ECSU NERCHE study Sept 21 2011


Published on

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

ECSU NERCHE study Sept 21 2011

  1. 1. Report on the Status of Academic Work Life: CSU AAUP<br />Eastern Connecticut State University<br />September 21, 2011<br />
  2. 2. The CSU AAUP Workload Study<br /><ul><li>Purpose of study: examine the effects of changing academic workloads on the ability of the CSU system to provide high quality education
  3. 3. CSU AAUP selected the New England Resource Center for Higher Education (NERCHE) at UMass Boston to conduct the study
  4. 4. Data collection
  5. 5. spring 2009, fall 2009, spring 2010
  6. 6. Data analysis and draft reports
  7. 7. fall 2010
  8. 8. Final reports presented
  9. 9. spring 2011
  10. 10. CSU AAUP State Council meeting, April 21, 2011</li></ul>2<br />
  11. 11. Overview of today’s presentation<br /><ul><li>Methods and data sources
  12. 12. Quantitativestudy findings
  13. 13. Full-time faculty work hours
  14. 14. Faculty load credit (FLC) categories
  15. 15. Pedagogical practices
  16. 16. Quality of the work environment
  17. 17. Qualitative study findings
  18. 18. Teaching loads and teaching effectiveness
  19. 19. Strategic initiatives and faculty workload
  20. 20. Rising research expectations
  21. 21. Faculty load credit system
  22. 22. Part-time faculty, librarians, coaches, counselors
  23. 23. Questions and discussion</li></ul>3<br />
  24. 24. Methods and Data Sources<br />Institutional Data<br />Faculty load credit data supplied by the CSU system for four academic years: 2005-2006, 2006-2007, 2007-2008, and 2008-2009 <br />Survey Data<br />Two surveys of all full-time faculty members in the CSU system (spring 2009, fall 2009)<br />Two surveys of all part-time faculty members in the CSU system (spring 2009, fall 2009)<br />Surveys of all full-time and part-time librarians, coaches, trainers, and counselors in the CSU system (spring 2010)<br />Interview Data<br />133 interviews and 4 focus groups<br />4<br />
  25. 25. Methods and Data Sources<br /><ul><li>Full-time faculty survey 1 (spring 2009)
  26. 26. Response rate 37.1% (N=435)
  27. 27. Full-time faculty survey 2 (fall 2009)
  28. 28. Response rate 35.0% (N=446)
  29. 29. Part-time faculty survey 1 (spring 2009)
  30. 30. Response rate 16.1% (N=175)
  31. 31. Part-time faculty survey 2 (fall 2009)
  32. 32. Response rate 11.3% (N=190)
  33. 33. Librarians, coaches/trainers, counselors (spring 2010)
  34. 34. Response rates: 43.8%, 26.4%, and 50.0%, respectively
  35. 35. Interview participants (N=133)
  36. 36. 40 full-time faculty, 19 part-time faculty, 23 department chairs, and 11 faculty search committee chairs
  37. 37. 17 administrators,
  38. 38. 8 librarians, 8 coaches/trainers, and 7 counselors</li></ul>5<br />
  39. 39. Methods and Data Sources<br />Project deliverables to CSU AAUP<br />four Faculty Load Credit (FLC) reports (one for each university)<br />four data analysis reports (one for each university)<br />a system-wide report<br />compendium of surveys used in the study<br />6<br />
  40. 40. Quantitative study findings<br />Full-time Faculty Work Week: Academic Year<br />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.<br />7<br />
  41. 41. Quantitative study findings<br />Full-time faculty work week: Academic year, itemized tasks<br />8<br />
  42. 42. Quantitative study findings<br /><ul><li>Summer Workloads: Full-time Faculty
  43. 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. 44. Equivalent of more than five 40-hour work weeks
  45. 45. Among these summer tasks, the largest number of hours was devoted to:
  46. 46. Research and other scholarly activity (124 hours)
  47. 47. Administrative responsibilities (33 hours)
  48. 48. Preparing for classes for the next academic year (32 hours)</li></li></ul><li>Quantitative study findings<br /><ul><li>Faculty Load Credits
  49. 49. Instructional and Non-Instructional</li></ul>10<br />
  50. 50. 11<br />
  51. 51. Quantitative study findings<br /><ul><li>Faculty Load Credits
  52. 52. Instructional and Non-Instructional</li></ul>What is the desired balance between instructional and non-instructional load credits?<br />In interviews, faculty indicated that non-instructional load credits are insufficient (e.g., reassigned time for research)<br />Financial pressures, however, will likely reshape class sizes (larger) and affect FLC allocation decisions regarding reassigned time (less)<br />Policy implication: what will be prioritized – maintaining class sizes or preserving current level of non-instructional load credits?<br />12<br />
  53. 53. Quantitative study findings<br />Faculty Load Credits<br />Reassigned time for research<br />13<br />
  54. 54. Quantitative study findings<br />Faculty Load Credits<br />Curriculum development<br />Article 10.6.5 – broad category that includes academic program direction and direction of centers and institutes (makes interpretation difficult)<br />14<br />
  55. 55. Quantitative study findings<br />Faculty Load Credits<br />Reassigned time for administrative duties<br /><ul><li>If CSU is to maintain a low percentage of administrative management, then levels of reassigned time will need to be maintained.
  56. 56. Otherwise, the important work of academic program improvement will be compromised
  57. 57. Link this issue to ongoing efforts to strengthen student retention and improve student learning outcomes</li></ul>15<br />
  58. 58. Quantitative study findings<br />Faculty Load Credits: Sabbaticals <br />Eastern awarded an average of 162 sabbatical load credits per year<br />That total factors into 13.5 half-year sabbaticals per year<br />What is a sufficient number of sabbaticals?<br />Faculty interview participants expressed dissatisfaction with current levels.<br />Language in collective bargaining agreement is vague, ambiguous (see p. 96)<br />70 each year – full-year or half-year?; total for all four universities?<br />16<br />
  59. 59. Quantitative study findings<br />Faculty Load Credits<br />Supplemental lab credits<br /><ul><li>The collective bargaining agreement calls for Eastern to award 9.0 supplemental lab credits per semester (article 10.6.4).
  60. 60. Eastern met this minimum threshold in each semester since the collective bargaining agreement was ratified.
  61. 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 </li></ul>17<br />
  62. 62. Quantitative study findings<br />Pedagogical practices<br />18<br />
  63. 63. Quantitative study findings<br />Work environment<br />19<br />
  64. 64. Qualitative study findings<br />Teaching loads and teaching effectiveness<br />Current teaching loads limit pedagogical innovation and interfere with faculty efforts to promote student learning.<br />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.<br />Study participants made references to proposal for teaching 3 four-credit courses, rather than 4 three-credit courses<br />20<br />
  65. 65. Qualitative study findings<br /><ul><li>Strategic Initiatives
  66. 66. Multiple initiatives require faculty participation if improvements in student outcomes are to be achieved
  67. 67. Most frequently mentioned initiatives at Eastern:
  68. 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. 69. “Committee fatigue”
  70. 70. Significant workload implications for department chairs
  71. 71. Resource constraints hinder implementation of these initiatives
  72. 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)</li></ul>21<br />
  73. 73. Qualitative study findings<br />Research expectations, promotion, and tenure <br />Rising research expectations have created workload challenges<br />Difficult to balance teaching and research, given few graduate programs<br />Faculty argued that the current amount of reassigned time for research is inadequate<br />22<br />
  74. 74. Qualitative study findings<br />Faculty load credit system<br />Load credits for lab and studio courses<br />Few non-instructional load credits<br />Too little reassigned time to support strategic initiatives<br />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<br />23<br />
  75. 75. Part-Time Faculty<br /><ul><li>Pedagogical practices reveal some strengths and limitations
  76. 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. 77. essay exams
  78. 78. research papers and writing assignments
  79. 79. assessing multiple drafts of students’ written work
  80. 80. short-answer exams [potential concern]
  81. 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. 82. laboratory, shop, or studio assignments [potential concern]
  83. 83. service-learning or co-op experiences [potential concern]</li></ul>24<br />
  84. 84. Part-Time Faculty<br /><ul><li>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. 85. institutional support for instructional technology
  86. 86. institutional support for teaching improvement
  87. 87. their workload
  88. 88. They were also less likely than the national average to agree that:
  89. 89. faculty at this institution are rewarded for good teaching
  90. 90. women faculty members are treated fairly at this institution
  91. 91. part-time faculty are treated fairly at this institution</li></ul>25<br />
  92. 92. Librarians<br /><ul><li>CSU librarians reported the highest levels of dissatisfaction with the following dimensions of the work environment:
  93. 93. time available for research, creative, and other scholarly activities (66.7% dissatisfied)
  94. 94. institutional support for research, creative, and other scholarly activities (60.0% dissatisfied)
  95. 95. time available for keeping current in your professional field (56.7% dissatisfied)
  96. 96. High levels of satisfaction, however, were reported for benefits, salary, and overall job satisfaction.
  97. 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%)</li></ul>26<br />
  98. 98. Librarians<br /><ul><li>Indicated a desire for more professional flexibility in their work schedules
  99. 99. Practices regarding time sheets, flex time, and comp time were viewed negatively
  100. 100. Expressed the need for promotion and tenure committees to develop more extensive understandings of the work of librarians
  101. 101. Called for more cooperation with information technology units on campus</li></ul>27<br />
  102. 102. Coaches and Trainers<br /><ul><li>Coaches and trainers in the CSU system reported the highest levels of dissatisfaction with the following dimensions of the work environment:
  103. 103. quality of athletic fields, facilities, and venues for practice and competition (68% dissatisfied)
  104. 104. institutional support for professional development (60% dissatisfied)
  105. 105. support services, secretarial and/or professional staff (56% dissatisfied)</li></ul>28<br />
  106. 106. Coaches and Trainers<br /><ul><li>CSU coaches and trainers also reported high levels of disagreement regarding whether:
  107. 107. people at this institution have a clear understanding of what coaches and trainers do (84.0% disagree)
  108. 108. review processes for promotion at this institution appropriately account for the unique work context of coaches and trainers (81.0% disagree)
  109. 109. coaches and trainers are sufficiently involved in campus decision making (72.0% disagree)
  110. 110. part-time coaches are treated fairly at this institution (69.6% disagree)
  111. 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. 112. Expressed a desire for greater professional flexibility in setting their work schedules</li></ul>29<br />
  113. 113. Counselors<br /><ul><li>Counselors expressed the concern that current staffing levels are not sufficient to address the increasingly complex needs of college students
  114. 114. Large numbers of CSU counselors were dissatisfied with:
  115. 115. time available for research, creative, and other scholarly activities; and
  116. 116. institutional support for research, creative, and other scholarly activities
  117. 117. Counselors also indicated that the CSU AAUP contract is not flexible enough to permit them to teach courses </li></ul>30<br />
  118. 118. Recommendations<br />1. Teaching loads<br /><ul><li>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. 119. to support faculty research,
  120. 120. to encourage faculty involvement in university-wide initiatives,
  121. 121. to enable faculty to experiment with cutting-edge pedagogical practices
  122. 122. New allocations of reassigned time
  123. 123. Reallocations of existing reassigned time
  124. 124. New hiring of full-time faculty</li></ul>31<br />
  125. 125. Recommendations<br />2. Faculty load credit data<br /><ul><li>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. 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. 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.</li></ul>32<br />
  128. 128. Recommendations<br />3. Load credits for labs and studios<br /><ul><li>The CSU institutions should move quickly to correct this inadequate practice and remove any disincentive that may dissuade faculty from using effective pedagogical practices.</li></ul>4. Support junior faculty<br /><ul><li> Junior faculty reported high levels of stress, lack of work-life balance, and anxiety regarding expectations for promotion and tenure
  129. 129. Establish a standard practice for providing course load reductions to all new junior faculty members </li></ul>33<br />
  130. 130. Recommendations<br />5. Rising research expectations<br /><ul><li>A university-wide statement that endorses multiple forms of scholarship
  131. 131. could establish greater confidence that P&T guidelines from all departments will be viewed as valid and legitimate by administration
  132. 132. The university could establish stronger communication between departmental evaluation committees (DECs) and the university’s P&T committee.
  133. 133. Forums for discussion among DEC chairs, P&T committee members, AAUP representatives, and university administrators
  134. 134. The availability of reassigned time and sabbaticals to support research needs to examined.
  135. 135. First, university members need to determine the optimal level of reassigned time that would be needed to support faculty research.
  136. 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. 137. Third, the CSU institutions should benchmark their sabbatical practices against other premier teaching universities </li></ul>34<br />
  138. 138. Recommendations<br />6. Support department chairs<br /><ul><li>The CSU institutions need to determine what types of institutional infrastructures are necessary to support the work of department chairs.
  139. 139. Universities may need to hire additional support staff or establish offices to support assessment and accreditation efforts within the academic departments.
  140. 140. Some CSU institutions may choose to create new departmental leadership structures that include associate department chairs and/or graduate and undergraduate program coordinators </li></ul>35<br />
  141. 141. Recommendations<br />7. Transparency in the allocation of non-instructional load credits<br /><ul><li>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. 142. The CSU institutions should establish a process whereby university administrators report annually on the non-instructional assignments of faculty members</li></ul>36<br />
  143. 143. Recommendations<br />8. Support part-time faculty members<br /><ul><li>Lack of evaluation deprived part-time faculty of the opportunity to talk with chairs and other faculty about their teaching.
  144. 144. All four CSU institutions need to examine their evaluation processes for part-time faculty
  145. 145. The CSU institutions should tailor professional development and orientation sessions to the unique needs of these instructors </li></ul>37<br />
  146. 146. Recommendations<br />9. Benchmark practices that affect librarians, coaches, trainers, and counselors<br /><ul><li>They described instances in which their autonomy and expertise were not respected by university administrators.
  147. 147. They described a “time clock” mentality in which administrators treated them as hourly employees, rather than as academic professionals.
  148. 148. In order to promote professionalism, the CSU institutions need to compare their policies and practices regarding librarians, coaches, trainers, and counselors.
  149. 149. Policies regarding schedule flexibility (e.g., flex time) could be a focal point for an initial examination </li></ul>38<br />