Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Report on the Status of Academic Work Life: CSU AAUP
Central Connecticut State UniversitySeptember 19, 2011
The CSU AAUP Workload Study
• Purpose of study: to examine the effects of changing academic workloads on the ability of the CSU system to provide high quality education
• CSU AAUP selected the New England Resource Center for Higher Education (NERCHE) at UMass Boston
• Data collection
– spring 2009, fall 2009, spring 2010
• Data analysis and draft reports
– fall 2010
• Final reports presented
– spring 2011
– CSU AAUP State Council meeting, April 21, 2011
2
Overview of today’s presentation
• Methods and data sources• Quantitative study findings
– Full-time faculty work hours
– Faculty load credit (FLC) categories
– Pedagogical practices
– Quality of the work environment
• Qualitative study findings– Teaching loads and teaching effectiveness
– Promotion and tenure reviews
– Faculty load credit (FLC) system
– Administrative initiatives
• Part-time faculty, librarians, coaches, counselors• Questions and discussion
3
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
Methods and Data Sources• Full-time faculty survey 1 (spring 2009)
– Response rate 37.1% (N=435)
• Full-time faculty survey 2 (fall 2009)– Response rate 35.0% (N=446)
• Part-time faculty survey 1 (spring 2009)– Response rate 16.1% (N=175)
• Part-time faculty survey 2 (fall 2009)– Response rate 11.3% (N=190)
• Librarians, coaches/trainers, counselors (spring 2010)– Response rates: 43.8%, 26.4%, and 50.0%, respectively
• Interview participants (N=133)– 40 full-time faculty, 19 part-time faculty, 23 department chairs, and 11 faculty search
committee chairs
– 17 administrators
– 8 librarians, 8 coaches/trainers, and 7 counselors5
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
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
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
National average Central
Undergraduate instruction 28.30 hours(53.2%)
32.58 hours(53.4%)
Graduate instruction 6.28 hours(11.8%)
8.92 hours(14.6%)
Research 7.93 hours(14.9%)
10.29 hours(16.9%)
Other (including service) 10.69 hours(20.1%)
9.22 hours(15.1%)
Total 53.2 hours(100%)
61.01 hours(100%)
8
Quantitative study findings• Summer Workloads: Full-time Faculty
– Full-time faculty at Central reported that they spent an average of 239 hours on academic work during the summer (not including summer teaching)
– Equivalent of nearly six 40-hour work weeks
– Among these summer tasks, the largest number of hours was devoted to:• Research and other scholarly activity (141 hours)
• Preparing for classes for the next academic year (39 hours)
• Administrative responsibilities (31 hours)
9
Quantitative study findings• Faculty Load Credits– Instructional and Non-Instructional
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%
10
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%
11
• 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 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?
• Argument for non-instructional load credits:
• If CSU seeks to maintain its proclaimed low percentage of administrative management, then levels of non-instructional load credit will need to be maintained.
Quantitative study findings• Faculty Load Credits– Instructional and Non-Instructional
12
Quantitative study findings• Faculty Load Credits– Reassigned time for research
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
13
Quantitative study findings• Faculty Load Credits– Curriculum development
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)
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)
14
Quantitative study findings• Faculty Load Credits– Reassigned time for administrative duties
Percentage of total FLCs Awarded for
Administrative Duties
Percentage of total FLCs Awarded for
Special AssignmentsTotal
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%
• 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
15
Quantitative study findings• Faculty Load Credits: Sabbaticals
• Central awarded an average of 207 sabbatical load credits per year
• That total factors into 17 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 Central to award 27.0 supplemental lab credits per semester (article 10.6.4).
• Central did not meet this minimum threshold in any of the semesters examined in this study.
• Demoralizing issue at a time when universities need to invest in improving STEM education.
Current Collective Bargaining Agreement
Fall 2005 Spring 2006
Fall 2006 Spring 2007
Fall 2007 Spring 2008
Fall 2008 Spring 2009
overall average per
semester
10.8 8.6 11.2 18.0 19.3 15.1 15.5 13.7 14.0
17
Quantitative study findings• Pedagogical practices
18
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 practiceShort-answer exams More likely Potential concern Multiple-choice exams Comparable
Service-learning or co-op experiences
Less likely Potential concern
Quantitative study findings• Work environment
19
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
Quantitative study findings• Work environment
20
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
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.
– 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
21
Qualitative study findings• Promotion and Tenure Reviews
– 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
22
Qualitative study findings• Faculty Load Credit system
– Load credits for labs and studios
• 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)
– Load credits for internships and field placements
– Need for transparency and consistency in awarding non-instructional load credits
– Need for consistent practice in providing reassigned time to early-career faculty
• Lighter teaching load in first year
23
Qualitative study findings• Administrative Initiatives
• Multiple initiatives require faculty participation if improvements in student outcomes are to be achieved
– Most frequently mentioned initiatives at Central: assessment, first-year experience program, and student advising
• Significant implications for the workloads of department chairs
• 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)
• Need to involve faculty in meaningful ways in decisions that lead up to new initiatives
24
Part-Time Faculty • Pedagogical practices reveal some strengths and limitations
– CSU part-time faculty members were more likely than the national average for part-time faculty in “public master’s I” institutions to use the following teaching practices:
• essay exams• research papers and writing assignments• assessing multiple drafts of students’ written work• short-answer exams [potential concern]
– 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.
• laboratory, shop, or studio assignments [potential concern]• service-learning or co-op experiences [potential concern]
25
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:– institutional support for instructional technology
– institutional support for teaching improvement
– their workload
• They were also less likely than the national average to agree that:– faculty at this institution are rewarded for good teaching
– women faculty members are treated fairly at this institution
– part-time faculty are treated fairly at this institution
26
Librarians
• CSU librarians reported the highest levels of dissatisfaction with the following dimensions of the work environment:
– time available for research, creative, and other scholarly activities (66.7% dissatisfied)
– institutional support for research, creative, and other scholarly activities (60.0% dissatisfied)
– time available for keeping current in your professional field (56.7% dissatisfied)
• High levels of satisfaction, however, were reported for benefits, salary, and overall job satisfaction.
• 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%)
27
Librarians
• Indicated a desire for more professional flexibility in their work schedules
– Practices regarding time sheets, flex time, and comp time were viewed negatively
• Expressed the need for promotion and tenure committees to develop more extensive understandings of the work of librarians
• Called for more cooperation with information technology units on campus
28
Coaches and Trainers• Coaches and trainers in the CSU system reported the highest levels of
dissatisfaction with the following dimensions of the work environment:– quality of athletic fields, facilities, and venues for practice and
competition (68% dissatisfied)– institutional support for professional development (60%
dissatisfied)– support services, secretarial and/or professional staff (56%
dissatisfied)
29
Coaches and Trainers
• CSU coaches and trainers also reported high levels of disagreement regarding whether:
– people at this institution have a clear understanding of what coaches and trainers do (84.0% disagree)
– review processes for promotion at this institution appropriately account for the unique work context of coaches and trainers (81.0% disagree)
– coaches and trainers are sufficiently involved in campus decision making (72.0% disagree)
– part-time coaches are treated fairly at this institution (69.6% disagree)
• Coaches and trainers expressed the belief that their roles are not well understood and not accounted for properly in the collective bargaining agreement
• Expressed a desire for greater professional flexibility in setting their work schedules
30
Counselors• Counselors expressed the concern that current staffing levels are not
sufficient to address the increasingly complex needs of college students
• Large numbers of CSU counselors were dissatisfied with:
– time available for research, creative, and other scholarly activities; and
– institutional support for research, creative, and other scholarly activities
• Counselors also indicated that the CSU AAUP contract is not flexible enough to permit them to teach courses
31
32
Recommendations1. 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:– to support faculty research, – to encourage faculty involvement in university-wide
initiatives,– to enable faculty to experiment with cutting-edge
pedagogical practices
– New allocations of reassigned time– Reallocations of existing reassigned time– New hiring of full-time faculty
33
Recommendations2. 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.
– 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.
34
Recommendations3. 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
35
Recommendations5. 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
36
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.
– Universities may need to hire additional support staff or establish offices to support assessment and accreditation efforts within the academic departments.
– Some CSU institutions may choose to create new departmental leadership structures that include associate department chairs and/or graduate and undergraduate program coordinators
37
Recommendations7. 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.
– The CSU institutions should establish a process whereby university administrators report annually on the non-instructional assignments of faculty members
38
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.
– All four CSU institutions need to examine their evaluation processes for part-time faculty
– The CSU institutions should tailor professional development and orientation sessions to the unique needs of these instructors
39
Recommendations9. Benchmark practices that affect librarians,
coaches, trainers, and counselors – They described instances in which their autonomy and expertise
were not respected by university administrators.
– They described a “time clock” mentality in which administrators treated them as hourly employees, rather than as academic professionals.
– In order to promote professionalism, the CSU institutions need to compare their policies and practices regarding librarians, coaches, trainers, and counselors.
• Policies regarding schedule flexibility (e.g., flex time) could be a focal point for an initial examination
