ECSU NERCHE study Sept 21 2011
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Like this? Share it with your network

Share

ECSU NERCHE study Sept 21 2011

on

  • 1,067 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
1,067
Views on SlideShare
518
Embed Views
549

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0

1 Embed 549

http://www.ecsuaaup.org 549

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

ECSU NERCHE study Sept 21 2011 Presentation Transcript

  • 1. Report on the Status of Academic Work Life: CSU AAUP
    Eastern Connecticut State University
    September 21, 2011
  • 2. The CSU AAUP Workload Study
    • Purpose of study: examine the effects of changing academic workloads on the ability of the CSU system to provide high quality education
    • 3. CSU AAUP selected the New England Resource Center for Higher Education (NERCHE) at UMass Boston to conduct the study
    • 4. Data collection
    • 5. spring 2009, fall 2009, spring 2010
    • 6. Data analysis and draft reports
    • 7. fall 2010
    • 8. Final reports presented
    • 9. spring 2011
    • 10. CSU AAUP State Council meeting, April 21, 2011
    2
  • 11. Overview of today’s presentation
    • Methods and data sources
    • 12. Quantitativestudy findings
    • 13. Full-time faculty work hours
    • 14. Faculty load credit (FLC) categories
    • 15. Pedagogical practices
    • 16. Quality of the work environment
    • 17. Qualitative study findings
    • 18. Teaching loads and teaching effectiveness
    • 19. Strategic initiatives and faculty workload
    • 20. Rising research expectations
    • 21. Faculty load credit system
    • 22. Part-time faculty, librarians, coaches, counselors
    • 23. Questions and discussion
    3
  • 24. 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
  • 25. Methods and Data Sources
    • Full-time faculty survey 1 (spring 2009)
    • 26. Response rate 37.1% (N=435)
    • 27. Full-time faculty survey 2 (fall 2009)
    • 28. Response rate 35.0% (N=446)
    • 29. Part-time faculty survey 1 (spring 2009)
    • 30. Response rate 16.1% (N=175)
    • 31. Part-time faculty survey 2 (fall 2009)
    • 32. Response rate 11.3% (N=190)
    • 33. Librarians, coaches/trainers, counselors (spring 2010)
    • 34. Response rates: 43.8%, 26.4%, and 50.0%, respectively
    • 35. Interview participants (N=133)
    • 36. 40 full-time faculty, 19 part-time faculty, 23 department chairs, and 11 faculty search committee chairs
    • 37. 17 administrators,
    • 38. 8 librarians, 8 coaches/trainers, and 7 counselors
    5
  • 39. 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
  • 40. 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
  • 41. Quantitative study findings
    Full-time faculty work week: Academic year, itemized tasks
    8
  • 42. Quantitative study findings
    • Summer Workloads: Full-time Faculty
    • 43. Full-time faculty at Eastern reported that they spent an average of 206 hours on academic work during the summer (not including summer teaching)
    • 44. Equivalent of more than five 40-hour work weeks
    • 45. Among these summer tasks, the largest number of hours was devoted to:
    • 46. Research and other scholarly activity (124 hours)
    • 47. Administrative responsibilities (33 hours)
    • 48. Preparing for classes for the next academic year (32 hours)
  • Quantitative study findings
    • Faculty Load Credits
    • 49. Instructional and Non-Instructional
    10
  • 50. 11
  • 51. Quantitative study findings
    • Faculty Load Credits
    • 52. Instructional and Non-Instructional
    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
  • 53. Quantitative study findings
    Faculty Load Credits
    Reassigned time for research
    13
  • 54. 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
  • 55. 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.
    • 56. Otherwise, the important work of academic program improvement will be compromised
    • 57. Link this issue to ongoing efforts to strengthen student retention and improve student learning outcomes
    15
  • 58. 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
  • 59. 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).
    • 60. Eastern met this minimum threshold in each semester since the collective bargaining agreement was ratified.
    • 61. 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
    17
  • 62. Quantitative study findings
    Pedagogical practices
    18
  • 63. Quantitative study findings
    Work environment
    19
  • 64. 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
  • 65. Qualitative study findings
    • Strategic Initiatives
    • 66. Multiple initiatives require faculty participation if improvements in student outcomes are to be achieved
    • 67. Most frequently mentioned initiatives at Eastern:
    • 68. 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
    • 69. “Committee fatigue”
    • 70. Significant workload implications for department chairs
    • 71. Resource constraints hinder implementation of these initiatives
    • 72. 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)
    21
  • 73. 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
  • 74. 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
  • 75. Part-Time Faculty
    • Pedagogical practices reveal some strengths and limitations
    • 76. CSU part-time faculty members were more likely than the national averagefor part-time faculty in “public master’s I” institutions to use the following teaching practices:
    • 77. essay exams
    • 78. research papers and writing assignments
    • 79. assessing multiple drafts of students’ written work
    • 80. short-answer exams [potential concern]
    • 81. CSU part-time faculty members were less likely than the national average for part-time faculty in “public master’s I” institutions to use the following teaching practices.
    • 82. laboratory, shop, or studio assignments [potential concern]
    • 83. service-learning or co-op experiences [potential concern]
    24
  • 84. Part-Time Faculty
    • CSU part-time faculty reported satisfaction levels that were lower than the national average for part-time faculty at comparable institutions for the following dimensions of the work environment:
    • 85. institutional support for instructional technology
    • 86. institutional support for teaching improvement
    • 87. their workload
    • 88. They were also less likely than the national average to agree that:
    • 89. faculty at this institution are rewarded for good teaching
    • 90. women faculty members are treated fairly at this institution
    • 91. part-time faculty are treated fairly at this institution
    25
  • 92. Librarians
    • CSU librarians reported the highest levels of dissatisfaction with the following dimensions of the work environment:
    • 93. time available for research, creative, and other scholarly activities (66.7% dissatisfied)
    • 94. institutional support for research, creative, and other scholarly activities (60.0% dissatisfied)
    • 95. time available for keeping current in your professional field (56.7% dissatisfied)
    • 96. High levels of satisfaction, however, were reported for benefits, salary, and overall job satisfaction.
    • 97. Librarians generally agreed that the criteria for promotion and tenure were clear (69.0%) and that the work environment at their university fosters a balance between work and personal life (66.6%)
    26
  • 98. Librarians
    • Indicated a desire for more professional flexibility in their work schedules
    • 99. Practices regarding time sheets, flex time, and comp time were viewed negatively
    • 100. Expressed the need for promotion and tenure committees to develop more extensive understandings of the work of librarians
    • 101. Called for more cooperation with information technology units on campus
    27
  • 102. Coaches and Trainers
    • Coaches and trainers in the CSU system reported the highest levels of dissatisfaction with the following dimensions of the work environment:
    • 103. quality of athletic fields, facilities, and venues for practice and competition (68% dissatisfied)
    • 104. institutional support for professional development (60% dissatisfied)
    • 105. support services, secretarial and/or professional staff (56% dissatisfied)
    28
  • 106. Coaches and Trainers
    • CSU coaches and trainers also reported high levels of disagreement regarding whether:
    • 107. people at this institution have a clear understanding of what coaches and trainers do (84.0% disagree)
    • 108. review processes for promotion at this institution appropriately account for the unique work context of coaches and trainers (81.0% disagree)
    • 109. coaches and trainers are sufficiently involved in campus decision making (72.0% disagree)
    • 110. part-time coaches are treated fairly at this institution (69.6% disagree)
    • 111. Coaches and trainers expressed the belief that their roles are not well understood and not accounted for properly in the collective bargaining agreement
    • 112. Expressed a desire for greater professional flexibility in setting their work schedules
    29
  • 113. Counselors
    • Counselors expressed the concern that current staffing levels are not sufficient to address the increasingly complex needs of college students
    • 114. Large numbers of CSU counselors were dissatisfied with:
    • 115. time available for research, creative, and other scholarly activities; and
    • 116. institutional support for research, creative, and other scholarly activities
    • 117. Counselors also indicated that the CSU AAUP contract is not flexible enough to permit them to teach courses
    30
  • 118. Recommendations
    1. Teaching loads
    • 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:
    • 119. to support faculty research,
    • 120. to encourage faculty involvement in university-wide initiatives,
    • 121. to enable faculty to experiment with cutting-edge pedagogical practices
    • 122. New allocations of reassigned time
    • 123. Reallocations of existing reassigned time
    • 124. New hiring of full-time faculty
    31
  • 125. Recommendations
    2. Faculty load credit data
    • 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.
    • 126. 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.
    • 127. 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.
    32
  • 128. 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
    • 129. Establish a standard practice for providing course load reductions to all new junior faculty members
    33
  • 130. Recommendations
    5. Rising research expectations
    • A university-wide statement that endorses multiple forms of scholarship
    • 131. could establish greater confidence that P&T guidelines from all departments will be viewed as valid and legitimate by administration
    • 132. The university could establish stronger communication between departmental evaluation committees (DECs) and the university’s P&T committee.
    • 133. Forums for discussion among DEC chairs, P&T committee members, AAUP representatives, and university administrators
    • 134. The availability of reassigned time and sabbaticals to support research needs to examined.
    • 135. First, university members need to determine the optimal level of reassigned time that would be needed to support faculty research.
    • 136. 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
    • 137. Third, the CSU institutions should benchmark their sabbatical practices against other premier teaching universities
    34
  • 138. Recommendations
    6. Support department chairs
    • The CSU institutions need to determine what types of institutional infrastructures are necessary to support the work of department chairs.
    • 139. Universities may need to hire additional support staff or establish offices to support assessment and accreditation efforts within the academic departments.
    • 140. Some CSU institutions may choose to create new departmental leadership structures that include associate department chairs and/or graduate and undergraduate program coordinators
    35
  • 141. Recommendations
    7. Transparency in the allocation of non-instructional load credits
    • The frequent use of side letters and special workload arrangements for certain faculty and/or departments may be eroding faculty confidence in the load credit system.
    • 142. The CSU institutions should establish a process whereby university administrators report annually on the non-instructional assignments of faculty members
    36
  • 143. Recommendations
    8. Support part-time faculty members
    • Lack of evaluation deprived part-time faculty of the opportunity to talk with chairs and other faculty about their teaching.
    • 144. All four CSU institutions need to examine their evaluation processes for part-time faculty
    • 145. The CSU institutions should tailor professional development and orientation sessions to the unique needs of these instructors
    37
  • 146. Recommendations
    9. Benchmark practices that affect librarians, coaches, trainers, and counselors
    • They described instances in which their autonomy and expertise were not respected by university administrators.
    • 147. They described a “time clock” mentality in which administrators treated them as hourly employees, rather than as academic professionals.
    • 148. In order to promote professionalism, the CSU institutions need to compare their policies and practices regarding librarians, coaches, trainers, and counselors.
    • 149. Policies regarding schedule flexibility (e.g., flex time) could be a focal point for an initial examination
    38