision for the university. These types of open meetings should avoid the “show-and-tell” approach, where administrators give reports and then provide a limited amount of time for faculty questions at the end of the meeting. Instead, the agenda should be open and flexible, so that new issues and ideas can emerge.

51

Qualitative Analysis: Section 5 Faculty recruitment, hiring, and professional development Recruitment and hiring Several study participants remarked on the impact of a recent hiring freeze and an early retirement incentive program. Some department chairs reported that their programs were scrambling to find emergency hires to offer necessary courses. “The hiring freeze hit my department hard,” explained a chair in a professional field. “We have four tenure-track positions that need to be filled.” A faculty member in a professional field noted that “we are dealing with the effects of the early retirement plan implemented by the university. Now, everyone has to do more with less.” Early retirement programs, coupled with hiring freezes, do not allow universities to make strategic decisions regarding the allocation of faculty lines. Therefore, programs that are experiencing or planning for growth may not have the necessary faculty resources to address student enrollments. As Central emerges from current financial constraints and is able to hire new full-time faculty, the university will need to consider decisions regarding the allocation of faculty lines in relation to the institution’s long term priorities. Faculty leaders should also be involved in the process of determining faculty hiring priorities, as the institution begins to add new full-time positions. Faculty search committee chairs identified several strengths and limitations regarding the university’s current faculty hiring practices. Several search chairs offered praise for the Office of Diversity and Equity, for helping them attract diverse pools of applicants for faculty positions. As one search chair indicated, “In the past, we used to advertise in all the usual places, and we got the usual results. Not very diverse. Then, we got support for advertising not just in the Chronicle of Higher Education, but in other places, too. And that sends the message that this is a good place for diverse faculty.” Another search chair noted that the Office of Diversity and Equity “is setting useful targets” for increasing racial, ethnic, and gender diversity in faculty hiring. Search chairs, however, were critical of the amount of time necessary to authorize searches and approve candidates for positions. As one search chair noted, “The process of approvals for every stage takes a long time, and for our most recent search, out of the 28 viable candidates, only 12 were still available by the time we got approvals to contact them.” Bottlenecks in the process were also identified at the department level, where search committee chairs reported that they receive limited administrative support. A search chair explained that “while the departmental secretary was great, the expectation is that the chair will do everything that is needed for the search. So there really isn’t much administrative support for the search process.” While faculty indicated that they generally receive three load credits for chairing a search committee, the members of the search committee do not receive load credits. In general, this arrangement was not viewed as problematic with the exception of racial and ethnic minority faculty who serve on multiple search committees. A search chair explained that “there are some minority faculty at the university who are having to serve on multiple search committees without any *load+ credit or reassigned time. That’s a concern.” Similarly, an administrator noted that “there are some overburdened minority faculty who are on several search committees, but who do not get reassigned time for that.”

52

The participation of minority faculty on search committees is a vital component of efforts to diversify the faculty ranks. However, if an institution has relatively few minority faculty currently employed, then minority faculty may feel compelled to serve on multiple search committees each year. Such an arrangement creates an unfair burden on minority faculty; they must sacrifice more of their time, in order to make the institution more diverse. Administrators and faculty leaders at Central, therefore, should consider the issue of search committee representation in terms of faculty workload. Those who form search committees need to avoid overburdening minority faculty with expectations to serve on multiple committees simultaneously. If the current number of minority faculty on campus is insufficient to distribute among the various search committees each year, then provisions should be made to provide load credits to those who serve simultaneously on multiple search committees. Finally, faculty members in business and technical fields reported that faculty salaries often become a stumbling block in the hiring process. A faculty member in the business school argued that “CSU salary limitations make faculty recruitment difficult in the School of Business. Salary limitations accounted for two recent failed searches.” A faculty member in the sciences referred to a faculty search in a technical subfield where more lucrative jobs are available in industry: “the applicant pool was poor due in large part to our inability to compete with salary offered by industry.” Survey data from spring 2009 indicated that the level of faculty satisfaction with salary at Central was comparable to the national average for “public master’s I” institutions (see pages 26 – 29). Nevertheless, Central offers large academic programs in areas where faculty labor markets intersect with those in business and industry. Careful benchmarking with peer institutions at the level of the academic department may be necessary in order to maintain faculty salaries at competitive levels. In a related matter, some study participants referred to an unwillingness on the part of administration to consider making counter offers, in cases where other universities are attempting to lure away high quality faculty. As a search chair explained, “The President has made it clear that if people have offers, they are welcome to leave, and that the university will not be giving them counter offers.” If faculty were to continually seek outside offers in hopes of leveraging the university for a higher salary, then the result would be a highly stratified salary system with large gaps among faculty members, even within the same department. On the other hand, the university could lose significant talent to other institutions if it is unwilling to make reasonable counter offers. A reasonable approach to counter offers could be designed at Central, so that the resulting salaries do not generate wide disparities within departments. Professional development In terms of professional development, study participants focused on support for new, junior faculty members, as well as the faculty development activities sponsored by Central’s Center for Teaching Excellence. Administrators and several faculty members spoke of efforts to provide new faculty with a course load reduction during their first year at Central. An administrator noted that “schools try to give the new faculty research reassigned time so that they can organize both their teaching and their research better. Also, at the dean’s discretion, new faculty have been given three credits release time either in their first or second semester to help them settle in.”

53

Course load reductions for new faculty, however, are at the discretion of deans, and may not be available to all incoming faculty. A department chair in a professional field noted that “support for research is declining. The policy that granted new faculty [a course release in] one semester to begin their research will be suspended due to budgetary issues.” A faculty member in arts and sciences explained that “there is no provision for officially reducing the workload for new faculty in the first year.” A standard policy for providing a course load reduction to all new junior faculty could alleviate anxiety among new faculty members, as they develop their courses and establish their research agendas. As noted in an earlier section in this report, the 4-4 teaching load was viewed as a significant stressor for new faculty members. This source of concern could be addressed, in part, through a standard policy of course load reduction for all incoming junior faculty. Study participants also described a range of in-house professional development activities organized by the Center for Teaching Excellence. Some of these activities include: 

A university-wide colloquium on student learning, which is held twice each year, where faculty who have received institutional support for pedagogical projects, such as integrating technology into the classroom, present their work to the campus community



A faculty book discussion group, which meets monthly, and discusses a book that highlights aspects of college teaching



Various workshop series, which bring experts to campus to work with faculty on specific teaching practices

Some faculty members reported satisfaction with these offerings. A faculty member in a professional field noted that “one of the activities that I really enjoy is the colloquium convened by the provost every year to explore new teaching methods. The group members implement new ways of teaching in their classrooms and then present their findings to the campus community.” Moreover, the spring 2009 survey indicated that faculty satisfaction with “institutional support for teaching improvement” at Central was comparable to (within 5% of) the national average for “public master’s I” institutions (see pages 26 – 29). Nevertheless, some faculty were concerned that too many professional development activities are scheduled toward the end of the semester, at times when faculty are busy reading and grading student papers.

54

Other faculty were concerned that the faculty development agenda was being set by the administration, rather than by the faculty. A department chair in a professional field explained that the Center for Teaching Excellence at Central began in the early 1990s as a faculty-led, grassroots forum for faculty to exchange ideas about teaching and learning. Over time, the center grew, obtained institutional funding, and began to report to the Provost, who now sets the agenda for faculty development offerings on campus. Several pedagogically innovative faculty members indicated that they were not interested in the faculty development offerings of the Center for Teaching Excellence. A faculty member in arts and sciences, for example, explained that “there are professional development activities every two to three weeks, like the brown bag book series, and the workshops organized by the Provost’s office. But I have no interest in participating. I get consistently positive feedback on my teaching, and even some awards for it… My general impression is that most faculty are not interested in these professional development offerings.” Thus, some of the faculty members who could be providing significant leadership for faculty development at Central are disengaged from the university’s current approach to faculty development. The faculty at Central is comprised of many faculty who profess a deep commitment to teaching and learning, and who have significant pedagogical expertise that they could share with their colleagues. Yet these pedagogically innovative faculty have not been empowered to serve as faculty development leaders for their institution. In response, Central could seek to reconnect to the historical roots of its Center for Teaching Excellence, and reestablish a faculty-led, grassroots approach to faculty development. In this model, the university would continue to provide financial and administrative support for faculty development, but would enable a team of faculty members to establish priorities for faculty development on campus. The faculty development team could be comprised of pedagogically innovative faculty members from each school in the university. Their knowledge and expertise could then be gathered together as an important decision-making resource in the university’s ongoing efforts to improve teaching and learning.

55

Faculty development activities are perceived as advancing the interests of administration, rather than the needs of the faculty members. A department chair in a professional field described the history of faculty development programs at Central. “The Center for Teaching Excellence started as a faculty-driven forum in the early 1990s. Eventually, it became a center with funding from the trustees to support faculty professional development activities. The center offers seminars and workshops. The workshops used to be driven by faculty, but the provost has taken over planning for these workshops.”

Administrators also offered an idea that could enhance faculty development at Central – a voluntary seminar for faculty on college teaching. Faculty could receive a course load reduction to participate in a year-long or semester-long institute on college teaching and learning. The institute or seminar could be led by a senior faculty member at Central, who has been recognized for teaching excellence and whose practice represents significant pedagogical innovation. Faculty seminar members could explore the research literature on college teaching, experiment with new teaching approaches in their classes, and seek feedback from the group on the results of their practice. Several universities convene these types of voluntary seminars; they are sometimes referred to as “faculty learning groups.” If properly supported, faculty learning groups could revitalize Central’s approach to faculty development.

56

Qualitative Analysis: Section 6 Librarians, Coaches/Trainers, Counselors, and Part-Time Faculty Due to the comparatively small number of survey respondents among part-time faculty, as well as the small number of full-time and part-time librarians, coaches/trainers, and counselors employed at Central, the survey data for those groups will be analyzed in a separate, system-wide report. In this report for Central, however, we will address salient issues, which emerged for each group in interviews and focus groups. It is important to note that many part-time faculty, as well as librarians, coaches, trainers, and counselors, indicated a great deal of appreciation for being included in this study. As they stated on numerous occasions, they are AAUP members as well, yet as smaller constituencies within the collective bargaining unit, they feel that their issues and concerns are sometimes marginalized – not only by the administration, but sometimes by the AAUP itself. The vital roles that these professionals play in fostering student learning at Central should be widely recognized and appropriately acknowledged. Part-Time Faculty Part-time faculty at Central explained how they developed an advisory group, with the endorsement of the union. Part-time faculty described how their advisory group seeks to orient new part-time faculty, improve communication between the university and part-time faculty, and provide venues for discussion of concerns common to part-time faculty. A parttime faculty member in arts and sciences explained that “the advisory group has a constantly updated email list, and it is used to send important information to part-timers on a regular basis.” Part-time faculty also referred to a campus wide survey of part-time faculty members, conducted by the advisory group. Some of the workload issues identified in that survey, as well as those reported by participants in this study, include:  

The lack of equity between full-time and part-time faculty regarding representation on governance and union committees Limits on the number of courses part-time faculty are permitted to teach each semester

57

Communication with parttime faculty is constrained by university email policy. A full-time faculty member in a professional field stated that “the key barrier to communication with parttime faculty is that the university requires all official communication to be done through university email accounts and will not allow faculty to forward their email to another email account… When I asked IT about this, they said that the Connecticut state government would not allow official communication to be forwarded. But I know people at UConn, and they allow official email to be forwarded.” CSU AAUP and university administration should work to address this issue and ensure that part-time faculty are able to receive university communications in email accounts that they check more frequently.

 

The lack of organized mentoring and professional development programs for part-time faculty The lack of clear policies and lack of consistent practices in evaluating part-time faculty

Regarding evaluation, a part-time faculty member in arts and sciences stated that “I have been here 20 years, and I’ve never had a formal evaluation.” Another part-time faculty member in arts and sciences described specific departmental practices for evaluating all faculty, including part-time instructors, but these practices were seldom implemented. On paper, the departmental bylaws describe an evaluation procedure, a classroom observation by a full-time faculty member who is affiliated with the DEC [Departmental Evaluation Committee]. After visiting the classroom, the faculty will write up the evaluation and the evaluated faculty member will have an opportunity to read it and respond if necessary. But, although this system is on paper, in practice, evaluations are very few and far between… In more than 15 years here, I have only had two classroom observations. Part-time faculty argued that the lack of evaluation hinders their professional growth and development, because they do not receive regular feedback from the other faculty members about their teaching practices. Moreover, the lack of consistent evaluation shuts off another potential mechanism for more meaningful communication between full-time and part-time faculty, regarding the goals and priorities of the academic programs in which they teach. Several part-time faculty were also dissatisfied with the course load limit of two classes per semester. The part-time faculty who teach at multiple institutions to earn a living wage indicated that they would prefer to teach more at Central, rather than scatter their energies and travel time across more college locations. Yet current policies preclude them from teaching more than two courses, and part-time faculty indicate that they are not permitted to earn and carry an overload. A part-time faculty member in arts and sciences noted that “departmental administration is strongly discouraged from giving course overload to part-time faculty.” Similarly, a part-time faculty member in a professional program explained that “we cannot teach an overload during one semester, and receive load credit for it, during another semester.” Still another part-time faculty member stated, “we need the opportunity to teach more than the 12 credits *per year+ currently authorized by the union contract.” Another part-time faculty member in a professional program reported a desire to work more extensively for the department, but such opportunities were closed to part-time faculty members. “I would like to do more advising of students, and serve on some committees for the university. But there is no way for me to do that.” The advising work of part-time faculty was praised by several administrators and full-time faculty. An administrator noted that “part-time faculty have been willingly available to meet with students outside the classroom, and that has been integral to our success with persistence.” Part-time faculty may fulfill informal advising roles for part-time students who are not on campus during the work day. A part-time faculty member in a professional field, for example, described how she is “an informal advisor for a lot of my students, especially those who work during the day and can’t come in to meet during their advisor’s office hours.” Yet part-time faculty argued that rewards for exceptional performance were not available. A part-time faculty member in a professional program explained that “the only reward you can potentially get at this

58

point, as a contingent faculty person, is getting a contract for next semester.” A department chair in a professional program confirmed this perception: “The only reward structure for part-time faculty is the seniority effect, where long-term faculty are given priority to teach courses that they have taught before.” Part-time faculty reported satisfaction with the funds ($750) that were available to them for participating in professional conferences. On the other hand, university-sponsored faculty development activities were not offered at times and in formats that were conducive to part-time faculty participation. A part-time faculty member in a professional field stated that “most of the professional development opportunities are offered in the semester, during the day, when it’s not a good time for me. It doesn’t do me a lot of good. And there is nothing offered in the summer when I could be there more often.” Another part-time faculty member argued that part-time faculty are not a monolithic group; they include people teaching at multiple institutions in order to earn a living wage, people who have other full-time jobs and seek to teach out of personal interest, and people who have retired from one career and seek to remain engaged in the field through teaching. Each of these groups will have different faculty development needs that should be addressed by the university. Part-time faculty issues are analyzed and discussed further in the system-wide report.

Librarians Librarians at Central described two trends that are affecting their workloads: rapid developments in the realm of educational technology, and the university’s growing emphasis on undergraduate research. A librarian noted that “information technology is changing. That makes work stimulating but also challenging, because you have to keep up with the technology.” Similarly, another librarian explained that “the increased campus-wide emphasis on undergraduate research has increased the demand for library resources.” Librarians also raised concerns regarding the quality of the library’s physical plant, which one librarian described as “an old boat that’s sinking.” Librarians described a range of

59

Professional development offerings could be tailored to meet the unique needs of part-time faculty members. A part-time faculty member in arts and sciences described three different types of parttime faculty. “We have what I call ‘road scholars.’ They are faculty who are on the road all the time. They teach multiple sections at multiple institutions in order to earn a living wage. Then, we have retired individuals who seek a second career to supplement their retirement or just to satisfy their interests in teaching. And a third group are currently employed individuals who augment their main job with college teaching. We have got to keep in mind that the professional development needs will vary from group to group.”

problems with the library building, including water leaks, an insufficient number of restrooms, and an insufficient number of computers. Workload issues for librarians are analyzed and discussed further in the system-wide report.

Coaches/trainers Central is the only institution in the CSU system to field an NCAA Division I athletics program. Coaches and trainers indicated that they must carry heavy workloads in order to field competitive teams at the Division I level. The work week varies considerably for coaches and trainers, given weekend and evening events and associated travel time. Coaches indicated that their work weeks are longer when their sport is in season, yet off-season responsibilities are also extensive, including recruiting, working with studentathletes on academic matters, and supervising off-season training. Coaches indicated that the collective bargaining agreement does not reflect the realities of their workloads. As one full-time coach explained: There is no understanding of what work hours mean for coaches. Faculty have a limited number of work hours, for classes and office hours. But coaches work during the week and weekends due to games and practices and travel time. The contract reflects this lack of understanding. For example, how you calculate vacation and sick time comes into play, since the standard work week and all the related paperwork does not reflect all the weekend work that coaches put in. Another full-time coach called for greater flexibility in accounting for hours worked. “If the coaches work 60 hours during the week and then try to take some time off the next week, they sometimes have to take sick time, since the timesheets do not allow flexibility. And people get upset, saying that the coaches aren’t here.” Coaches perceived that the collective bargaining agreement provides faculty members a comparatively short (less than 40 hour) work week. While survey data collected for this study indicate that faculty at Central work far more than 40 hours per week, coaches argued that the contact sets a limit on the number of hours worked per week. As one full-time coach explained, “There is no way that we could be competitive if we followed those limitations on workload hours.” Study participants reported stability and low turnover rates among the full-time coaches, but they expressed concerns regarding the status of part-time coaches. As a full-time coach noted, “There is considerable stability among the full-time coaching staff, but I am concerned that I will lose my parttime assistant coach unless he is made full-time soon.” Another full-time coach expressed similar concerns regarding part-time coaches: “AAUP should push for full-time status for part-time coaches. They work innumerable hours and have absolutely no benefits. They are financially exploited.” Full-time trainers at Central also teach in an undergraduate athletic training program. Their typical load is 6 credits of teaching, and 6 credits for athletic training. Trainers indicated that their dual appointment (in the physical education academic department and in the athletics department) strengthens both programs, yet creates workload challenges. Specifically, the extensive demands of athletics training conflict with expectations to produce research and scholarship within the academic field.

60

The workloads of trainers are extensive, given that they must cover all practices and competitions, as well as travel with teams for events at other institutions. As one trainer explained, “We can’t set a limit on our work hours. We can’t refuse to cover, because that would make the university liable for injuries.” Trainers also indicated that their work hours are highly variable, given changes to practice schedules. A trainer noted that “the coaches expect us to be available 24/7.” Trainers with academic appointments indicated that their workloads are so extensive that they have little time available for the research and publication expected by promotion and tenure committees. Workload issues for coaches and trainers are analyzed and discussed further in the system-wide report.

Counselors Counselors expressed the concern that current staffing levels are insufficient to address the increasingly complex counseling needs of college students. Study participants described the current staffing level as consisting of three full-time counselors, two part-time counselors, a director, and an associate director. As a full-time counselor explained, “We are seeing more extreme cases and a greater need for our presence on campus… We aren’t equipped to handle these rising waters with the current number of staff.” Another full-time counselor argued that the counseling staff levels at the other CSU institutions were greater than the counseling staff level at Central. Other counselors indicated that they want to become more involved in prevention and outreach activities on campus, but their workloads do not enable them to engage very extensively in those programs. In terms of the work environment, counselors described a positive relationship with the division of student affairs, to which the counseling center reports. As a full-time counselor explained, “They understand the role of the counseling center and they are sensitive to the needs of counselors. There’s a good working relationship.” On the other hand, counselors reported dissatisfaction with office space, especially in terms of maintaining confidentiality. A full-time counselor explained that “we are in a corridor of offices in the middle of an academic department. This is problematic, because a student may have issues with an instructor and have to walk past that person’s door to get to the counseling center. And the walls are thin.” Additional concerns pertained to the promotion and tenure process for counselors. First, at the department level, counselors noted that the director of the counseling center also serves on the Department Evaluation Committee (DEC). As a full-time counselor explained, “The DEC is complicated for counselors. The director is viewed as the chair of the department, and the director is both our immediate supervisor and the DEC.” Second, counselors indicated that the university’s promotion and tenure committee may not fully understand the work of counselors. A full-time counselor argued that “when counselors face the promotion and tenure committee, they *teaching faculty+ don’t have a clue what we [counselors] do.” Another counselor described specific difficulties in getting teaching faculty to understand the research that counselors perform. The kind of research that we do as counselors is very different from that of the teaching faculty. I have applied for sabbatical twice and have been turned down both times on the grounds that my project was too hands-on and not academic enough. But that is

61

what we do. In all my time at Central, of all the four campuses, only one counselor was ever granted a sabbatical. Some questions were also raised regarding equity in professional development funds. Counselors referred to the amount of $600 per year to attend conferences, but a full-time counselor argued that “we get half of what our sister schools get for professional development. Our director is working hard to create some parity.” Workload issues for counselors are analyzed and discussed further in the system-wide report.

62

Conclusions Quantitative research findings 1. Full-time faculty at Central work more hours per week than the national average for faculty in “public master’s I” institutions (55.0 hours per week in contrast to national average of 53.2). 2. Full-time faculty at Central allocate more hours to undergraduate instruction, graduate instruction, and research than the national average for “public master’s I” institutions. 3. Full-time faculty at Central are engaged in significant amounts of work during the summer months, most of which connects to their work roles at the university. Full-time faculty at Central reported that they spent an average of 239 hours on academic work during summer 2009 (not including summer teaching). This is the equivalent of nearly six 40-hour work weeks, during months for which faculty are not “on contract.” 4. In terms of faculty load credits, full-time faculty earned an average of 11.94 load credits each semester across the four academic years for which data were provided. Among these credits, 82.4% were awarded for instructional activities. 5. In terms of load credit categories, Central awarded fewer sabbaticals than the other CSU institutions, but provided more reassigned time for research than the other CSU institutions. Central and Eastern awarded comparably fewer load credits for curriculum development than did Western and Southern. 6. Nearly one-third of all load credits awarded for instruction at Central were earned by part-time faculty members. The 2007-2011 collective bargaining agreement specifies that no more than 20% of instructional load credits should be attributable to part-time faculty. 7. The academic departments that carried the highest total number of load credits per semester included anthropology (12.72), biology (12.64), modern languages (12.39), reading (12.37), and technology education (12.28). Also among the “top 10” departments were communication (12.25), physics and earth sciences (12.25), computer science (12.21), art (12.21), and biomolecular sciences (12.20). Three of these departments (biology, biomolecular sciences, and physics and earth sciences) have large numbers of lab-based courses. This finding has important implications for the current method of assigning load credits for laboratory courses. In order to award one load credit for each laboratory hour taught by full-time faculty, Central would need to allocate 50.5 additional load credits per year (beyond those already designated as supplemental lab credits). 8. Full-time faculty members at Central are more likely than the national average to use active pedagogical practices, which research has shown to be effective in terms of promoting student learning. These pedagogical practices include: undergraduate research projects, assessments of multiple drafts of students’ written work, group and team projects, student presentations, peer feedback on student work, and laboratory assignments. On the other hand, full-time faculty at Central are less likely than the national average to incorporate service-learning or co-op

63

experiences into their courses, and they also rely more extensively than the national average on short-answer exams. 9. Study findings indicate that large majorities of faculty members at Central are actively engaged in updating their courses to build students’ academic skills, foster student engagement in academic work, incorporate perspectives on diversity into course content, and experiment with new teaching methods. Also, 78.5% of full-time faculty reported that they are actively engaged in using new instructional technologies to foster student learning. 10. The 2008 strategic plan indicated that interdisciplinary studies is a distinctive element of Central’s identity. Survey findings indicated that more than 87% of full-time faculty at Central are involved in scholarly work that spans multiple disciplines. 11. Full-time faculty members at Central were less satisfied than the national average for faculty at “public master’s I” institutions on the following work environment dimensions: institutional support for instructional technology, and workload. Full-time faculty at Central had satisfaction levels that were comparable to (within 5% of) national averages for overall job satisfaction, satisfaction with salary, and satisfaction with quality of facilities and equipment for instruction. 12. Full-time faculty members at Central were less likely than the national average to believe that good teaching is rewarded by the institution, that women faculty are treated fairly at the institution, that faculty members from racial and ethnic minority groups are treated fairly at the institution, and that part-time faculty members are treated fairly at the institution. 13. In terms of workplace climate at Central, high levels of agreement were reported for faculty having a voice in what occurs within their academic department, being able to talk openly with faculty colleagues, and faculty feeling that they are part of an institutional community. Conversely, concerns were raised regarding whether administrators consider faculty perspectives when making policy, and whether faculty are sufficiently involved in campus decision making. 14. In terms of promotion and tenure criteria, 54.1% of full-time faculty disagreed strongly or somewhat that the institution’s faculty evaluation and reward system was a good fit for their research and teaching interests. Also, 51.6% disagreed strongly or somewhat that the promotion and tenure criteria are clear. Qualitative research findings 1. Full-time faculty indicated that the 4-4 teaching load is a significant impediment in their efforts not only to provide excellent teaching, but also to establish productive research agendas. These concerns were more prevalent among junior faculty, as well as faculty whose fields or specializations do not allow them to teach multiple sections of the same course each semester. 2. Full-time faculty indicated that Central makes no distinction between undergraduate and graduate teaching loads, even though preparing to teach a graduate-level course is typically viewed as more demanding.

64

3. Several faculty argued that administrators at Central emphasize the types of scholarship that are typically produced at prestigious research universities, including peer-reviewed publications in scholarly journals. This emphasis, some faculty argued, serves as a disincentive for faculty to engage in other forms of scholarship, such as community engagement or research with undergraduate students. These other forms of scholarship, however, are also espoused as university priorities at Central. Thus, faculty indicate that they are receiving mixed signals and, therefore, they report high levels of uncertainty regarding administrative priorities for the future of the university. 4. In recent years, each academic department at Central has created promotion and tenure guidelines that explain the types of faculty activities that are valued within their respective academic units. Some faculty debated whether the new guidelines more clearly articulate current expectations, or whether they codify new expectations regarding the quantity and type of faculty scholarship. 5. Full-time faculty raised several concerns regarding the faculty load credit system. In particular, faculty who teach laboratory or fine arts studio courses reported significant dissatisfaction with the partial load credits that they receive for these courses. Faculty also expressed concerns regarding the amount of load credit associated with guiding student research projects, internships, and field placements. Further, some faculty noted that load credits for noninstructional activity are not allocated in sufficient numbers. 6. University leaders have advanced numerous organizational changes at Central in recent years. These initiatives have focused on student advising, the first-year experience, and the assessment of student learning outcomes, as well as initiatives related to the strategic plan, including foci on community engagement and internationalization. While faculty generally agreed with administrators that changes in university practices were needed, they expressed concerns regarding a lack of consultation for these types of decisions. Faculty indicated that the administration tends to issue new policies and develop new structures without involving faculty, in a meaningful way, in the decision-making process. 7. As the assessment of student learning outcomes becomes a greater priority for Central, department chairs are reporting significant implications for their workloads. Concurrently, chairs report that they receive minimal training and support for their roles. 8. Faculty search committee chairs identified several strengths and limitations regarding the university’s current faculty hiring practices. Several search chairs offered praise for the Office of Diversity and Equity, for helping them attract diverse pools of applicants for faculty positions. Search chairs, however, were critical of the amount of time necessary to authorize searches and approve candidates for positions. Further, study participants noted that some racial and ethnic minority faculty who serve on multiple search committees do not receive load credits for those activities, and thus become overburdened with institutional service. 9. Some full-time faculty were concerned that the faculty development agenda was being set by the administration, rather than by the faculty. Several pedagogically innovative faculty members indicated that they were not interested in the faculty development offerings of the Center for Teaching Excellence. Thus, some of the faculty members who could be providing significant

65

leadership for faculty development at Central are disengaged from the university’s current approach to faculty development. 10. Part-time faculty identified several concerns: the lack of equity between full-time and part-time faculty regarding representation on governance and union committees; limits on the number of courses part-time faculty are permitted to teach each semester; the lack of organized mentoring and professional development programs for part-time faculty; and the lack of clear policies and consistent practices in evaluating part-time faculty. 11. Librarians at Central described two trends that are affecting their workloads: rapid developments in the realm of educational technology, and the university’s growing emphasis on undergraduate research. Librarians also raised concerns regarding the quality of the library’s physical plant. 12. Coaches and trainers indicated that they must carry heavy workloads in order to field competitive teams at the NCAA Division I level. They called for greater flexibility in accounting for hours worked. 13. Counselors expressed the concern that current staffing levels at Central are insufficient to address the increasingly complex counseling needs of college students.

66

Some initial recommendations 1. At Central, nearly one-third of all load credits awarded for instruction were earned by part-time faculty members. The 2007-2011 collective bargaining agreement specifies that no more than 20% of instructional load credits should be attributable to part-time faculty. The discrepancy between the contractual standard and the percentage obtained in calculations for this study should be a subject for discussion between the AAUP and university administration. 2. Central can develop a standard policy for providing a reduced teaching load for new junior faculty, so that they can establish both teaching excellence and robust research agendas. 3. For faculty who have four different course preparations each semester, if teaching multiple sections of the same course is not possible, then additional load credits could be provided. 4. Central could consider allocating different amounts of load credit for undergraduate and graduate courses. 5. To establish greater perceptions of equity, Central could provide larger amounts of reassigned time for research to faculty in schools other than the School of Business (where a 3-3 teaching load is already prevalent). The university could create a number of multi-year awards of reassigned time for research, for those who have demonstrated significant scholarly productivity. Faculty could receive a 3-3 teaching load over two or three consecutive years to accommodate more expansive lines of research inquiry (rather than simply rely on singlesemester allocations of reassigned time for research). 6. The relationship between faculty overloads and reassigned time for research should be addressed by administrators and faculty. Some faculty members believed that they were penalized for having an overload, and were less likely to receive reassigned time for research as a result. On the other hand, other faculty described how deans would combine one overload credit with two credits of reassigned time for research, thus distributing reassigned time (course releases) to larger numbers of faculty. Yet this approach was interpreted by some faculty as an expectation that faculty would need to carry an overload before they would be considered for reassigned time. Administrators and faculty at Central need to untangle these issues and communicate more clearly whether there is an intended linkage between overload and reassigned time, or whether the issues should be decoupled entirely. 7. Faculty and administration should address the ambiguity that surrounds the research mission of Central. A university-wide statement that endorses multiple forms of scholarship could establish greater confidence that the promotion and tenure guidelines from all departments will be viewed as valid and legitimate by administration and by university promotion and tenure committees. 8. Central could also establish stronger communication between departmental evaluation committees (DECs) and the university’s promotion and tenure committee. Forums for open discussion among DEC chairs, promotion and tenure committee chairs, and university administrators may help all parties understand and interpret the broad range of scholarly contributions made by faculty at Central.

67

9. Central should consider promotion and tenure policies in relation to issues of work-life balance. Policies could permit a stoppage of the tenure clock for faculty members who have significant life events, such as starting a family or caring for an elder parent. Publication patterns may be less consistent for faculty who experience these types of significant life events, and university administrators and promotion and tenure committees should acknowledge the legitimacy of this type of variability in faculty research productivity. 10. In order to preserve the pedagogical advantages of the current lecture-lab courses, administrators and faculty at Central should consider various options to address workload issues that pertain to these courses. The university could allocate additional supplemental lab credits so that all faculty receive one load credit for each hour of student contact time. Alternatively, the university could explore the costs of hiring laboratory technicians who could prepare and maintain laboratory teaching spaces, thus alleviating faculty from such tasks. 11. Administrators and faculty at Central should consider a range of issues regarding load credits for internships and field-based instruction. Greater incentives and supports can be developed for faculty who supervise internships and field placements. The supervision of internships and field placements requires a more extensive commitment of faculty time than the supervision of independent studies, and the load credits allocated to such instructional activities should reflect the workload associated with these tasks. 12. Central could issue an annual report on the allocation of non-instructional load credits in order to make the process more transparent. The assignments for each allocation could be listed in the report. When such a report is distributed, faculty would be able to call attention to activities in which they are currently engaged, for which they are not receiving load credits, but for which other faculty are receiving load credits for comparable work. In this way, faculty can advocate for greater equity in the allocation of non-instructional load credits, and administrators can address specific cases and seek to align comparable tasks with similar amounts of load credit. 13. Given the vital role that faculty play in institutional efforts to improve student outcomes, Central must take steps to ensure that its new strategic initiatives are attentive to faculty workloads, and that related policies and practices serve as incentives for faculty to use teaching practices that promote higher levels of student engagement, academic success, personal growth, and degree attainment. 14. The long-term success of any strategic initiative in higher education is tied to the level and extent of collaboration between faculty and administration. Existing governance bodies, including the faculty senate, can serve as venues for greater communication and information sharing. New venues, however, may also need to be created so that faculty and administrators can interact earlier in the decision-making process. 15. As Central emerges from current financial constraints and is able to hire new full-time faculty, the university will need to consider decisions regarding the allocation of faculty lines in relation to the institution’s long-term priorities. Faculty leaders should be involved in the process of determining faculty hiring priorities, as the institution begins to add new full-time positions.

68

16. Administrators and faculty leaders at Central need to avoid overburdening racial and ethnic minority faculty with expectations to serve on multiple search committees simultaneously. If the current number of minority faculty on campus is insufficient to distribute among the various search committees each year, then provisions should be made to provide load credits to those who serve simultaneously on multiple search committees. 17. Central could reconnect to the historical roots of its Center for Teaching Excellence, and reestablish a faculty-led, grassroots approach to faculty development. In this model, the university would continue to provide financial and administrative support for faculty development, but would enable a team of faculty members to establish priorities for faculty development on campus. The faculty development team could be comprised of pedagogically innovative faculty members from each school in the university. Their knowledge and expertise could then be gathered together as an important decision-making resource in the university’s ongoing efforts to improve teaching and learning.

69

APPENDIX

Central Connecticut State University Open-Ended Survey Responses This appendix contains verbatim responses to open-ended survey items, from the spring 2009 and fall 2009 full-time and part-time faculty surveys. The data below were selected to represent various themes and findings that were highlighted in this report.

1.

Teaching loads and teaching effectiveness. 

Our students come to us underprepared for college, and yet we’re asked to bring them up to speed and provide them with a quality education while teaching a 4+4 load.



We get the same load credit for teaching a 3-hour graduate course and a 3-hour Math 101 course. There are no load credits for doing research. There are no load credits for being in a thesis committee and for reading and evaluating a thesis. We get only .33 credit hours for supervising a student working on a thesis.



There are enormous disparities between schools regarding teaching load and research reassigned time. The faculty in the School of Business regularly teach 9 credits per semester and receive 3 credits of research time. Faculty in arts and sciences seldom receive more than 3 credits of research time per year, and many receive none at all.



[The School of Business] is resented by the rest of the university for maintaining 3:3 loads for faculty with active research programs by providing load credit for research. This is despite the fact that we [faculty in the School of Business] teach as many or more credit hours per faculty member and per full-time faculty member than any school in the university… We would also have almost no hope of recruiting new faculty, since our salaries by rank at their maximum cap are several thousand dollars lower than what is available with standard 3:3 teaching loads at teaching institutions. (Salaries for assistant professors in accounting at research institutions exceed our cap for full professors.)



Administration often required faculty with some overload credit to use it to supplement partial reassigned time grants for research to make up a full (3-credit) course reduction, while those with no accumulated overload credit are given the full 3 credits of reassigned time. This is demoralizing, and makes one loath to accept responsibilities that might put one in the former situation.



Reassignments tend to become sinecures or awards for life or entitlements. Because they are discretionary in many cases, they can be used as rewards or punishments, and they can have the appearance of unfairness.

70

2.

Tenure and promotion reviews. 

The expectations of faculty at this university are getting more intense and nebulous. Within our department, the amount and quality of publications expected of our new faculty remains vague. But it appears that we need to teach as much as before and publish more, making this job more frustrating and time consuming than in the past. Also as the administration has grown in size, the ability to make difficult decisions has disappeared. The administration has shifted much of its projects onto the shoulders of the faculty to be inclusive, but in reality it is placing a huge workload on us.



Lip service is given to the importance of teaching, but when it comes to promotion, creative activity is what is considered. There is no mentoring for research and publishing and given other responsibilities, there is little time.



There are publication requirements, requiring the same amount of time as an R1 [Research 1] faculty member, but we are given 0 time to work on publication. There is also no credit given to developing a new course, which is certainly many more hours than the faculty that have taught the same courses for years.



The disjoint between Schools is especially apparent in P&T decisions where the Schools of Business and Technology and Engineering appear to be held to different (higher) standards than the other schools.



I do think it is clear that I teach but don’t publish. Some of this is due to my experiences here as a young faculty member (new to the job). I managed to get tenure and associate [professor rank] and I was just burned out by what I went through. I did not feel that I had support – especially as one of the 3 females in a male dominated school. So I gave up the focus on research and promotion – and there is no way to get promoted without research.



Over the past several years (10 or so) a greater emphasis has been placed on faculty research; information technology has been incorporated into classes and faculty offices (i.e., desktops, printers, scanners, etc.) but this is all supposed to take place in the same space that historically was used for just teaching. There is no way to conduct meaningful research with the limited space available. Additionally, there is a continual responsibility ‘creep’ for faculty without commensurate load credit. Assessment, increased advising expectations, incorporation of technology into classes (i.e., Blackboard Vista), proliferation of committees – all of this on the same amount of load credit and the same 12 hour teaching requirement – insane!

3.

The faculty load credit system. 

We are given only 0.75 of credit for every hour of lab we teach. Since our lab courses are writing-intensive (with multi-draft major lab reports in most), this is grossly unfair. We also are awarded 0.375 credits for every hour of team-taught labs, even though both members of the team have responsibilities in labs in most weeks. For summer courses taught abroad, we are paid the same to plan and teach a month-long course where we deal with all needs of students living in a foreign country, as if we were teaching a course for the same number of credits online, again grossly unfair.

71



Independent student research is a major part of our department mission. The faculty load associated with that (0.1 credits faculty load per 1 credit student load) limits the number of classes I can teach.



Prep work is not included, especially when one is teaching a new course; it makes no differential between teaching 3 different types of courses or teaching 3 sessions of the same course. The preparation time is very different.

4.

Administrative initiatives. 

Constant addition of new administrative tasks like assessment make life miserable at certain times of the year; department chairs complain seriously that more and more administrative work is being dumped on them; working with administrative departments is a constant headache because staff members have insufficient support; little recognition on campus that faculty are experts in their fields as opposed to “teachers.”



The recent debacle of the student advising center on campus (which had been imposed from above with very limited faculty input), demonstrated a disregard for shared governance.



We have over 600 undergraduate majors [in the department] and the student-faculty ratio is approximately 70-to-1. Academic advising pretty much goes the entire semester.

5.

Faculty recruitment, hiring, and professional development. 

My biggest issue in terms of lack of support is… the lack of funds to support travel to conferences for presenting research and for faculty development.



The money and institutional support is there to help with research and creative achievement, but there is no actual time – after all of the teaching – actually to take advantage of this financial support!

6.

Part-time faculty issues. 

I feel qualified part-time faculty are not taken seriously if/when they apply for posted tenure track positions. They are not given the opportunity to state their case why they should be elevated to the posted position. At the very least, they should be given the courtesy of an interview. If they are good enough to be hired for several semesters in a row as part-time faculty, they should be considered for a full-time/tenure track position.



I used to be able to choose my own texts and method of delivery, but in the last year or two, I no longer have any say in text selection and in certain courses I am told what exams to give.

72



The number of students in a course is not factored into this load credit. If one teacher has 30 students and another only 12, they are paid the same “load credit” for the same number of course hours, regardless of enrollment.



I could contribute greatly to teaching at the master’s level. Because I am a part-time faculty member, this has been closed off to me. There has been virtually no opportunity to meet with others in the department to discuss what we are teaching. Faculty members exist in silos.

73