Methods and Data Sources Institutional Data Faculty load credit data supplied by the CSU system for four academic years: 2005-2006, 2006-2007, 2007-2008, and 2008-2009 Survey Data Two surveys of all full-time faculty members in the CSU system (spring 2009, fall 2009) Two surveys of all part-time faculty members in the CSU system (spring 2009, fall 2009) Surveys of all full-time and part-time librarians, coaches, trainers, and counselors in the CSU system (spring 2010) Interview Data 133 interviews and 4 focus groups 4
8 librarians, 8 coaches/trainers, and 7 counselors
Methods and Data Sources Project deliverables to CSU AAUP four Faculty Load Credit (FLC) reports (one for each university) four data analysis reports (one for each university) a system-wide report compendium of surveys used in the study 6
Quantitative study findings Full-time Faculty Work Week: Academic Year 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. 7
Quantitative study findings Full-time faculty work week: Academic year, itemized tasks 8
What is the desired balance between instructional and non-instructional load credits? In interviews, faculty indicated that non-instructional load credits are insufficient (e.g., reassigned time for research) Financial pressures, however, will likely reshape class sizes (larger) and affect FLC allocation decisions regarding reassigned time (less) Policy implication: what will be prioritized – maintaining class sizes or preserving current level of non-instructional load credits? 12
Quantitative study findings Faculty Load Credits Reassigned time for research 13
Quantitative study findings Faculty Load Credits Curriculum development Article 10.6.5 – broad category that includes academic program direction and direction of centers and institutes (makes interpretation difficult) 14
Quantitative study findings Faculty Load Credits Reassigned time for administrative duties
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
Quantitative study findings Faculty Load Credits: Sabbaticals Eastern awarded an average of 162 sabbatical load credits per year That total factors into 13.5 half-year sabbaticals per year What is a sufficient number of sabbaticals? Faculty interview participants expressed dissatisfaction with current levels. Language in collective bargaining agreement is vague, ambiguous (see p. 96) 70 each year – full-year or half-year?; total for all four universities? 16
Quantitative study findings Faculty Load Credits Supplemental lab credits
The collective bargaining agreement calls for Eastern to award 9.0 supplemental lab credits per semester (article 10.6.4).
Eastern met this minimum threshold in each semester since the collective bargaining agreement was ratified.
In order to award one load credit for each lab/studio hour taught, Eastern would need to allocate 10.0 additional load credits per year
Quantitative study findings Pedagogical practices 18
Quantitative study findings Work environment 19
Qualitative study findings Teaching loads and teaching effectiveness 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. Study participants made references to proposal for teaching 3 four-credit courses, rather than 4 three-credit courses 20
Multiple initiatives require faculty participation if improvements in student outcomes are to be achieved
Most frequently mentioned initiatives at Eastern:
liberal arts core (LAC) curriculum, strategic planning process, and efforts to link curriculum to experiential learning opportunities, such as undergraduate research, service learning, study abroad, cooperative education, and internships
Significant workload implications for department chairs
Resource constraints hinder implementation of these initiatives
Need to incorporate workload considerations into each major initiative (that is, determine the FLCs that will be needed to design and implement a particular initiative)
Qualitative study findings Research expectations, promotion, and tenure Rising research expectations have created workload challenges Difficult to balance teaching and research, given few graduate programs Faculty argued that the current amount of reassigned time for research is inadequate 22
Qualitative study findings Faculty load credit system Load credits for lab and studio courses Few non-instructional load credits Too little reassigned time to support strategic initiatives Too little reassigned time for department chairs, especially since assessment of student learning outcomes is a key component of the liberal arts core (LAC) curriculum initiative 23
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:
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.
Recommendations 3. Load credits for labs and studios
The CSU institutions should move quickly to correct this inadequate practice and remove any disincentive that may dissuade faculty from using effective pedagogical practices.
4. Support junior faculty
Junior faculty reported high levels of stress, lack of work-life balance, and anxiety regarding expectations for promotion and tenure
Establish a standard practice for providing course load reductions to all new junior faculty members
Recommendations 5. Rising research expectations
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