Note: All national averages are derived from the National Survey of Postsecondary Faculty (NSOPF), U.S. Department of Education. Institutional type: public master’s I universities . Paid work for institution Unpaid work for institution External work, paid External work, unpaid Total Central 44.1 6.8 0.9 3.2 55.0 Eastern 44.5 8.1 1.4 3.2 57.2 Southern 43.6 7.8 1.8 2.6 55.8 Western 41.4 5.6 2.9 3.5 53.4 National average 44.4 4.5 2.2 2.2 53.2
Total FLCs Instructional FLCs % of total Non-instructional FLCs % of total Central 11.94 9.84 82.4% 2.10 17.6% Eastern 12.78 11.08 86.7% 1.70 13.3% Southern 11.81 8.63 73.1% 3.18 26.9% Western 12.16 9.89 81.3% 2.27 18.7%
Distribution of Load Credits Across Activities: Four-Year Totals (controls for sabbaticals, leaves) Activity LC % % FT Courses 29874.10 76.1% 82.4% FT Lab 942.86 2.4% FT Student-Teach Supervise 33.00 0.1% FT Ind Study 1163.38 3.0% FT Thesis 243.16 0.6% FT Supp Lab 112.25 0.3% FT Special Assign 355.75 0.9% 17.6% FT Admin Duties 2686.50 6.8% FT Reassign Curriculum 1725.54 4.4% FT Reassign Grants 185.36 0.5% FT Online 0.00 0.0% FT Research Activity 1666.55 4.2% FT Other Non-Instruct 275.38 0.7% 39263.83 100%
Policy issue : potential to increase the contractual minimums so that they are closer to current averages Percentage of total FLCs Awarded for Research Average per semester (contractual minimum) Central 4.2% 208.3 (64.8) Eastern 1.4% 33.0 (21.6) Southern 3.3% 157.7 (64.8) Western 2.2% 53.4 (25.8)
Policy issue : potential to increase the contractual minimums so that they are closer to current averages Article 10.6.5 – broad category that includes academic program direction and direction of centers and institutes (makes interpretation difficult) Percentage of total FLCs Awarded for Curriculum Development Average per semester (contractual minimum) Central 4.4% 215.7 (132.0) Eastern 4.5% 105.1 (64.0) Southern 10.3% 488.8 (132.0) Western 7.9% 193.2 (87.0)
If CSU is to maintain a low percentage of administrative management , then levels of reassigned time will need to be maintained.
Otherwise, the important work of academic program improvement will be compromised
Link this issue to ongoing efforts to strengthen student retention and improve student learning outcomes
Percentage of total FLCs Awarded for Administrative Duties Percentage of total FLCs Awarded for Special Assignments Total Central 6.8% 0.9% 7.7% Eastern 5.7% 1.0% 6.7% Southern 7.3% 4.9% 12.2% Western 7.9% 0.0% 7.9%
Teaching practice Prevalence at Central compared to national average Implication Assessing multiple drafts of students’ written work More likely Effective practice Student presentations in class More likely Effective practice Group and team projects More likely Effective practice Peer feedback on student work More likely Effective practice Research papers and writing assignments More likely Effective practice Lab, shop, and studio assignments More likely Effective practice Essay exams More likely Effective practice Short-answer exams More likely Potential concern Multiple-choice exams Comparable Service-learning or co-op experiences Less likely Potential concern
Dimension of the work environment Central compared to national average Institutional support for instructional technology Less satisfied Workload Less satisfied Good teaching is rewarded by the institution Less likely to agree Women faculty are treated fairly at this institution Less likely to agree Faculty from racial and ethnic minority groups are treated fairly at this institution Less likely to agree Part-time faculty are treated fairly at this institution Less likely to agree Quality of facilities and equipment available for classroom instruction Comparable Institutional support for teaching improvement Comparable Salary Comparable Overall job satisfaction Comparable Benefits More satisfied
Dimension of the work environment Responses at Central Faculty have a voice in what occurs within their departments 88.5% agreed Institutional support to experiment with new teaching approaches 63.9% satisfied Institutional support for research, creative, and other scholarly activities 59.6% dissatisfied Faculty are sufficiently involved in campus decision making 62.1% disagreed Administrators at this institution consider faculty concerns when making policy 71.3% disagreed Availability of child care (among those for whom it is applicable) 88.0% dissatisfied
Current teaching loads limit pedagogical innovation and interfere with faculty efforts to promote student learning.
Current teaching loads may not allow faculty to remain current in their respective disciplines , and therefore, they may not be able to deliver a state-of-the-art, university-level curriculum to students.
Equity in teaching loads: reassigned time for faculty in the school of business
Number of course preparations per semester: not possible for some faculty to teach multiple sections of the same course (especially faculty in graduate programs)
Policy issue : class size caps – if increased, these concerns will intensify
Workload issues are not only the number of courses taught, but also the number of students in those courses
Some faculty described a shift in the types of research that are valued for promotion and tenure
Emphasis on peer-reviewed publications may detract from other highly-valued forms of scholarship, including community engagement and research with undergraduate students (which are also espoused priorities at Central)
Resulted in some degree of confusion and uncertainty regarding how promotion and tenure criteria will be interpreted by review committees
Academic departments differed in their level of confidence regarding whether their departmental P&T guidelines would be validated by university-wide committees and administration
If a reduction to a 3-3 or 3-4 teaching load is not feasible at this time, then university leaders and faculty members need to consider how reassigned time is allocated toward various institutional priorities:
to support faculty research,
to encourage faculty involvement in university-wide initiatives,
to enable faculty to experiment with cutting-edge pedagogical practices
Prior to this study, the CSU system had not provided CSU AAUP with a complete accounting of faculty load credit activity across all four institutions.
Now that the CSU system has supplied complete load credit data for four consecutive academic years , this practice needs to be maintained for the benefit of all university members.
These data can be used to understand how faculty workloads are currently comprised, and whether existing allocations of reassigned time need to be changed or increased in order to accommodate new initiatives.
A university-wide statement that endorses multiple forms of scholarship
could establish greater confidence that P&T guidelines from all departments will be viewed as valid and legitimate by administration
The university could establish stronger communication between departmental evaluation committees (DECs) and the university’s P&T committee .
Forums for discussion among DEC chairs, P&T committee members, AAUP representatives, and university administrators
The availability of reassigned time and sabbaticals to support research needs to examined.
First, university members need to determine the optimal level of reassigned time that would be needed to support faculty research.
Second, university members should consider alternative structures for awarding reassigned time, including multi-year blocks , which would allow faculty to pursue projects of greater scope and significance
Third, the CSU institutions should benchmark their sabbatical practices against other premier teaching universities