Eastern Connecticut State University - CSU-AAUP · At Eastern Connecticut State University, ... The 4-4 teaching load ... This section will examine the number of hours worked per

Study commissioned by the

CSU AAUP Study conducted by the

New England Resource Center for Higher Education (NERCHE), University of Massachusetts Boston Principal Investigator: Dr. Jay R. Dee Fall 2010

Eastern Connecticut State University A Report on the Status of Academic Work Life

2

Introduction Overview of the Study At Eastern Connecticut State University, workload issues have been focal points for discussion and deliberation by many organizational members, including faculty, administrators, librarians, coaches, trainers, and counselors. During the 2007-2008 academic year, President Elsa Nuñez, in cooperation with the AAUP, formed a workload committee, which was charged with the task of assessing workload at Eastern and with identifying innovative strategies to enhance teaching, research, service, and professional activity. The committee’s report identified eight areas as the most pressing:

1. The 4-4 teaching load 2. Credit allocation for labs and studios 3. Reassigned time for research 4. Sabbaticals 5. Reassigned time for special assignments 6. Service responsibilities 7. Student advising 8. General culture of the institution regarding workload

Workload issues at Eastern must further be considered in terms of the university’s distinctive mission within the CSU system and its status as a member of COPLAC (Council of Public Liberal Arts Colleges). This report will examine a broad range of workload issues at Eastern, as well as characterize the academic work environments experienced by full-time and part-time faculty, librarians, coaches, trainers, and counselors. Data sources for this report include: Survey Data

Two surveys of all full-time faculty members (spring 2009, fall 2009)

Two surveys of all part-time faculty members (spring 2009, fall 2009)

Surveys of all full-time and part-time librarians, coaches, trainers, and counselors (spring 2010) Interview Data

10 interviews with full-time faculty members

5 interviews with part-time faculty members

5 interviews with academic department chairs

3 interviews with faculty search committee chairs

4 interviews with administrators

2 interviews with librarians

2 interviews with coaches/trainers

2 interviews with counselors

1 focus group with librarians (7 participants)

3

Institutional Data

Faculty load credit data supplied by the CSU system for four academic years: 2005-2006, 2006-2007, 2007-2008, and 2008-2009

How will the data be used? Survey data will be used to examine workloads and collect information regarding perceptions of the work environment. In the faculty surveys, several items collected data that will be compared to national averages. In this way, we can compare faculty workloads and perceptions of the work environment to those of faculty at similar institutions. The surveys also collected information regarding the types of pedagogical practices used by CSU AAUP members in their efforts to foster student learning. Interview data will be used to examine how workloads are experienced by full-time and part-time CSU AAUP members. These data will help us identify the organizational structures, practices, and policies that shape and influence workloads. The interviews will also provide data regarding how CSU AAUP members perceive and experience the work environment at Eastern. Faculty load credit data will be used to examine how full-time faculty workload is allocated to various instructional and non-instructional responsibilities. Thus, we are interested in the total amount of load credits earned by faculty members, as well as how those load credits are distributed across different domains of activity. We are also interested in the number of load credits earned by part-time faculty members, as well as the categories in which those credits are awarded. All data collection protocols were approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) at Eastern. Next, we will present some technical information regarding certain aspects of the research design. In particular, we will explain:

How the national comparisons will be made with the faculty survey data

What the response rates were for the surveys administered in this study

How the faculty load credit data were supplied by the CSU system office

How the interview and focus group participants were selected Survey data: National comparative analyses When available, faculty survey findings from Eastern will be compared to data from the National Survey of Postsecondary Faculty (NSOPF). The most recent version of NSOPF (2004) relies on the 2000 Carnegie Classification of Higher Education Institutions, in which Eastern is classified as a public master’s I institution. Therefore, comparisons will be made to faculty data from that institutional sector. NSOPF data were collected by the National Center for Education Statistics (U.S. Department of Education) through a national faculty survey. The 2004 NSOPF included a sample of 1,080 public and private postsecondary institutions, and a sample of 35,000 faculty, with a response rate of 76%. NSOPF represents the most comprehensive national database on faculty workload and faculty perceptions of academic work life. For more information about the NSOPF, go to: http://www.nces.ed.gov/surveys/nsopf/

http://www.nces.ed.gov/surveys/nsopf/

4

Survey data: Response rates

Full-time faculty survey 1 (spring 2009) CSU AAUP provided a list that contained valid email addresses for 178 full-time faculty members. A total of 76 faculty responded, resulting in a response rate of 42.7%.

Full-time faculty survey 2 (fall 2009) CSU AAUP provided a list that contained valid email addresses for 187 full-time faculty members. A total of 86 faculty responded, resulting in a response rate of 46.0%.

Part-time faculty survey 1 (spring 2009) CSU AAUP provided a list that contained valid email addresses for 145 part-time faculty members. A total of 16 faculty responded, resulting in a response rate of 11.0%.

Part-time faculty survey 2 (fall 2009) CSU AAUP provided a list that contained valid email addresses for 231 part-time faculty members. A total of 26 faculty responded, resulting in a response rate of 11.3%.

For the part-time faculty surveys, the response rates and the total number of respondents were low for all four CSU institutions. Therefore, part-time faculty survey data will be analyzed in a system-wide report, rather than institution-by-institution. The reason for the low response rate may be related to the survey distribution method. For the most part, the email addresses provided by the CSU AAUP were university email accounts, which part-time faculty may not check regularly. During the spring 2010 semester, surveys were distributed to all full-time and part-time librarians, coaches, trainers, and counselors working in the CSU system. At Eastern, a total of 12 librarians, 10 coaches/trainers, and 2 counselors completed their respective surveys. Given the small numbers of study participants, these survey data will be analyzed system-wide, rather than institution-by-institution. Faculty load credit data Faculty load credit data were supplied by the CSU system, and were limited to four academic years. Data consistency and reliability concerns precluded the ability to examine data from earlier years. The CSU system does not maintain data regarding student credit hour production by academic department. Therefore, we could not examine average course enrollments across academic departments. Note: Student credit hour production refers to the number of students enrolled in each course multiplied by the number of course credit hours. For several analyses of faculty load credit data, we controlled for sabbaticals and leaves in order to report more accurately instructional and non-instructional load credit activities. To control for sabbaticals and leaves, we took the total number of load credits allocated for sabbaticals, medical leave,

5

and unpaid leave in a given semester, and divided that number by 12. This number was viewed to be the most accurate computation of the number of faculty members on sabbatical or leave in a particular semester. We then reduced the full-time faculty headcount in that semester by the computed number of faculty on leave or sabbatical. Finally, load credits for sabbaticals, medical leave, and unpaid leave were subtracted from analyses that pertained to computing the proportion of load credits awarded for instructional and non-instructional activities. Interview and focus group participants: Selection procedures The study utilized two sources of recommendations for identifying potential study participants. Names of potential study participants were supplied by a faculty representative of the CSU AAUP at Eastern, and by the deans and chief academic officer at Eastern. The principal investigator of the study then considered the two sets of recommendations in terms of the study’s criteria for selecting study participants. The criteria for selecting study participants were: 1) served in their current role for more than one year, or chaired more than one search committee; 2) the department or unit in which the individual works has engaged in an extensive change initiative – for example, new assessment process, online program development – that is likely to have had significant implications for faculty workload; and 3) appropriate representation of the disciplinary variation at Eastern. The principal investigator selected approximately equal numbers of study particpants from both the list supplied by CSU AAUP and the names recommended by the deans and chief academic officer (several names were recommended on both lists). The principal investigator contacted selected individuals via email, and inquired regarding their willingness to participate voluntarily in the study. Structure of this report This report will present the quantitative data first, in four sections.

1. Faculty workload data. This section will examine the number of hours worked per week, as reported by full-time faculty at Eastern, as well as faculty-reported summer activity. When available, comparisons will be made to national averages from NSOPF.

2. Faculty load credit data. This section will present an analysis of full-time and part-time faculty

load credit data supplied by the CSU system office. Data were provided for four consecutive academic years: 2005-2006, 2006-2007, 2007-2008, and 2008-2009.

3. Instructional and scholarly practices. This section will discuss the survey data regarding the

types of instructional practices that full-time faculty use in the classroom at Eastern. When available, comparisons will be made to national averages from NSOPF.

4. Job satisfaction and the work environment. This section will describe the survey data

associated with full-time faculty perceptions of the work environment at Eastern, as well as their levels of satisfaction with various dimensions of their job. When available, comparisons will be made to national averages from NSOPF.

6

Then, the report will present the qualitative data in six sections. 1. Teaching loads and teaching effectiveness. This section describes full-time faculty members’

experiences with the 4-4 teaching load at Eastern, as well as the relationship between the teaching load and teaching practices.

2. Strategic initiatives and faculty workloads. Eastern has been engaged in a number of strategic

initiatives in recent years regarding liberal arts education. In this section, we examine how faculty members are experiencing these initiatives, as well as the relationship between these initiatives and faculty workloads.

3. Research expectations at Eastern. This section addresses a prominent theme that emerged in

the interviews with full-time faculty members: increasing expectations for research and creative activity, especially as it relates to promotion and tenure reviews.

4. The faculty load credit system. In this section, we examine a range of concerns that full-time faculty members raised regarding the current load credit system. Specifically, this section focuses on issues regarding: a) the load credits allocated for laboratory and studio courses, b) the availability of non-instructional load credits, c) the number of load credits awarded to department chairs, and d) the availability of sabbaticals and reassigned time for research.

5. Faculty recruitment, hiring, and professional development. Here, we examine how new full-

time faculty members are recruited and hired at Eastern, from the perspective of faculty search committee chairs, as well as university administrators. We also explore the types of professional development opportunities that are available for faculty once they arrive at Eastern.

6. Librarians, coaches, trainers, counselors, and part-time faculty members. Again, given the

small sizes of these groups, the quantitative analysis of survey data will be offered in the system-wide report. In this report for Eastern, we will focus on the campus-specific issues that emerged from data provided in interviews and focus groups.

The report concludes with a summary of the key findings and some initial recommendations for policy and practice. An appendix to the report contains selected, verbatim responses to open-ended survey items from the spring 2009 and fall 2009 full-time and part-time faculty surveys. Data from the open-ended responses were selected to represent various themes and findings that were highlighted in this report.

7

Quantitative Analysis: Section 1

Faculty Workload Data Finding 1.1 Full-time faculty at Eastern reported working more hours per week than the national average for “public master’s I” institutions. In the spring 2009 survey, full-time faculty at Eastern reported working 57.2 hours per week. The national average was 53.2. Paid work for

institution Unpaid work for institution

External work, paid

External work, unpaid

Total

Eastern 44.5 8.1 1.4 3.2 57.2

National average 44.4 4.5 2.2 2.2 53.2

Eastern’s average number of hours of paid work for the institution was nearly identical to the national average; however, faculty at Eastern reported 3.6 more hours per week of unpaid work for the university than the national average. The high level of unpaid work for the institution may be attributable, in part, to how faculty interpret and understand the collective bargaining agreement. In survey responses, some faculty explained their belief that they are paid only for their load credit activity, and any work that they perform for which they do not receive load credits (primarily, research and service) is believed to be uncompensated. A tenured faculty member in the sciences, for example, stated that “the 12 credit load is an unrealistic and untruthful presentation of what our workload is. It is an untruthful system because it says that we get paid for teaching, but not for research or service.” Other survey respondents, however, viewed the load credit system as separate and distinct from their compensation; in which case, they viewed all of their faculty activities for the institution as compensated. On average, full-time faculty at Eastern believe that they are performing an 8-hour workday per week in uncompensated activities for the university. This perception may generate resentment on the part of some faculty, and may need to be addressed explicitly by the administration and the CSU AAUP. Finding 1.2 Full-time faculty at Eastern allocate more time to undergraduate instruction (and less to graduate instruction) than the national average for “public master’s I” institutions. In the spring 2009 survey, full-time faculty were asked to report on the number of hours per week that they spend on a wide range of activities. When these hours were totaled, the average number of hours worked per week was 59.86, which is higher than the 57.2 hours per week reported by the faculty in the earlier item in the survey (paid and unpaid work, for the institution and external to it). When asked to report hours per week devoted to specific tasks (rather than to general categories), faculty might recall a more comprehensive set of professional activities, and therefore report a higher number of hours worked.

8

Eastern National average

Hours Percent Hours Percent

Undergraduate instruction 35.12 58.7% 28.30 53.2%

Graduate instruction 2.99 5.0% 6.28 11.8%

Research 11.32 18.9% 7.93 14.9%

Other (including service) 10.43 17.4% 10.69 20.1%

Total 59.86 100% 53.20 100%

The finding regarding the percentage of time spent on undergraduate instruction should not be particularly surprising, given Eastern’s mission as Connecticut’s public liberal arts college, where the academic programs and enrollments are weighted more heavily toward undergraduate majors. Finding 1.3 Full-time faculty at Eastern allocate more time to research than the national average for faculty at “public master’s I” institutions. Full-time faculty at Eastern allocated 4% more of their time to research than the national average for “public master’s I” institutions (18.9% vs. 14.9%). The importance of faculty research to Eastern’s mission needs to be considered carefully in relation to faculty workloads. Through interview and survey responses, faculty indicated that research expectations are increasing at Eastern. Finding 1.4 Full-time faculty at Eastern are engaged in significant amounts of work during the summer months, most of which connects to their work roles at the university. The academic work of full-time faculty at Eastern extends far beyond the nine-month contract. According to the fall 2009 survey, approximately half (51.4%) of the full-time faculty reported teaching during the summer at Eastern. Many faculty spent the summer in what they referred to as “catch-up” work on their research agendas. On average, they spent nearly 124 hours over the summer, working on research and other scholarly activity – the equivalent of more than three 40-hour work weeks. They also spent an average of 31.5 hours preparing for classes for the next academic year, as well as 32.8 hours on administrative responsibilities. In total, full-time faculty at Eastern reported that they spent more than 205 hours on academic work during summer 2009 (not including summer teaching). This is the equivalent of more than five 40-hour work weeks, during the months for which faculty are not “on contract.” National data for comparative purposes are not included in NSOPF.

9

Summer Activity Average number of hours spent

on activity during summer 2009

Preparing for classes for the next academic year

31.5

Research and other scholarly activity

123.8

Supervising students in internships or field placements

1.4

Administrative responsibilities (department chair, program coordinator)

32.8

Advising students within your department or program (include work with student clubs)

2.8

Thesis direction (includes master’s and doctoral theses/dissertations)

0.8

Unpaid (pro bono) professional service and outreach activities to external organizations, such as K-12 schools, community organizations, and state agencies (do not include paid consulting work)

2.8

Unpaid (pro bono) service to academic professional associations and journals in your field or discipline

9.7

Total hours of academic work during summer 2009 (average) 205.6

10

Quantitative Analysis: Section 2 Faculty Load Credits Finding 2.1 Full-time faculty members at Eastern accumulate load credits in excess of the 12 required per semester. Thus, the average faculty member is continuously carrying an overload. Finding 2.2 For full-time faculty, 86.7% of load credits are awarded for activity that pertains directly to instruction. Across the eight semesters for which data were provided, full-time faculty at Eastern earned an average of 12.78 load credits. Among these load credits, an average of 11.08 were for instruction (courses, labs, supervision of student teachers, independent studies, thesis supervision, and supplemental lab credits), while 1.70 were for non-instructional activities. Thus, 86.7% of load credits were awarded for faculty activity that pertains directly to instruction.

Faculty Load Credit (FLC) Categories in Data Provided by CSU System Office

Instructional load credit activities Non-instructional load credit activities

Courses

Labs

Supervision of student-teachers

Independent studies

Thesis supervision

Supplemental credits for labs

Special assignments

Administrative duties

Reassigned time for curriculum development

Reassigned time for research

Online course development

Reassigned time for external grants

Other non-instructional assignments

Load credits awarded to faculty at Eastern by semester Fall 2005 Spring 2006 Fall 2006 Spring 2007

Total load credits per full-time faculty member

12.73 12.77 12.73 12.69

Instructional load credits per full-time faculty member

11.13 11.06 11.01 11.01

Non-instructional load credits per full-time faculty member

1.60 1.71 1.72 1.68

Fall 2007 Spring 2008 Fall 2008 Spring 2009 Overall

average

Total load credits per full-time faculty member

12.83 12.96 12.87 12.66 12.78

Instructional load credits per full-time faculty member

11.06 11.31 11.14 10.95 11.08

Non-instructional load credits per full-time faculty member

1.77 1.65 1.73 1.71 1.70

11

Across the four years of data, 77.3% of all load credits are awarded for teaching courses. Administrative duties account for 5.5% of all load credits awarded to faculty at Eastern. Reassigned time for curriculum development accounts for 4.3%, while sabbaticals comprise 3.3% of all load credits. Distribution of Load Credits Across Activities: Four-Year Totals (includes sabbaticals, leaves)

Activity

FT Sabbatical

FT Med Leave

FT Unpaid Leave

FT Courses

FT Lab

FT Student-Teach Supervise

FT Ind Study

FT Thesis

FT Special Assign

FT Admin Duties

FT Reassign Curriculum

FT Reassign Grants

FT Online

FT Supp Lab

FT Research Activity

FT Other Non-Instruct

Grand Total

LC %

648.0 3.3%

123.0 0.6%

155.6 0.8%

15266.5 77.3%

318.0 1.6%

28.0 0.1%

640.0 3.2%

6.0 0.0%

180.6 0.9%

1078.0 5.5%

841.1 4.3%

0.0 0.0%

63.0 0.3%

66.0 0.3%

264.0 1.3%

69.5 0.4%

19747.3 100%

12

When we control for sabbaticals and leaves, we find that 81.1% of all load credits are awarded for teaching courses. Instructional activities (courses, labs, supervision, independent studies, thesis, and supplemental lab credits) account for 86.7% of all load credits awarded. Among the non-instructional categories, administrative duties account for 5.7% of all load credits awarded, while reassigned time for curriculum development comprises 4.5%. Distribution of Load Credits Across Activities: Four-Year Totals (controls for sabbaticals, leaves)

Activity

FT Courses

FT Lab

FT Student-Teach

FT Ind Study

FT Thesis

FT Special Assign

FT Admin Duties

FT Reassign Curriculum

FT Reassign Grants

FT Online

FT Supp Lab

FT Research Activity

FT Other Non-Instruct

Grand Total

LC %

15266.5 81.1%

318.0 1.7%

28.0 0.1%

640.0 3.4%

6.0 0.0%

180.6 1.0%

1078.0 5.7%

841.1 4.5%

0.0 0.0%

63.0 0.3%

66.0 0.4%

264.0 1.4%

69.5 0.4%

18820.7 100%

Finding 2.3 Eastern consistently fulfilled the contractually obligated number of load credits for research each semester; however, faculty reported that the current allocation of load credits for research is insufficient. According to the collective bargaining agreement (August 2007 – August 2011), Eastern is obligated to award 21.6 load credits per semester for reassigned time for research (article 10.6.4). Eastern has exceeded that minimum standard in all eight semesters, including those prior to the current collective bargaining agreement. The average per semester was 33.0. Current Collective Bargaining Agreement

Fall 2005

Spring 2006

Fall 2006

Spring 2007

Fall 2007

Spring 2008

Fall 2008

Spring 2009

overall average

Reassigned time for research

27.0

39.0

39.0

24.0

36.0

33.0

30.0

36.0

33.0

13

Reassigned time for research, however, comprised only 1.4% of the total load credits awarded to faculty at Eastern. The comparable percentages were 4.2% at Central, 3.3% at Southern, and 2.2% at Western. Thus, even controlling for size, faculty at Eastern received fewer load credits for research than faculty at the other CSU institutions. Several full-time faculty members at Eastern, who were interviewed for this study, indicated that the number of load credits awarded for research activity was insufficient to address faculty goals and expectations for research and creative activity. Finding 2.4 Eastern consistently fulfills the contractually obligated number of load credits for reassigned time for curriculum development. According to the collective bargaining agreement (August 2007 – August 2011), Eastern is obligated to provide 64 load credits per semester for reassigned time for curriculum development, faculty development, and instructional enhancement (article 10.6.5). Eastern has exceeded that minimum standard in all eight semesters, including those prior to the current collective bargaining agreement. The average per semester was 105.2. Current Collective Bargaining Agreement

Fall 2005

Spring 2006

Fall 2006

Spring 2007

Fall 2007

Spring 2008

Fall 2008

Spring 2009

overall average

Reassigned time for curriculum development

104.1

104.1

98.7

103.4

107.0

88.4

123.1

112.4

105.2

Reassigned time for curriculum development comprised 4.5% of the total load credits awarded to faculty at Eastern. The comparable percentages were 4.4% at Central, 7.7% at Western, and 10.3% at Southern. Comparatively, the load credits that Eastern awarded for curriculum development were comparable to Central but fewer than those awarded by Western and Southern. Finding 2.5 Eastern awards more sabbatical load credits per faculty member per year than other CSU institutions, but faculty indicate that the sabbatical application process has become increasingly competitive. Average sabbatical load

credits per year Average full-time faculty headcount

Average sabbatical load credits, per full-time faculty member, per year

Eastern 162 193.75 0.836

Southern 265.6 420.3 0.632

Western 115.5 207.5 0.557

Central 207 422.25 0.490

In the four academic years for which data were provided, Eastern awarded 648 load credits for sabbatical (an average of 162 sabbatical load credits per year). The average full-time faculty headcount across those years was 193.75. Thus, Eastern awarded 0.836 sabbatical load credits per faculty member,

14

per year. Compared to the other three CSU institutions, Eastern awarded more sabbatical load credits per full-time faculty member. Finding 2.6 Nearly one-third of all load credits awarded for instruction were earned by part-time faculty members. Part-time faculty accounted for 32.3% of all load credits awarded for instruction. They earned 32.6% of the load credits awarded for teaching courses, and 25.0% of the load credits awarded for teaching labs. They seldom taught independent studies (only 3.9%), yet accounted for nearly all the load credits awarded for supervising student teachers (91.0%). The 2007-2011 collective bargaining agreement specifies that no more than 20% of instructional load credits should be attributable to part-time faculty. The discrepancy between the contractual standard and the percentage obtained in calculations for this study should be a subject for discussion between the AAUP and university administration.

Grand Total All Terms

PT Load Credits FT Load Credits Total Load

Credits % of Load

Credits by PT

Courses 7370.01 15266.54 22636.55 32.6%

Lab 106.00 318.00 424.00 25.0%

Student-Teach Supervise 284.00 28.00 312.00 91.0%

Ind study 26.00 640.00 666.00 3.9%

Thesis 0.00 6.00 6.00 0.0%

Supp Lab 0.00 66.00 66.00 0.0%

Grand Total 7786.01 16324.54 24110.55 32.3%

Finding 2.7 Full-time faculty members at Eastern receive fewer non-instructional load credits than full-time faculty at the other three CSU institutions. Interview data indicated that faculty members perceive that Eastern allocates fewer non-instructional load credits than are awarded to faculty at the other CSU institutions. Given the prevalence of this perception, we decided to check it against the data. We found that faculty at Eastern do receive fewer non-instructional load credits than their colleagues at the other three CSU institutions. While faculty at Eastern received an average of 1.70 non-instructional load credits per semester, faculty at Central received 2.10, faculty at Western received 2.27, and faculty at Southern received 3.18.

15

Total FLCs Instructional FLCs

% of total Non-instructional FLCs

% of total

Eastern 12.78 11.08 86.7% 1.70 13.3%

Central 11.94 9.84 82.4% 2.10 17.6%

Western 12.16 9.89 81.3% 2.27 18.7%

Southern 11.81 8.63 73.1% 3.18 26.9%

Finding 2.8 The academic departments that carry the highest total number of load credits per semester are primarily in the sciences. This finding has important implications for the current method of assigning load credits for laboratory courses.

Department Load Credits per Full-time Faculty, Adjusted for Sabbaticals and Leaves

Total Load Credits/FT FTE (less leaves)

Department Mean StdDev Minimum Maximum

Biology 14.7 0.8 13.9 16.4

Business Administration 12.2 0.6 11.3 13.4

Communication 12.4 0.5 11.5 13.3

Economics 12.1 0.9 10.6 13.5

Education 12.8 0.7 11.9 13.9

English 12.6 0.2 12.3 13.0

Environmental Earth Science 13.9 0.5 13.4 15.0

Health and Physical Education 12.3 0.3 11.9 12.7

History 12.4 0.6 11.6 13.0

Mathematics & Computer Science 12.5 0.4 11.8 12.9

Modern and Classical Language 13.1 0.9 12.4 15.2

Performing Arts 12.7 0.7 12.0 13.9

Physical Science 14.1 1.8 11.9 17.0

PoliSci, Philosophy, & Geog 12.3 1.0 10.6 14.2

Psychology 12.4 0.5 11.7 13.1

Sociology, Anthro & Social Wk 12.4 0.5 11.9 13.0

Visual Arts 13.5 0.7 12.5 14.3

University Total (all departments) 12.9 1.0 10.6 17.0

Excludes sabbatical and leave load credits from total and from FTE

Faculty in the biology department are carrying the most load credits per semester (14.7), followed by physical science (14.1), environmental earth science (13.9), visual arts (13.5), and modern and classical languages (13.1). Faculty in all academic departments are carrying an average load credit that exceeds 12 per semester. Thus, on average, faculty in all departments are carrying an overload.

16

Finding 2.9 The academic departments that carry the highest number of instructional load credits per semester are biology, visual arts, and physical science. This finding has important implications for the current method for assigning load credits for laboratory and studio courses.

Department Instructional Load Credits per Full-time Faculty, Adjusted for Sabbaticals and Leaves

Instructional Load Credits/FT FTE (less leaves)

Department Mean StdDev Minimum Maximum

Biology 12.9 0.9 11.7 14.8

Business Administration 10.4 1.1 9.1 12.2

Communication 10.6 0.7 9.3 11.6

Economics 10.8 0.9 9.1 11.7

Education 10.1 0.7 8.8 11.0

English 10.8 0.4 10.2 11.2

Environmental Earth Science 11.1 0.4 10.5 11.6

Health and Physical Education 11.1 0.4 10.2 11.6

History 10.7 0.6 9.9 11.5

Mathematics & Computer Science 11.3 0.4 10.7 11.8

Modern and Classical Language 11.0 0.6 10.2 11.7

Performing Arts 10.6 0.7 9.9 11.6

Physical Science 12.2 1.9 9.9 15.5

PoliSci, Philosophy, & Geog 11.3 0.9 10.2 12.5

Psychology 11.5 0.4 11.0 12.2

Sociology, Anthro & Social Wk 10.7 0.5 9.9 11.2

Visual Arts 12.5 0.8 11.0 13.5

University Total (all departments) 11.2 1.1 8.8 15.5

Excludes sabbatical and leave load credits from total and from FTE

Full-time faculty members in the following departments are carrying the highest levels of instructional load credits per semester: biology (12.9), visual arts (12.5), and physical science (12.2). Faculty members in all academic departments are carrying instructional load credit averages that exceed 10 per semester. Finding 2.10 In order to award one load credit for each laboratory credit hour taught, Eastern would need to allocate 10 additional load credits per year (beyond those already designated as supplemental lab credits). Eastern awarded 318 load credits to full-time faculty for teaching labs during the four academic years for which data were supplied by the CSU system. As noted in the collective bargaining agreement, faculty receive 0.75 load credits for teaching one credit hour of a laboratory course (e.g., 2.25 load credits for teaching a 3-credit hour lab).

17

If faculty had received one load credit for each hour of laboratory instruction, then Eastern would have awarded a total of 424 load credits during the four years for which data were supplied by the CSU system. The difference between these scenarios amounts to 106 load credits over four years (424 vs. 318), or 26.5 load credits per year. The collective bargaining agreement calls for supplemental lab credits to be awarded, in order to address this gap. Eastern is obligated to award 9.0 load credits per semester for supplemental lab credit (article 10.6.4), or 18 load credits per year. The university has met this minimum threshold each semester since the current collective bargaining agreement was ratified. Across the four years of data, Eastern has awarded an average of 8.25 supplemental lab credits per semester, or 16.5 load credits per year. Thus, the additional “cost” of awarding one load credit for each laboratory credit hour taught by full-time faculty would be an additional 10 load credits per year, bringing the total to 26.5 load credits per year. Current Collective Bargaining Agreement

Fall 2005

Spring 2006

Fall 2006

Spring 2007

Fall 2007

Spring 2008

Fall 2008

Spring 2009

Overall average per semester

Supplemental lab credit

7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 8.25

18

Quantitative Analysis: Section 3 Instructional and scholarly practices Pedagogical practices in undergraduate courses NSOPF collects national data regarding faculty teaching practices in undergraduate courses. We collected comparative data from full-time faculty at Eastern who teach undergraduate courses. Full-time faculty members at Eastern are more likely than the national average to use active pedagogical practices, which research has shown to be effective in terms of promoting student learning. These pedagogical practices include:

Undergraduate research projects

Assessments of multiple drafts of students’ written work

Group and team projects

Student presentations

Peer feedback on student work Conversely, full-time faculty members at Eastern are less likely than the national average to use pedagogical practices that put students in roles as passive recipients of information. These practices include the use of multiple-choice and short-answer exams. Finding 3.1 Faculty members who teach undergraduate courses at Eastern are less likely to use multiple-choice exams in their courses than the national average for faculty in “public master’s I” institutions. Multiple-choice exams

All Classes Some classes Not used

Eastern 23.8% 30.2% 46.0%

National average 32.1% 26.4% 41.5%

Finding 3.2 Faculty members who teach undergraduate courses at Eastern are more likely to use essay exams in their courses than the national average for faculty in “public master’s I” institutions. Essay exams


Eastern 30.2% 41.3% 28.6%


19

Finding 3.3 Faculty members who teach undergraduate courses at Eastern are less likely to use short-answer exams in their courses than the national average for faculty in “public master’s I” institutions. Short-answer exams


Eastern 30.2% 28.6% 41.3%


Finding 3.4 Faculty members who teach undergraduate courses at Eastern are more likely to use term/research papers and writing assignments in their courses than the national average for faculty in “public master’s I” institutions. Term/research papers and writing assignments


Eastern 59.4% 34.4% 6.3%


Finding 3.5 Faculty members who teach undergraduate courses at Eastern are more likely to assess multiple drafts of students’ written work than the national average for faculty in “public master’s I” institutions. Multiple drafts of written work


Eastern 27.4% 53.2% 19.4%


Finding 3.6 Faculty members who teach undergraduate courses at Eastern are more likely to have their students deliver oral presentations in class than the national average for faculty in “public master’s I” institutions. Oral presentations


Eastern 34.4% 51.6% 14.1%


Finding 3.7 Faculty members who teach undergraduate courses at Eastern are more likely to have students work on group and team projects than the national average for faculty in “public master’s I” institutions. Group and team projects


Eastern 28.1% 43.8% 28.1%


20

Finding 3.8 Faculty members who teach undergraduate courses at Eastern are more likely to have students evaluate and provide feedback on each other’s work than the national average for faculty in “public master’s I” institutions. Student evaluations of each other’s work


Eastern 15.9% 39.7% 44.4%


Finding 3.9 Faculty members who teach undergraduate courses at Eastern use laboratory, shop, and studio assignments at rates comparable to the national average for faculty in “public master’s I” institutions. Laboratory, shop, or studio assignments


Eastern 25.0% 23.4% 51.6%


Finding 3.10 Faculty members who teach undergraduate courses at Eastern are more likely to have students participate in service-learning or co-op experiences than the national average for faculty in “public master’s I” institutions. Service-learning or co-op experiences requiring interactions with the community or business/industry


Eastern 12.5% 28.1% 59.4%


Innovation in Teaching In addition to examining teaching practices in undergraduate courses, we explored the types of changes that faculty were making to their courses, both undergraduate and graduate. The spring 2009 faculty survey identified full-time faculty who had taught at Eastern for at least two years, and asked these faculty to describe recent changes that they had made to their courses within the previous two academic years. The findings suggest that large majorities of faculty members at Eastern are actively engaged in updating their courses to build students’ academic skills, to foster student engagement in academic work, to incorporate perspectives on diversity into course content, and to experiment with new teaching methods.

21

Faculty at Eastern are also revising syllabi and course requirements in order to keep pace with changing developments in their academic fields and disciplines, as well as to fulfill external expectations from professional accreditation associations. Also, more than 80% of faculty reported that they are actively engaged in using new instructional technologies to foster student learning. Finding 3.11 Over the previous two years, 86.7% of faculty members have revised their syllabi to devote more attention to building students’ academic skills. Revised syllabus to devote more attention to building students’ academic skills in reading, writing, or math

Did this for all of my courses 46.7%

Did this for some of my courses 40.0%

Not necessary or relevant to my courses 10.0%

Did not do this, lack of time 3.3%

Did not do this, lack of support or professional development

0.0%

Finding 3.12 Over the previous two years, 96.7% of faculty members have changed their teaching practices to get students more involved in their own learning. Changed teaching practices to get students more involved in their own learning (e.g., through hands-on projects, group work, student-led presentations)






0.0%

Finding 3.13 Over the previous two years, 80.0% of faculty members have incorporated more perspectives from diverse cultural or ethnic traditions into their courses. Changed class readings and discussion topics to include more perspectives from different cultural or ethnic backgrounds and traditions






1.7%

22

Finding 3.14 Over the previous two years, 95.1% of faculty members have experimented with new teaching approaches. Experimented with new teaching approaches






0.0%

Finding 3.15 Over the previous two years, 65.0% of faculty members substantially revised their syllabi to reflect major changes in their academic fields or disciplines. Substantially revised syllabus to reflect significant changes in my discipline or field (not just updating the readings, but re-envisioning the course based on new developments in the field or discipline)






0.0%

Finding 3.16 Over the previous two years, 80.4% of faculty members incorporated new instructional technologies into their teaching practices. Incorporated new technologies into my teaching practices (e.g., web sites, blogs)






1.6%

Finding 3.17 Over the previous two years, 42.6% of faculty members revised their syllabi to bring courses into alignment with external expectations associated with accreditation or professional licensure. Revised syllabus to bring course into alignment with external expectations associated with accreditation or professional licensure






1.6%

23

Scholarly activities The spring 2009 faculty survey also asked faculty members to describe the extent of their involvement in a range of scholarly activities. Some key findings include:

More than 95% of full-time faculty at Eastern reported involvement in scholarly work that spans multiple disciplines.

80% of full-time faculty at Eastern reported involvement in mentoring new faculty.

More than 75% of full-time faculty at Eastern reported that they collaborate with other scholars on a research team.

Great Extent Some Extent Not at All

Conduct research on college teaching and learning (scholarship of teaching and learning)

9.2% 55.4% 35.4%

Participate in teaching enhancement workshops

6.2% 58.5% 35.4%

Engage in academic work that spans multiple disciplines

40.0% 55.4% 4.6%

Mentor new faculty

24.6% 55.4% 20.0%

Team-teach courses with other faculty

16.9% 35.4% 47.7%

Collaborate with other scholars on a research team

26.2% 49.2% 24.6%

Collaborate with the local community in research

4.6% 33.8% 61.5%

Collaborate with the local community in teaching (e.g., service learning projects)

7.7% 26.2% 66.2%

24

Quantitative Analysis: Section 4 Job Satisfaction and the Academic Work Environment This section of the report contains four parts, which focus on: 1) faculty job satisfaction, 2) time and work schedule pressures, 3) institutional support for faculty work, and 4) organizational climate. Section 4.1 Faculty job satisfaction NSOPF collects national data on faculty job satisfaction. In spring 2009, we collected comparative data from full-time faculty at Eastern. Some of the findings suggest the possibility for serious concern regarding faculty morale. Full-time faculty members at Eastern were less satisfied than the national average for faculty at “public master’s I” institutions on the following dimensions:

Institutional support for instructional technology

Institutional support for teaching improvement

Workload

Salary

Overall job satisfaction Full-time faculty members at Eastern were also less likely than the national average to believe that:

Good teaching is rewarded by the institution

Women faculty are treated fairly at the institution

Faculty members from racial and ethnic minority groups are treated fairly at the institution

Part-time faculty members are treated fairly at the institution Full-time faculty members at Eastern reported satisfaction levels that were consistent with national averages for:

Faculty autonomy regarding decisions about course content and teaching methods

Quality of facilities and equipment available for instruction

Benefits available in faculty compensation packages Note: satisfaction level includes both “very satisfied” and “somewhat satisfied” responses.

25

Very

satisfied

Somewhat

satisfied

Somewhat dissatisfied

Very

dissatisfied

The authority you have to make decisions about the content and teaching methods in your instructional activities

Eastern

75.4%

23.1%

1.5%

0.0%

National average

77.8%

17.9%

3.6%

0.7%

Very

satisfied

Somewhat

satisfied


Very

dissatisfied

Institutional support for implementing technology-based instructional activities (teaching with technology)

Eastern

23.8%

41.3%

25.4%

9.5%

National average

43.0%

42.4%

11.3%

3.3%

Very

satisfied

Somewhat

satisfied


Very

dissatisfied

The quality of equipment and facilities available for classroom instruction

Eastern

24.6%

46.2%

21.5%

7.7%

National average

28.8%

43.6%

19.9%

7.7%

Very

satisfied

Somewhat

satisfied


Very

dissatisfied

Institutional support for teaching improvement (including grants, release time, and professional development funds)

Eastern

4.6%

32.3%

40.0%

23.1%

National average

23.9%

40.8%

25.1%

10.2%

26

Very

satisfied

Somewhat

satisfied


Very

dissatisfied

Your workload

Eastern

4.6%

16.9%

23.1%

55.4%

National average

24.0%

40.8%

24.8%

10.4%

Very

satisfied

Somewhat

satisfied


Very

dissatisfied

Your salary

Eastern

10.8%

27.7%

36.9%

24.6%

National average

13.9%

39.5%

28.0%

18.5%

Very

satisfied

Somewhat

satisfied


Very

dissatisfied

The benefits available to you

Eastern

29.2%

50.8%

15.4%

4.6%

National average

29.5%

45.3%

18.3%

6.9%

Very

satisfied

Somewhat

satisfied


Very

dissatisfied

Your job at this institution, overall

Eastern

16.9%

56.9%

16.9%

9.2%

National average

36.2%

48.4%

12.3%

3.0%

27

Agree

Strongly

Agree

Somewhat

Disagree

Somewhat

Disagree Strongly

Faculty at this institution are rewarded for good teaching.

Eastern

17.2%

37.5%

25.0%

20.3%

National average

25.1%

50.6%

16.6%

7.7%

Agree

Strongly

Agree

Somewhat

Disagree

Somewhat

Disagree Strongly

Women faculty members are treated fairly at this institution.

Eastern

34.9%

42.9%

19.0%

3.2%

National average

50.9%

35.5%

10.4%

3.2%

Agree

Strongly

Agree

Somewhat

Disagree

Somewhat

Disagree Strongly

Faculty who are members of racial or ethnic minority groups are treated fairly at this institution.

Eastern

24.6%

49.2%

19.7%

6.6%

National average

50.9%

36.9%

9.3%

2.9%

Agree

Strongly

Agree

Somewhat

Disagree

Somewhat

Disagree Strongly

Part-time faculty are treated fairly at this institution.

Eastern

8.3%

38.3%

30.0%

23.3%

National average

19.1%

40.3%

26.3%

14.3%

28

Section 4.2 Time and work schedule pressures The spring 2009 faculty survey included four items that measured the extent of time pressure experienced by faculty members. Full-time faculty reported high levels of dissatisfaction with:

Time available for research and creative activity

Time available for keeping current in their field or discipline A majority of survey respondents also reported some level of dissatisfaction with:

Time available for advising students (50.8% somewhat or very dissatisfied)

Time available for class preparation (56.9% somewhat or very dissatisfied)

Very

satisfied

Somewhat

satisfied


Very

dissatisfied

Time available for working with students as an advisor, mentor

12.3%

36.9%

35.4%

15.4%

Time available for class preparation

9.2%

33.8%

44.6%

12.3%

Time available for research, creative, and other scholarly activities

0.0%

10.8%

20.0%

69.2%

Time available for keeping current in your field

0.0%

12.3%

27.7%

60.0%

Section 4.3 Institutional support for faculty work The spring 2009 faculty survey included nine items that measured faculty satisfaction with different dimensions of institutional support. The majority of full-time faculty survey respondents were very or somewhat satisfied with:

Institutional support to experiment with new teaching approaches

Institutional support for technology-based instruction (although this was less than the national average)

Quality of equipment and facilities available for classroom instruction

Quality of equipment and facilities available for research

Institutional support for faculty to engage in public/community outreach

Office space and equipment

Support services (secretarial and/or professional staff)

29

The majority of survey respondents were very or somewhat dissatisfied with:

Institutional support for teaching improvement

Institutional support for research, creative, and other scholarly activities This section of the survey also asked faculty to report on their level of satisfaction with the availability of child care. Two-thirds of survey respondents (67.2%) indicated that the availability of child care is not applicable to them. However, among the faculty for whom child care is applicable, approximately 75% were somewhat or very dissatisfied.

Very

satisfied

Somewhat

satisfied


Very

dissatisfied

Institutional support to experiment with new teaching approaches

9.4%

43.8%

28.1%

18.8%

Institutional support for implementing technology-based instructional activities (teaching with technology) *

23.8%

41.3%

25.4%

9.5%

The quality of equipment and facilities available for classroom instruction *

24.6%

46.2%

21.5%

7.7%

The quality of equipment and facilities available for research (including labs, libraries, and research technology)

14.1%

40.6%

25.0%

20.3%

Institutional support for teaching improvement (including grants, release time, and professional development funds) *

4.6%

32.3%

40.0%

23.1%

Institutional support for research, creative, and other scholarly activities (including grants, release time, and research administration)

3.1%

18.5%

33.8%

44.6%

Institutional support for faculty to engage in public/community outreach

4.8%

45.2%

32.3%

17.7%

Office space and equipment

29.2%

38.5%

23.1%

9.2%

Support services (secretarial and/or professional staff support)

29.2%

43.1%

15.4%

12.3%

* These data were also reported earlier in this report as comparisons to national averages from NSOPF data.

Very

satisfied

Somewhat

satisfied


Very

dissatisfied

Not

applicable

Availability of child care at this institution

1.6%

6.3%

9.4%

15.6%

67.2%

30

Section 4.4 Organizational climate

The spring 2009 full-time faculty survey included 17 items that measured different dimensions of organizational climate. High levels of agreement were reported for:

Faculty having a voice in what occurs within their departments (78.2% agreed strongly or somewhat)

Faculty having a voice in what occurs at this institution (71.9% agreed strongly or somewhat)

Faculty feeling that they are part of an institutional community (71.8% agreed strongly or somewhat)

Conversely, high levels of disagreement were registered for:

Work environment at institution fosters a balance between work and personal life (70.4% disagreed strongly or somewhat)

Institution provides sufficient support for faculty development (70.3% disagreed strongly or somewhat)

Faculty evaluation and reward system at this institution is a good fit with their research and teaching interests (64.1% disagreed strongly or somewhat)

In the table below, the shaded items indicate that the majority of survey respondents agreed strongly or agreed somewhat with the statement.

Agree

Strongly

Agree

Somewhat

Disagree

Somewhat

Disagree Strongly

It is easy to talk openly with faculty in this institution.

29.2% 35.4% 18.5% 16.9%

It is easy to talk openly with administrators at this institution.

9.2% 46.2% 26.2% 18.5%

Diverse values and beliefs are respected at this institution.

20.0% 47.7% 21.5% 10.8%

Administrators at this institution consider faculty concerns when making policy.

9.4% 42.2% 34.4% 14.1%

Faculty are sufficiently involved in campus decision making.

17.2% 51.6% 18.8% 12.5%

I have a voice in what goes on at this institution.

18.8% 53.1% 20.3% 7.8%

My department does a good job of mentoring new faculty.

25.4% 36.5% 20.6% 17.5%

I have a voice in what goes on in my department.

39.1% 39.1% 15.6% 6.3%

This institution provides sufficient support for faculty development.

6.3% 23.4% 48.4% 21.9%

31

Agree

Strongly

Agree

Somewhat

Disagree

Somewhat

Disagree Strongly

This institution’s faculty evaluation and reward system is a good fit with my scholarly research and teaching interests.

7.8% 28.1% 26.6% 37.5%

The work environment at this institution fosters a balance between work and personal life.

3.1% 26.6% 31.3% 39.1%

Faculty at this institution are rewarded for good teaching. *

17.2% 37.5% 25.0% 20.3%

Faculty at this institution are rewarded for being good researchers.

12.5% 31.3% 25.0% 31.3%

Faculty at this institution are rewarded for serving the public/community.

9.5% 34.9% 34.9% 20.6%

The criteria for tenure and promotion at this institution are clear.

10.9% 29.7% 26.6% 32.8%

I feel that I am a part of the institutional community.

23.4% 48.4% 18.8% 9.4%

I plan to stay at this university as long as possible.

29.7% 35.9% 20.3% 14.1%

* These data were also reported earlier in this report as comparisons to national averages from NSOPF data.

32

Qualitative Analysis: Section 1 Teaching Loads and Teaching Effectiveness Full-time faculty members indicated that the teaching load at Eastern often becomes an impediment to pedagogical innovation and teaching effectiveness. The teaching load issue pertains not only to the number of classes taught per semester (four) but also to class size. Class size emerges as a workload issue when faculty members seek to use teaching practices that require extensive time commitments such as multiple writing assignments and service-learning projects. A tenured faculty member in the humanities noted that “Eastern is designated as Connecticut’s liberal arts institution. However, the [teaching load] structure is closer to community colleges than what is expected of a liberal arts university. Faculty feel that they are not able to be good enough teachers, because they have too many students in their classes and too many preps. They choose to teach at an institution like Eastern to become excellent teachers. However, due to their teaching load, they have difficulty keeping up with the current literature, updating their courses, incorporating new teaching methods.” An assistant professor in the humanities expressed similar concerns. “I am committed to undergraduate teaching. The thing that is compromising my undergraduate teaching the most is how much undergraduate teaching I have to do.” Faculty members reported that grading students’ writing assignments consumed significant amounts of time. A tenured faculty member in the humanities noted that “in a typical semester, I teach two upper-level courses with 25 students and two lower-level classes with 35 each. So that’s around 120 students, and each of them is turning in several papers to me each semester. So do the math. Grading takes a huge chunk of my time. Huge.” Another faculty member in the humanities similarly noted that “in an average semester, I have about 135 students. When I assign each student five written assignments that are three to five pages long, then I have to grade thousands of pages of student work each semester.” Faculty members discussed a recent proposal to restructure the curriculum, so that students would be enrolled in 4 four-credit courses per semester (rather than 5 three-credit

Faculty members indicated that they are scaling back their pedagogical ambitions due to heavy teaching loads. An assistant professor in the humanities explained that “the biggest workload issue for me is the sheer number of students. In my first semester, I taught 140 students and I gave a lot of writing assignments. But now, I don’t give anywhere near as many writing assignments. That was hard for me, because I want to teach students how to write, but there are survival issues for me, as well.” Another assistant professor in the humanities indicated that she would no longer teach a service-learning course, because of the extensive amount of preparation required and the constraints on her workload that it created. “After the class ended, I decided not to do service learning again, unless they give extra [load] credits, because I spent a lot of time making community connections and assessing students’ work to make sure that the students’ written reports were up to standard and were useful to the community. And that work was not accounted for [in terms of load credits+.”

33

courses), and faculty would be teaching 3 four-credit courses (rather than 4 three-credit courses). Proponents of this proposal indicated that restructuring the curriculum in this way would not reduce the overall workload of faculty members, but would instead reallocate that workload in more coherent and meaningful ways. Faculty could go into greater depth in their instruction, if they were teaching a smaller number of courses and students. A tenured faculty member in the humanities explained that “this model would strengthen the curriculum, allow faculty to be better teachers, and provide more time for faculty to spend with their students. I would say about 75% of faculty support this model. The model would not reduce the amount of work, but would reduce the fragmentation that faculty currently feel about their work.” An assistant professor in the humanities expressed his support for the proposal in this way: “My thoughts about workload have never been about wanting to work less, but wanting to work differently. And work better.” Faculty also explained that students would likely benefit from the deeper, more extensive engagement with academic material that could result from a four-credit-hour course. An assistant professor in the humanities noted that “my students are overloaded and not fully engaged in their courses. If they could focus more intently on fewer courses, I think they would do better.” The workload committee at Eastern offered recommendations for curricular restructuring in their 2008 report. The report argued that a restructured curriculum would support and advance the goals of the liberal arts curriculum by giving students a more focused learning experience. By enrolling in fewer courses, the report argued, students could develop analytical and critical thinking skills by spending more time reflecting on course material. Faculty members interviewed for this study indicated that this initiative has stalled due to administrative opposition. Some interview participants expressed frustration, because they claim that administrators have not clearly explained why they are opposed to the initiative, even though the change would keep in place the current load credit expectations for faculty (that is, 12 load credits per semester). Several first-year courses and other seminars, however, are now being offered as four-credit hour courses in which faculty members earn four load credits. If the university cannot gain consensus around restructuring the entire undergraduate curriculum around a four-credit-hour model, then the institution could permit individual departments to structure their majors around a four-credit-hour model. A faculty member in the humanities described how his department is seeking to implement more four-credit-hour courses. “We, along with some other departments, are pushing to get four credits for our seminars… Because some of the seminars are especially labor intensive, three credits were insufficient to cover the time that faculty were spending on them. So increasing the number of credits for seminars has been good for morale.” In addition to the 4-4 teaching load, advising was also mentioned as a workload issue. Several faculty members expressed the concern that they do not receive load credit for advising. A tenured faculty member in the humanities explained that “good advising can sometimes be punitive because more students seek you out, which means more work for those faculty members. So if you do a good job, your only ‘reward’ is getting more work.” Another tenured faculty member in the humanities expressed a similar concern. “Good advising should be recognized through load credits, and the tenure and

34

promotion process. Right now, advising is not recognized and therefore it’s invisible *in considerations of faculty workload+.” The advising center at Eastern is still relatively new, according to faculty members. Staff in the center advise students on general requirements, but faculty still advise students within the major. Therefore, some faculty claimed that the center has not lightened their advising workload. Faculty members indicated that they did not want to cede their advising responsibilities within the major to the advising center. Instead, they wanted advising to be recognized in both the load credit system and the tenure and promotion process. Advising workload, therefore, may warrant further consideration by faculty and administrators at Eastern. Currently, the collective bargaining agreement contains provisions (additional load credits) for faculty who teach large classes. Additional load credits could be offered to faculty members who agree to assume a “larger than typical” load of student advisees. Advising may also be considered in tenure and promotion reviews, but faculty and administrators would need to identify valid and reliable ways to assess the quality of advising.

35

Qualitative Analysis: Section 2 Strategic initiatives and faculty workload Strategic initiatives at Eastern have focused on developing and implementing the liberal arts core (LAC) curriculum, expanding a first-year seminar program, incorporating a new pre-professional experience into each student’s program of study (the “liberal arts works” initiative), and extending faculty and student involvement in community engagement. Interviews with faculty members, however, revealed three sets of concerns regarding these strategic initiatives: faculty workload, university resources, and students’ level of academic preparation.

Faculty members expressed appreciation for the administration’s efforts to promote high levels of faculty involvement in the strategic planning process, but they conveyed concerns regarding excessive committee service and burgeoning workloads as a result of new initiatives.

Faculty members who were generally supportive of the strategic plan expressed a concern that resources would not be sufficient to implement these initiatives as planned; therefore, quality would be compromised.

Some faculty expressed a concern, not shared by all, that the university’s liberal arts initiatives are inconsistent with the types of students that Eastern is able to attract; the lofty goals of the liberal arts core may be beyond the reach of students who struggle with the basics of academic work. At minimum, these faculty members argue, the emphasis on liberal arts goals may distract faculty from working with students to improve their basic academic skills.

Strategic initiatives and workload Faculty members described a series of large-scale, strategic initiatives that began with the development of the liberal arts core (LAC) curriculum. After several years of committee work, the LAC curriculum replaced the general education distribution system for all new first-year students in fall 2007, and for all new transfer students in fall 2008. Concurrent with the implementation of the LAC curriculum, the university has embarked on a strategic planning process, which seeks to link the curriculum to experiential learning opportunities, including undergraduate research, service learning, study abroad, cooperative education, and internships. The strategic planning process has generated a number of new goals and structures for the institution, including a Center for Community Engagement, which opened in 2009. The “liberal arts works” initiative and the effort to expand the first-year seminar program have also been generated through the strategic planning process. These large-scale initiatives have required extensive faculty involvement and have generated a certain amount of “committee fatigue” among the faculty. As a tenured faculty member in the humanities explained, “It’s just like these huge waves of a lot of work coming in, one right after another.” This faculty member noted that major work on the LAC curriculum began five to six years ago, the strategic planning process was initiated three to four years ago, and there was “little breathing room in between.”

36

Several study participants remarked on the workload demands that were associated with first developing the LAC criteria, and then revising the general education courses so that they could address those criteria. A faculty member in the sciences explained that because of the LAC initiative, “there are also more demands from the university regarding what has to come out of the majors, so the faculty are scrambling to figure out how they can get all this done without putting an undue burden on the student and help them graduate.” Some of the additional demands are related to specifying student learning outcomes and in finding appropriate ways to assess those outcomes. “In the liberal arts curriculum, there are learning outcomes tied to each tier, and then tied to each topic within each tier, so the faculty have to design and teach courses according to that,” explained an administrator. The emerging “liberal arts works” initiative will also have implications for faculty workload. A tenured faculty member in the humanities noted that “the ‘work’ requirement for students, which requires them to do internships, presentations, independent studies, is a big requirement, and faculty will have to come up with projects that are appropriate for the students that Eastern has.” Similarly, the institution’s new Center for Community Engagement will depend on extensive faculty involvement in order to ensure its success. An assistant professor in the sciences explained that “there have been major changes in the institution’s local community outreach over the past couple years. With the new Center, there is a big push to involve students through clubs and classes with service components.” Moreover, the university’s first-year program appears to be preparing for expansion. A tenured faculty member noted that “in the near future, all freshmen will participate in the first-year program, and in order to service the full freshman class, all faculty at Eastern will eventually teach in the first-year program, where they will receive training in student-centered teaching practices.” This type of pedagogical training for faculty who teach in the first-year seminar program could not only enhance the seminar courses but also strengthen pedagogical practices in the other classes that these faculty members teach. Despite the acknowledged benefits of such programs, however, faculty expressed concerns about being overloaded with too many initiatives and too many claims on their time. Strategic initiatives and resources Several faculty members were concerned that some of the new strategic initiatives might not be implemented effectively because of resource limitations, and this might compromise the quality of education provided to students. “Faculty were told to develop their ‘dream’ program,” noted an assistant professor in the humanities, “but the new [LAC] system was implemented with inadequate resources.” A faculty member in the social sciences suggested that resource limitations may imperil the university’s aspirations as a public liberal arts institution. “I am not convinced that the university will be able to fulfill its mission to become a liberal arts college. I don’t think there is enough resources to sustain Eastern as a liberal arts institution.” A tenured faculty member in the humanities noted that “the strategic plan was inclusive. There were so many committees, and many faculty felt that they were doing a lot of work and dreaming a lot of dreams, but there is not much [financial] support for any of them. So as a result, it felt like many initiatives were implemented without much thought or adequate foundation. Faculty cannot implement many of these initiatives. For example, the Cultural Competency core does not require a foreign

37

language, because there are not enough faculty to teach foreign languages… So some of these *core requirements+ are empty shells for marketing purposes that do not have substance behind them.” Strategic initiatives and students’ academic abilities Some faculty argued that there is a disconnect between the liberal arts core requirements and the academic abilities of students who enter Eastern. A faculty member in the social sciences explained that “the recent push to be a public liberal arts university has really skewed people’s thinking. They have begun to think that we are like a private liberal arts college and that we get those kinds of students. But we don’t get those kinds of students. The strategic plan puts up these unrealistic plans when our students can’t do the basics… It is a case of ‘the emperor has no clothes,’ but you are not supposed to say that here… We have dreamed way beyond our capability.” This faculty member was particularly concerned that the recent strategic initiatives would divert faculty attention from working with students who need to develop basic academic skills. A part-time faculty member in the humanities stated that “the problem is the dissonance between what they say in the strategic plan. Our strategic plan talks about raising standards at a time when there is a lot of pressure on us to dumb-down the courses *in order to improve retention+.” Several faculty members discussed grade inflation pressures, which they attributed to the institution’s drive to improve retention and maintain tuition revenue. A part-time faculty member in the humanities explained that “there has been pressure from the administration on teachers who give out a lot of low grades. The department chairs are told that their departments are considered to be at-risk if more than 30% of the grades are Ds and Fs. This has created a great deal of anger among faculty who believe they are being pressured to inflate grades.” Another part-time faculty member explained that “unofficially, there is a lot of pressure to pass students. Our courses are labeled ‘at risk’ if students drop out, if students fail. There is a lot of pressure to pass students and make sure they don’t fail or drop out.” A full-time faculty member in the sciences expressed a similar perspective. “Instead of providing resources and support to the students, so that they can handle the class work, the faculty is told to make their classes easier so that students can pass.” Grade inflation pressures were mentioned by full-time and part-time faculty in multiple disciplines; therefore, the perception does not appear to be isolated to just a few programs. The university may need to clarify its policies and practices regarding “at risk” courses. If students are not passing certain courses at sufficiently high rates, then the university may need to work more closely with department chairs and faculty in designing new teaching approaches that promote student success. Additional support for faculty who teach these courses may be needed in order to assist their efforts toward pedagogical change. Additional academic support services for students may also be necessary; the university could assess its current approach to providing tutoring and academic support for students who need to build skills in writing, mathematics, and critical thinking.

38

Qualitative Analysis: Section 3 Research expectations Full-time faculty members indicated that research expectations for tenure and promotion have increased in recent years. These increasing expectations for research have created workload challenges for faculty members, who report that the institution does not supply a sufficient amount of reassigned time for research. As a department chair explained, “There are increased expectations for research productivity, unaccompanied by adequate supports.” Faculty members report that they do not have enough time to develop and advance their research agendas while carrying 12 load credits of teaching per semester. Study participants indicated that the university needs to allocate more reassigned time for research, or attempt to scale back the expectations for research productivity. A faculty member in the sciences explained that Eastern “is a teaching institution, but the reality is that if you are not publishing and getting grants, then there is no way someone is going to get tenured. Now, expectations for research are even higher.” In terms of tenure and promotion criteria, a tenured faculty member in the sciences explained that “teaching is still number one, but the perception out there is that research is vying with teaching, which is a problem, considering our teaching workload.” The challenge, here, is that the increasing research expectations appear to be emanating – at least in part – from the faculty members themselves. According to several study participants, Eastern began to attract more research-oriented faculty approximately 10 to 15 years ago. These new faculty came to Eastern with publications and book contracts already in hand. These accomplishments were generally reinforced by administrators who appreciated the increased prestige and visibility that comes with published research, as well as the potential contributions that faculty research can make to improving teaching and learning in the classroom. The assumption is that active researchers are able to bring cutting-edge knowledge and techniques into the classroom. Over the years, these research-oriented faculty members have earned tenured, have begun to serve on personnel

Faculty members described increasing research expectations, which they believe are not sustainable given the university’s limited support of reassigned time. “We have had lip service from the administration relative to less time for teaching and more time for research… So there is a feeling that the administration wants faculty to do quality research but they are not willing to provide a workload that is appropriate to achieve that,” noted a faculty member in the sciences.

39

review committees, and have started to interpret the university’s tenure and promotion criteria in different ways, according to some study participants. Research remains second in the priority list, but it may now be given more weight in evaluations of faculty performance. “Younger faculty have published more and are ahead in their research more than folks who were hired 15 or 20 years ago,” explained an administrator. “The culture in graduate schools has changed, and now, it seems that you cannot leave graduate school without having published. Further, it’s become a more competitive atmosphere *at Eastern+, because if some people are publishing and some others aren’t, then the ones who are not publishing are regarded in a negative light.” A tenured faculty member in the social sciences explained that “faculty are driving the higher expectations [for research], but the university needs to provide the resources to support the expectations or tell the faculty not to publish as much.” Telling the faculty not to publish as much, however, might result in high levels of frustration among research-oriented faculty who believe that research is a central part of their academic careers and who see their scholarship and creative activity as strengthening their teaching and enhancing student learning. Attempting to balance teaching and research responsibilities is complicated at Eastern, because the university has few graduate programs. Study participants explained that undergraduate students generally lack the requisite knowledge and skills to conduct original research with their faculty. A tenured faculty member in the sciences, for example, explained that “almost all the faculty in my department have [undergraduate] students working with them, and half of the students do independent studies and research with faculty. But this actually limits publications, because it is hard to get publication level research done in a one-semester student project.” Similarly, a faculty member in the humanities indicated that her research is largely separate from her teaching. She finds that she is not able to generate research ideas from teaching undergraduate students, because they do not fully grasp the complexity of the theoretical concepts that are central to her research agenda. She indicated that at a previous institution, she was able to have such theoretically-oriented conversations with her graduate students. None of the study participants called for Eastern to become a research university. On the other hand, most study participants argued that faculty research contributes to the liberal arts teaching mission of the institution, and faculty scholarship should be supported at higher levels.

40

Qualitative Analysis: Section 4 Faculty load credit system Faculty reported several concerns with the load credit system, as currently delineated in the collective bargaining agreement. The primary concerns expressed by faculty focused on:

The load credits awarded for laboratory and studio courses

The availability of non-instructional load credits

The number of load credits awarded to department chairs

The availability of sabbaticals and reassigned time for research Load credits for laboratory and studio courses A faculty member in the sciences described his workload in a typical semester: “I teach 12 contact hours that consist of two lectures and two labs, which amounts to a total of 10.5 [faculty load] credits, since the labs get 0.75 credit for every contact hour. That means that in two semesters, I will be a whole course behind. So I either teach 12 contact hours and get 10.5 credits, or I teach 15 contact hours to get the 12 credits.” Another tenured faculty member in the sciences claimed that the system “is a real disincentive to teaching labs.” Many faculty members in the sciences, however, argued that labs are where the most important learning occurs within their disciplines. Thus, faculty members in the sciences feel that one of the most important elements of teaching in their disciplines is not acknowledged appropriately by the university. One faculty member attempted to explain why the CSU system has not changed the load credit allocation for labs. “Part of the problem is that two campuses, Western and Eastern, teach mostly undergraduates and do not have a pool of graduate assistants to help [faculty] prepare labs. Central and Southern, with large graduate student populations, don’t have that concern. That’s why the contract keeps getting voted up, even though we raise a huge stink about [FLCs for labs]. The other two campuses have twice as many [faculty] as us, and we feel like the poor step-sister.” The collective bargaining agreement calls for supplemental credits to be awarded to faculty who teach laboratory courses, but these additional credits are not sufficient to bring all faculty who teach labs up to receiving one load credit for each contact hour in the lab. As mentioned in the quantitative analysis above, the additional “cost” of awarding one load credit for each laboratory credit hour taught would be an additional 10 load credits per year. The university may want to consider the value of investing additional load credits toward faculty in the sciences, who currently report a great deal of dissatisfaction with the current arrangement. Encouraging faculty to teach laboratory-based courses may be vital to fostering student learning in the sciences. This issue is especially timely, as national associations in the sciences are calling on colleges and universities to produce more, well-trained graduates in scientific, technological, engineering, and mathematical (STEM) fields. Availability of non-instructional load credits Faculty and some administrators perceived that Eastern awards fewer non-instructional load credits than the other CSU institutions. An administrator acknowledged that Eastern “receives very little

41

reassigned time in comparison with the other CSU schools.” Another administrator stated, “In terms of the amount of non-instructional credits that are allocated here, I know that there is a sense that there are far fewer non-instructional credits allocated here than there are at other CSU campuses. Whether or not that is true, I don’t know.” As the quantitative analysis above indicated, faculty at Eastern do receive fewer non-instructional load credits than their colleagues at the other CSU institutions. Within the CSU system, non-instructional load credits are the means through which full-time faculty members are able to assume significant leadership roles in guiding the future direction of their institutions. At Eastern, initiatives associated with the liberal arts core curriculum, the first-year seminar program, and the “liberal arts works” pre-professional program will require ongoing faculty involvement in order to ensure their success. The total amount of non-instructional load credit awarded by an institution is not specified in the collective bargaining agreement, nor does it appear to be set by guidelines from the CSU system. These decisions appear to be at the discretion of campus administration. Administrators at Eastern can seek to determine the reasons why this university has awarded comparatively less non-instructional load credit than the other CSU institutions. Administrators and faculty members could work together to determine an appropriate amount of non-instructional load credit to be allocated for each of the various ongoing strategic initiatives at Eastern. Awarding more non-instructional load credits would, of course, have budgetary implications, primarily in terms of the need to hire additional full-time or part-time faculty to teach the courses that would have been taught by faculty who receive load credits to work on strategic initiatives. If the necessary amount of non-instructional load credits cannot be accommodated within existing budgetary parameters, then university leaders may need to extend timeframes for implementation or prioritize some initiatives and delay others. In short, it may be better to proceed more slowly with fewer initiatives, than to move forward quickly with a large number of initiatives that ultimately are not implemented effectively. On the other hand, the university may have sufficient capacity to reallocate faculty workload, provide more non-instructional load credits, and move forward with an ambitious agenda for the future. The recommendation offered by this report is that administrators and faculty members should determine the amount of non-instructional load credit needed to carry out these initiatives effectively, and then incorporate those load credit benchmarks into long-term planning for the institution. In addition, some study participants reported a perception that non-instructional load credits are not allocated equitably at Eastern, and that the administrative process for allocating these credits has not been transparent or accountable. A tenured faculty member in the humanities, for example, argued that “the current system is not transparent. There are many faculty members who have 3-3 or 2-2 teaching loads and it is not clear why they are assigned the administrative FLCs. The distribution of these administrative FLCs is at the discretion of the administration, and they can make under-the-table agreements *with faculty+.” The issue of transparency and accountability in non-instructional load credits was raised in the 2008 report by the workload committee, and has since produced changes in how the administration allocates these credits. The vice president for academic affairs explained the steps that she has taken to address faculty concerns regarding the allocation of non-instructional load credits:

42

One of the things that I have tried to do is make it much more transparent, and build much more accountability into it. I understand that there are faculty who feel that some of their colleagues were getting non-instructional load credits for assignments that were vague and that may not have had a lot of responsibility associated with them. I now report to the Senate on what all the non-instructional assignments are [and explain] this is who’s getting what… If someone is getting a non-instructional assignment that is not described in the contact, they get a letter that says what they are supposed to be doing, and they have to report to me on what they have done.

Steps toward greater transparency and accountability may strengthen faculty trust in the load credit system and improve perceptions of equity in the allocation of non-instructional assignments. Although the vice president for academic affairs has taken some important steps toward transparency and accountability, it may be useful for the university to formalize its procedures for awarding non-instructional load credits and create a standardized process for faculty to report on their contributions to the university while working on non-instructional assignments. Availability of load credits for department chairs Department chairs at Eastern reported that their workloads have increased significantly in recent years, due in part to greater expectations for assessment, as well as demands from external accreditation associations. A department chair noted that “the time I spend on assessment has grown exponentially. Assessment is done without any release time being given, and in my department, it is mostly the chair’s responsibility.” An administrator also confirmed that “there is no release time for assessment, since it is all seen as service. In the future, we will need to have more reassigned time for assessment and retention related activities.” According to department chairs, the assessment of student learning outcomes is an important component of the liberal arts core (LAC) curriculum. Therefore, appropriate support for assessment will be needed in order to ensure the long-term success of the new curriculum. The university, however, does not appear to have a clear process in place to support assessment in academic departments. One department chair argued that a central problem with respect to assessment is that the administration does not trust departments to develop assessment plans on their own. This chair indicated that his department had created a detailed assessment plan. Then, the university hired an outside expert “who had a narrow view of what assessment was,” and this expert told the department that their efforts were “worthless.” These interactions with the assessment consultant were demoralizing for the faculty in this department. “Once you are told by somebody outside of your own field that the way you are assessing is wrong, it’s very hard to get much enthusiasm *for doing more assessment+.” Eastern is encountering a common challenge regarding assessment: the need to empower academic departments to develop their own assessment plans that are closely aligned with desired learning outcomes within their respective disciplines and fields, and the need to ensure that university-wide learning goals are met. Assessment depends on a decentralized structure where discipline-based expertise within academic departments can be used to identify and measure desired learning outcomes. But assessment must also be accountable to institutional goals for student learning, and this is especially the case when students participate in a core curriculum that specifies desired learning outcomes for each graduating student.

43

Effective assessment plans find ways to capitalize on discipline-based expertise and remain accountable to institutional goals for student learning. One approach for creating such a system is to provide training for department chairs and other faculty members interested in assessment. Rather than rely on outside consultants who “tell” faculty how to assess, the university could enable faculty to attend workshops and conferences that teach them how to develop their own assessment plans. The goal, here, is to build institutional capacity for assessment among chairs and faculty, rather than rely on a “one-size-fits-all” model offered by outside consultants who may not understand or appreciate the need for disciplinary variation. In order to build this capacity, department chairs may need to receive additional load credits. Several chairs reported that they “split” the FLCs that they receive as chair, and give them to other faculty who perform work on behalf of the department. These arrangements, however, may leave chairs with an insufficient amount of time to engage in the leadership tasks with which they are charged, including curriculum development, assessment, accreditation, and the mentoring and support of junior faculty members. The institutional infrastructure to support department chairs with assessment can also be examined by administrators and faculty at Eastern. A faculty member in the sciences explained that the institutional research office “deals with assessment, but they are so understaffed that they don’t have the ability to deal with the needs of each department.” Eastern may want to consider developing a stronger university-wide support system for assessment, yet this type of unit or office would need to find ways to empower academic departments in their own assessment efforts, rather than attempt to impose a uniform template for assessment across the entire institution. Availability of sabbaticals and reassigned time for research As the quantitative analysis above indicated, Eastern provides somewhat more sabbatical support than the other CSU institutions. The vice president for academic affairs explained that in recent years, the president has granted more sabbaticals than the contract requires in an effort to promote faculty success. Nevertheless, faculty reported that the sabbatical application process is highly competitive and that the number of sabbaticals provided remains insufficient. The chair of a large department noted that “sabbaticals have become really rare and no one in my department has received one in the last five years.” Another department chair attributed the competitiveness around sabbaticals to the growing research emphasis among the faculty. “When I first came here about 25 years ago, there were far fewer committees, absolutely nothing about assessment, and fewer people competing for research support, because many of the faculty simply didn’t do research. That’s all changed. So there is more competition for research support, and it’s become very difficult to get a sabbatical.” A tenured faculty member in the humanities described her service on the committee that reviews sabbatical applications. “Faculty have noticed a slight increase in the number of sabbaticals, but it is still not adequate. I was on a sabbatical committee a couple years ago that awarded 12 sabbaticals out of 33 applications. The competition is increasing.” Moreover, the amount of reassigned time for research is generally viewed by the faculty as inadequate. As noted in the quantitative analysis, faculty at Eastern receive less reassigned time for research than

44

their colleagues at the other CSU institutions, even when controlling for the size of the institution. Only 1.4% of all FLCs awarded to full-time faculty at Eastern were for research activity, while the comparable percentages were 2.2% at Western, 3.3% at Southern, and 4.2% at Central. Given faculty perceptions of increasing research expectations for promotion and tenure, as well as the desire of many faculty to conduct research that informs their liberal arts teaching, the current level of support for research may not be sustainable.

45

Qualitative Analysis: Section 5 Faculty recruitment, hiring, and professional development Recruitment and hiring Search committee chairs reported that applicant pools have generally been large and well qualified. These search chairs, as well as other faculty and administrators, noted that Eastern has many characteristics that attract applicants for faculty positions, including the liberal arts mission, the geographic location, the types of students that it serves, and the sense that new faculty can help shape an institution that is “on the move.” A search committee chair in the social sciences explained that Eastern “is in flux and it feels like a young start-up. There is a lot of building going on, a lot of excitement. There is, of course, a burden that comes with that, but many candidates [for faculty positions+ see the opportunity to create new classes and be part of the change.” Search committee chairs indicated that some applicants for faculty positions are especially interested in working with Eastern’s population of first-generation college students. Still other search chairs mentioned the geographic location, noting that people who went to graduate school in Boston, New York, or New Haven and want to stay in the area find Eastern to be an attractive option. Administrators and some faculty members also highlighted the collegial culture of the institution as a “selling point” for attracting new faculty to the university. The academic vice president noted that the institution received high scores for shared governance in the Chronicle of Higher Education’s “great colleges to work for” survey (Eastern ranked in the top 10 for medium sized colleges in the category of “collaborative governance”). Search committee chairs mentioned that they need to put Eastern’s teaching load into a broader context when they talk with potential applicants. A search committee chair in the humanities explained how she dealt with the issue. “Candidates always ask about the teaching load, and when they hear that it is 12 credits of teaching plus research, it causes several of them to pause. But we also point out that Eastern is trying to make it manageable by placing fewer students in certain classes and giving people several classes of the same courses, so that they have to prepare less for different courses. And even though we teach four classes, class sizes are capped contractually. The introductory courses are capped at 40, the writing intensive courses at 15, and upper level classes at 25.” The search committee chairs, however, also noted that new faculty members coming to Eastern typically do not receive a course load reduction during their first semester. They explained that new assistant professors must develop applications and compete for a limited amount of reassigned time. Assistant professors who were interviewed for this study also called for more support for newly-hired faculty, especially during the first year of their appointment. The university may consider the feasibility of offering a course load reduction for all new assistant professors so that they can make a smooth transition to their academic lives at Eastern. Search committee chairs and administrators also expressed concerns regarding the timeliness of the faculty search process. An administrator acknowledged that “the hiring process has traditionally been slow.” Some administrators noted that the university no longer requires hard copy applications, and that has accelerated the processing and distribution of materials. Nevertheless, search committee chairs reported that searches often begin late in the hiring cycle, and they noted instances in which top

46

candidates were lost to other institutions because the university was slow in making offers. The recent streamlining of the application process may serve as a useful starting point at which to begin a more comprehensive assessment of the university’s faculty search and hiring process. Faculty and administrators may seek to identify how other elements of the process could be accelerated. While statewide hiring freezes currently complicate these matters, the university would be well advised to assess the timing of when searches are authorized, the process through which search committees are formed, and the procedures by which offers are made and communicated to applicants. Search committee chairs highlighted faculty diversity as an important consideration in the search process. Search chairs in the sciences seemed to be more aware of resources and networks for recruiting diverse faculty applicants than search chairs in the humanities and social sciences. A search chair in the social sciences said that “it would be a great help if the university or the CSU system would compile a list of venues and publications to recruit a diverse pool and make it available to departments.” Another search chair explained that the university automatically advertises faculty positions in the Chronicle of Higher Education, as well as a venue for African American educators and one for Latino/a educators. “Beyond that, I am not sure what we do.” In response to these concerns, the university could create a blog or other web-based venue for search committee chairs to share ideas and best practices for recruiting a diverse pool of applicants. Professional development Professional development programs are intended to promote faculty effectiveness in their multiple roles. Many colleges and universities have developed in-house faculty development centers that seek to promote faculty effectiveness in their teaching role. At Eastern, these types of faculty development activities are housed in the Center for Educational Excellence. Faculty development programs at Eastern received mixed reviews by study participants. As the quantitative analysis indicated, faculty at Eastern are less satisfied with “institutional support for teaching improvement” than the national average for faculty at “public master’s I” institutions. A tenured faculty member in the sciences argued that the faculty development offerings provided by the Center for Educational Excellence “are not as big as they should be. *The center+ runs a couple luncheon seminars with speakers, and a couple special interest groups meet under the direction of the center. But I know that they have plans to expand the services.” This faculty member indicated that there is a need to provide formal support for balancing teaching and research, and for establishing and maintaining work-life balance for faculty members. An assistant professor in the humanities echoed this concern. “The university offers a lot of workshops, but none are of interest to me. The luncheon workshops are held about once a week, but they are usually about using technology in the classroom or variations on that theme, and they seemed to be a bit repetitive. My great concern is how to balance teaching and research, and there is nothing offered *at Eastern+ on that.” The Center for Educational Excellence also sponsors a mentoring program in which incoming faculty members are assigned a mentor from outside their department. Since the mentor is from a different department, new faculty members may feel more comfortable sharing issues that pertain to their performance in the classroom, or in discussing matters that pertain to the people and personalities in their respective departments. A senior faculty member, however, described the mentoring program as

47

“hit or miss,” and several junior faculty members indicated that they felt that they were not matched with a mentor who was a good fit for their needs. An assistant professor in the sciences described her experiences in the mentoring program. “I was assigned a faculty member who had been here for many years, and he had never really done any scholarly activity. And he kept questioning why I would spend all that time on research. So I knew he wasn’t the right fit for me.” Other faculty members stated that the institution’s faculty development program needs to provide venues for faculty to engage in more extensive dialogue around teaching and learning. An assistant professor in the humanities, for example, noted that “there’s just not a culture of really, critically examining our pedagogy and encouraging that.” A senior faculty member who serves on the Academic Planning Committee noted that this committee has recommended that the Center be restructured to provide a venue for informal and confidential faculty discussions about teaching and learning. Several models are available for restructuring faculty development programs so that they provide venues for open dialogue among faculty on issues regarding teaching and learning. Several research studies indicate that these types of faculty development programs can also serve as vehicles for significant pedagogical change on college and university campuses. In recent years, strategic initiatives at Eastern have focused largely on matters that pertain to the curriculum. Comparatively less attention has been directed toward pedagogy. The effectiveness of any curriculum, however, is heavily dependent on the pedagogical practices used by faculty members in those courses. Faculty at Eastern already exceed national averages in terms of using teaching practices that have been associated in research studies with high levels of student engagement and learning. Thus, the university has a strong foundation upon which to build a robust faculty development program for advancing the use of innovative pedagogies. Faculty and administrators at Eastern can explore the available literature on faculty development programs, and then design a model that best fits the institution’s needs in terms of supporting faculty and promoting the use of effective pedagogical practices.

Faculty members argued that the university’s faculty development offerings need to be restructured and expanded in order to foster greater faculty dialogue around teaching and learning, and to help early-career faculty balance teaching and research expectations.

48

Qualitative Analysis: Section 6 Librarians, Coaches/Trainers, Counselors, and Part-Time Faculty Due to the comparatively small number of survey respondents among part-time faculty, as well as the small number of full-time and part-time librarians, coaches/trainers, and counselors employed at Eastern, the survey data for those groups will be analyzed in a separate, system-wide report. In this report for Eastern, however, we will address salient issues, which emerged for each group in interviews and focus groups. It is important to note that many part-time faculty, as well as librarians, coaches, trainers, and counselors, indicated a great deal of appreciation for being included in this study. As they indicated on numerous occasions, they are AAUP members as well, yet as smaller constituencies within the collective bargaining unit, they feel that their issues and concerns are sometimes marginalized – not only by the administration, but sometimes by the AAUP itself. The vital roles that these professionals play in fostering student learning at Eastern should be widely recognized and appropriately acknowledged. Part-Time Faculty Part-time faculty at Eastern raised concerns that can be discussed in terms of four themes.

Office space, office hours, and student advising

Professional development opportunities

Class scheduling issues and job security

Workload and compensation limits Part-time faculty members had different perceptions regarding advising students and holding office hours. One part-time faculty member in the humanities claimed that “legally, we *part-time faculty] are not supposed to hold office hours. But I do by coming in early when I teach, and I am available for any student who wants to talk to me.” On the other hand, a part-time faculty member in the social sciences explained that she is “obligated to hold office hours. But there is no effort to provide any space in which to hold office hours. I find that incredibly insulting.” Lack of office space was an issue for some part-time faculty members, while others were pleased with the space provided. A part-time faculty member in the humanities described her positive experiences with office space. “Eastern has dedicated space for an adjunct faculty office. Because of the adjunct faculty office, there is plenty of opportunity for part-time faculty to interact with one another. I was in there the other day talking to another adjunct in my department, and we both agreed that this place is such a great gathering space. Both of us have changed our courses based on ideas that we got from people in philosophy, English, anthropology, or sociology who were also using that space. So the office space serves us well.” These differing perspectives regarding office space may warrant additional attention by university leaders. While some faculty members may enjoy a collective location that brings together part-time faculty from multiple disciplines, others may be searching in vain for confidential space to meet with students. Addressing issues regarding office space and office hours may serve as an acknowledgement of the important advising work that part-time faculty members carry out, especially in terms of part-time and non-traditional students who may not be on campus during the day. As a part-time faculty

49

member in the social sciences explained, “Because we teach at night, students are asking us for advice, guidance, schedules, and what classes to take – because we are the only ones around during that time when the students are here, especially when you are dealing with non-traditional students.” In terms of professional development, an administrator noted that each year, part-time faculty members “get $750 per person as travel money to go to conferences.” The university’s in-house professional development workshops, however, were not viewed favorably by the part-time faculty. A part-time faculty member in the social sciences argued that “none of these workshops are designed for adjuncts. There has been no effort to tailor professional development workshops to the needs of part-time faculty or to find a way to include adjuncts in these programs.” A part-time faculty member in the humanities concurred. “The problem with a lot of adjunct faculty, who are not semi-retired like myself, is that they are running from one institution to another, and they don’t have much time to attend these workshops during the day.” Another area of concern among part-time faculty pertained to course scheduling practices. Several part-time faculty members indicated that the university’s course scheduling practices have the effect of decreasing their sense of job security. A part-time faculty member who teaches at multiple institutions argued that “Eastern is notorious when it comes to assignments and staffing. Adjuncts are the last to be hired.” This faculty member indicated that despite the fact that he has been teaching at Eastern for more than a dozen years, he never knows if he will get any courses for the next semester until that semester is nearly ready to begin. A part-time faculty member in the social sciences also reported anxious experiences with course scheduling, even though he has been teaching at Eastern for more than a decade. “Adjuncts never know whether or not they are going to teach until very close to the last minute. Sometimes, depending on where they will need you, I have had a call as late as two days before the classes started.” This faculty member also described his experiences with the course cancellation policy: “They are very careful. They will drop you before they have to pay the cancellation penalty. Oftentimes, they will cancel a class well in advance so they don’t have to pay the contractual penalty.” Several part-time faculty expressed concerns regarding workload limits in the collective bargaining agreement. A part-time faculty member in the social sciences explained that “as a part-timer, the maximum contractual workload for me in a semester is six credits. Even if I advise a student in an independent study or do some other activity like write an accreditation piece or something like that, there is no way that they can give me any more than the six credits allowed in the contract. There is no additional compensation, no additional reward. There is no option to exceed beyond the six-credit cap in any semester.” While full-time faculty are able to accumulate load credits in excess of 12 and then apply the excess credits toward workloads in future semesters, part-time faculty members are not able to do likewise. Part-time faculty issues are analyzed and discussed further in the system-wide report.

50

Librarians Librarians at Eastern raised concerns that can be discussed in terms of three themes.

The promotion and tenure process and related criteria

The desire for more flexibility regarding work schedules within the current 12-month contract

Limitations regarding professional development opportunities

Librarians noted that the promotion and tenure criteria were (with decreasing order of emphasis) job workload activity, professional involvement, service to the university, and creative activity. Several librarians explained that their 12-month contract makes it difficult for them to find time to write journal articles, so their “creative activity” may not appear similar to that of the teaching faculty. A librarian noted that “most librarians use a bibliography that they put together, or an elaborate web page, or a column in a newsletter, as evidence of creative activity. Unlike the teaching faculty, we don’t have summers to write journal articles.” The concern, however, arises when these activities are considered by promotion and tenure committees comprised primarily of teaching faculty members. As a librarian explained, “The promotion and tenure committee that evaluates librarians is the same one that evaluates teaching faculty. I know that the committee has access to the list of criteria for librarians, but I wonder whether they actually understand what librarians do and how the criteria are prioritized differently. When there is a large number of faculty going up for promotion and tenure, and only a handful of librarians going up, it is possible that the different standards are lost sight of and that librarians are penalized for not having enough creative activity.” A librarian who is not yet tenured conveyed similar concerns. She described preparing for promotion and tenure to be “very, very stressful. The requirements for us are different than the teaching faculty, so you just worry: do they really realize that?” Several librarians noted that flex time is permitted in the collective bargaining agreement, but administrators continue to block their use of it. A librarian offered an extensive description of the issue.

The contract language says that our work week is an average of 35 hours, and it says it permits flex time. This is a big issue. We are often quite busy in the fall and spring, but not during intersession and summer. Many librarians could easily do 40 to 45 hours per week or more during the times of year when students are on campus and want all these services. And that time should be allowed to accumulate against the total contracted hour. The contract really says this. If librarians were given the opportunity to set up a flex-time schedule, it would serve their needs and the university’s needs. It is a win-win. If there is nobody here in the summer and intersession, there is no reason you have to have 50 librarians here. I talked with people on the faculty workload committee on campus, and they thought it was totally legitimate. I think this would actually improve morale, and put the hours where they are needed.

Other librarians indicated that working longer hours during the semesters, and shorter hours during the breaks, would be a more effective use of their time. This issue has become especially salient since the library moved to longer opening hours (100 hours per week) to put Eastern in alignment with practices at other COPLAC institutions. The librarians were pessimistic, however, regarding the prospects for implementing flex time: “There is a lot of talk, a lot of meetings, but no major change. Administration seems opposed to it, even though it is permitted in the contract. Nothing ever seems to change, here.”

51

In terms of professional development, librarians noted that they receive $500 per year for conference travel, but they indicated that the funds are insufficient to attend a national conference. Librarians explained that participation in national conferences is vital to ongoing professional development, because in-house professional development offerings are not tailored to their needs. As one librarian explained, “the library and the university organize very little that’s channeled to what we do here. This place doesn’t offer any real structured professional development. The in-house training tends to be done by the librarians who are here, and it’s not bad, but it is not at the level you need. So librarians need to go off [to conferences] on their own and do professional development activities that are geared to their own interests.” Workload issues for librarians are analyzed and discussed further in the system-wide report. Coaches/trainers Several issues emerged in interviews with coaches and trainers at Eastern.

Lack of competitive salaries, especially for part-time coaches

High turnover rates among the coaches

The need to standardize the workload of trainers A full-time coach explained that salaries at Eastern are not competitive, especially for part-time coaches who can make more money coaching high school sports. Study participants also noted that there is a high turnover rate for coaches at Eastern. “We’re always, always hiring people,” explained one study participant. “Some people get burned out. They leave. Others get fired. There’s not much stability.” A study participant described the work roles of trainers as inconsistent among the CSU institutions. This trainer indicated that workload at Eastern is comprised of 9 credits for training responsibilities and 3 credits for other activities at the discretion of the athletic director, including weight room supervision. This trainer indicated that trainers at other CSU institutions have all 12 of their load credits allocated toward working with student-athletes in a training capacity. “I’ve tried for years to get my FLC load changed to 12 and 12, just like the trainers at Western. I don’t understand why they won’t change it.” Workload issues for coaches and trainers are analyzed and discussed further in the system-wide report. Counselors The primary issues that emerged in interviews with counselors at Eastern were:

The growing complexity of counseling students in the college setting

Limitations on counselors’ ability to engage in outreach on campus

Limitations in professional development opportunities Study participants indicated that counselors are seeing more students who require higher levels of support. A counselor explained that “we are seeing more serious issues presented among the students.

52

Because of improvements in medications, more people are able to attend college and take that challenge.” Another counselor noted that they are encountering students who have a greater severity of issues that require long-term counseling. The need to provide students with higher levels of direct counseling support, however, has constrained the staff’s ability to engage in outreach to the campus community. As one counselor explained, “We ought to be organizing more outreach programs, attending events so that students get to know us outside the office. We need to address more than just the needs of the students who come to our door. We need to be preventive and proactive.” Direct service needs, as well as the associated paperwork, however, displace the time that might have been available for outreach, according to study participants. Study participants also mentioned constraints on professional development opportunities. As with librarians, participation in national conferences is central to ongoing professional development, yet study participants indicated that the recent ban on out-of-state travel adversely affected their ability to attend conferences. The small size of the counseling office also makes it difficult for staff members to find the time to be away from the office. As one counselor put it, “the culture here just doesn’t support professional development.” Workload issues for counselors are analyzed and discussed further in the system-wide report.

53

Conclusions Quantitative research findings

1. Full-time faculty at Eastern work more hours per week than the national average for faculty in “public master’s I” institutions (57.2 hours per week in contrast to national average of 53.2). They also spent more time on undergraduate education and research than the national average.

2. Full-time faculty at Eastern are engaged in significant amounts of work during the summer

months, most of which connects to their work roles at the university. Full-time faculty at Eastern reported that they spent an average of 205.6 hours on academic work during summer 2009 (not including summer teaching). This is the equivalent of more than five 40-hour work weeks, during months for which faculty are not “on contract.”

3. In terms of faculty load credits, full-time faculty earn an average of 12.78 load credits each

semester. Among these credits, 86.7% are awarded for instructional activities. Eastern provides fewer non-instructional load credits than the other CSU institutions, even when controlling for size. Eastern provides less reassigned time for research than the other CSU institutions, even when controlling for size.

4. Eastern awards more sabbatical load credits per faculty member per year than the other CSU

institutions, but faculty indicate that the sabbatical application process has become increasingly competitive.

5. Nearly one-third of all load credits awarded for instruction are earned by part-time faculty

members. The 2007-2011 collective bargaining agreement specifies that no more than 20% of instructional load credits should be attributable to part-time faculty.

6. The academic departments that carry the highest load credit totals per semester are primarily in

the sciences. This finding has important implications for the current method for assigning load credits for laboratory courses. In order to award one load credit for each laboratory credit hour taught by full-time faculty, Eastern would need to allocate 10 additional load credits per year (beyond those already designated as supplemental lab credits).

7. Full-time faculty members at Eastern are more likely than the national average for faculty at

“public master’s I” institutions to use active pedagogical practices, which research has shown to be effective in terms of promoting student learning. These pedagogical practices include: undergraduate research projects, assessments of multiple drafts of students’ written work, group and team projects, student presentations, and peer feedback on student work.

8. Study findings indicate that large majorities of faculty members at Eastern are actively engaged

in updating their courses to build students’ academic skills, to foster student engagement in academic work, to incorporate perspectives on diversity into course content, and to experiment with new teaching methods. Also, more than 80% of faculty reported that they are actively engaged in using new instructional technologies to foster student learning.

54

9. Full-time faculty members at Eastern, however, were less satisfied than the national average for faculty at “public master’s I” institutions on the following dimensions: institutional support for instructional technology, institutional support for teaching improvement, workload, salary, and overall job satisfaction.

10. Full-time faculty members at Eastern were also less likely than the national average to believe

that good teaching is rewarded by the institution, that women faculty are treated fairly at the institution, that faculty members from racial and ethnic minority groups are treated fairly at the institution, and that part-time faculty members are treated fairly at the institution.

11. In terms of organizational climate, high levels of agreement were reported for faculty having a

voice in what occurs within their departments, faculty having a voice in what occurs at the institution, and faculty feeling that they are part of an institutional community. Conversely, concerns were raised regarding balance between work and personal life, support for faculty development, and the faculty evaluation and reward system.

Qualitative research findings

1. Full-time faculty members indicated that the teaching load at Eastern often becomes an impediment to pedagogical innovation and teaching effectiveness. Faculty members indicated that they are scaling back their pedagogical ambitions due to heavy teaching loads.

2. Strategic initiatives at Eastern have focused on developing and implementing the liberal arts

core (LAC) curriculum, expanding a first-year seminar program, incorporating a new pre-professional experience into each student’s program of study (the “liberal arts works” initiative), and extending faculty and student involvement in community engagement. Interviews with faculty members, however, revealed three sets of concerns regarding these strategic initiatives: faculty workload, university resources, and students’ level of academic preparation.

3. Full-time faculty members indicated that research expectations for tenure and promotion have

increased in recent years. These increasing expectations for research have created workload challenges for faculty members, who report that the institution does not supply a sufficient amount of reassigned time for research.

4. Faculty reported several concerns with the load credit system, as currently delineated in the

collective bargaining agreement. The primary concerns expressed by faculty focused on the load credits awarded for laboratory and studio courses, the availability of non-instructional load credits, the number of load credits awarded to department chairs, and the availability of sabbaticals and reassigned time for research.

5. Faculty members argued that the university’s faculty development offerings need to be

restructured and expanded in order to foster greater faculty dialogue around teaching and learning, and to help early-career faculty balance teaching and research expectations.

6. Part-time faculty at Eastern raised concerns in terms of office space, office hours, and student

advising. They also pointed toward shortcomings regarding in-house professional development workshops, class scheduling issues and job security, and contractual workload and compensation limits.

55

7. Librarians at Eastern raised concerns regarding the promotion and tenure process and related

criteria, their desire for more flexibility regarding work schedules, and limitations regarding professional development opportunities.

8. Several issues emerged in interviews with coaches and trainers at Eastern, including lack of

competitive salaries, high turnover rates, and the need to standardize the workload of trainers.

9. The primary issues that emerged in interviews with counselors at Eastern were the growing complexity of counseling students in the college setting, limitations on counselors’ ability to engage in outreach on campus, and limitations in professional development opportunities.

56

Some initial recommendations

1. On average, full-time faculty at Eastern believe that they are performing an 8-hour work day per week in uncompensated activities for the university. This perception may generate resentment on the part of faculty, and may need to be addressed explicitly by the administration and the AAUP.

2. Part-time faculty account for 32.3% of all load credits awarded for instruction. The 2007-2011

collective bargaining agreement specifies that no more than 20% of instructional load credits should be attributable to part-time faculty. The discrepancy between the contractual standard and the percentage obtained in calculations for this study should be a subject for discussion between the AAUP and university administration.

3. In 2008, the workload committee at Eastern offered recommendations for restructuring the

curriculum, so that students would be enrolled in 4 four-credit courses per semester (rather than 5 three-credit courses), and faculty would be teaching 3 four-credit courses (rather than 4 three-credit courses). If the university cannot gain consensus around restructuring the entire undergraduate curriculum around a four-credit-hour model, then the institution could permit individual departments to structure their majors around a four-credit-hour model.

4. Faculty members’ advising workload may warrant further consideration. Currently, the

collective bargaining agreement contains provisions (additional load credits) for faculty who teach large classes. Additional load credits could be offered to faculty members who agree to assume a “larger than typical” load of student advisees.

5. Grade inflation pressures were mentioned by full-time and part-time faculty in multiple

disciplines. The university may need to clarify its policies and practices regarding “at risk” courses, and work more closely with department chairs and faculty in designing new teaching approaches that promote student success. Additional academic support services for students may also be necessary; the university could assess its current approach to providing tutoring and academic support for students who need to build skills in writing, mathematics, and critical thinking.

6. Encouraging faculty to teach laboratory-based courses may be vital to fostering student learning

in the sciences. Therefore, the university may want to consider the value of investing additional load credits toward faculty in the sciences, who currently report a great deal of dissatisfaction with the current arrangement for allocating load credits for laboratory instruction.

7. Leaders at Eastern can seek to determine the reasons why this university has awarded

comparatively less non-instructional load credit than the other CSU institutions. Administrators and faculty members could work together to determine an appropriate amount of non-instructional load credit to be allocated for each of the various ongoing strategic initiatives at Eastern. Administrators and faculty members could determine the amount of non-instructional load credit needed to carry out these initiatives effectively, and then incorporate those load credit benchmarks into long-term planning for the institution.

57

8. In order to foster transparency and accountability, it may be useful for the university to formalize its procedures for awarding non-instructional load credits and create a standardized process for faculty to report on their contributions to the university while working on non-instructional assignments.

9. The institutional infrastructure to support department chairs with assessment can also be

examined by administrators and faculty at Eastern. The university may want to develop a stronger university-wide support system for assessment, yet this type of unit or office would need to find ways to empower academic departments in their own assessment efforts, rather than attempt to impose a uniform template for assessment across the entire institution.

10. Given faculty perceptions of increasing research expectations for promotion and tenure, as well

as the desire of many faculty to conduct research that informs their liberal arts teaching, the current level of support for reassigned time for research may not be sustainable.

11. Eastern could engage in a comprehensive assessment of the university’s faculty search and

hiring process. Faculty and administrators can seek to identify how elements of the process could be accelerated. The university would be well advised to assess the timing of when searches are authorized, the process through which search committees are formed, and the procedures by which offers are made and communicated to applicants.

12. The university could create a blog or other web-based venue for faculty search committee chairs

to share ideas and best practices for recruiting diverse pools of applicants.

13. Faculty members argued that the university’s faculty development offerings need to be restructured and expanded in order to foster greater faculty dialogue around teaching and learning, and to help early-career faculty balance teaching and research expectations. Faculty and administrators at Eastern can explore the available literature on faculty development programs, and then design a model that best fits the institution’s needs in terms of supporting faculty and promoting the use of effective pedagogical practices.

14. Addressing issues regarding office space and office hours may serve as an acknowledgement of

the important teaching and student advising work that part-time faculty members carry out.

58

APPENDIX

Eastern Connecticut State University Open-Ended Survey Responses

This appendix contains verbatim responses to open-ended survey items, from the spring 2009 and fall 2009 full-time and part-time faculty surveys. The data below were selected to represent various themes and findings that were highlighted in this report. 1. Teaching loads and teaching effectiveness.

I think that moving to a 4-credit system, only teaching 3 classes, would be much better. Eastern wants to provide its students with a good quality education, where they learn to think critically and express themselves adequately in written work. I want to provide them with those opportunities, but this semester when I tried to do that, it completely wiped me out. Even working many nights and weekends throughout the semester, I cannot physically keep up with the workload. There simply aren’t any more hours that I could spend working.

Teaching 4 different courses is vastly more difficult than teaching 1 course 4 times. Then,

teaching 8 different courses in a year is harder still than teaching the same 4 in spring as in fall. I’m also not sure how you capture work we do in summer and winter to prepare for classes – but that’s when I do the bulk of my course development and research. Perhaps this is what you mean by “unpaid” work.

Faculty at Eastern all work very hard. We don’t want to lighten our workloads out of laziness.

We want to have fewer demands placed on us so that we can better focus our energies on excellence in teaching, scholarship, service, and professional activity.

Teaching (and grading) is simply killing us… Scholarly work is barely possible and it is not valued;

it is often seen as selfish. Service requirements and expectations are too high, especially for untenured members. Our lives are rushed and fragmented, leaving no space for reflection, scholarly pursuit, or relationships with peers.

We have a shortage of full-time, tenure track faculty for our number of majors so we all have

heavy advisement loads and our classes are always either full or overloaded by one or two students.

Either the teaching load must be reduced, or the emphasis on research must be more realistic

for such a heavy teaching load. 2. Strategic initiatives and faculty workloads.

Accreditation is very time-consuming, but the administration is cutting the administrative time allowed for these activities. More of the planning and documentation is coming out of our hides.

59

The goal of the university is to extract the maximum amount of work from its professors while simultaneously extracting the maximum amount of money from its students. At the end of the day, nobody really cares about the quality of the product.

At this institution, there is a perception that faculty participate in important institutional

decisions. However, I feel that is only true if faculty adopt the point of view of the administration.

Strategic plan is putting a strain on faculty and is requiring time that is taking time away from

teaching. Changes in curriculum are also pulling resources that are not available. In short, faculty are being asked to do more.

First year program and new LAC [liberal arts core] are taking faculty away from the major.

3. Research expectations at Eastern.

The 4-course requirement, along with career advisement and accreditation/response to regulation, leaves little time for research and publication. Writing an NCATE report requires assessment identification and data collection easily equivalent to a major research project and writing that can run to 50 pages, yet there is no recognition for the product and no publication possibilities.

No credit is given for research (unless we apply for it, but it’s very competitive)… It limits us in

the way we think about the curriculum.

There simply aren’t enough hours in a week to accomplish everything that needs to get accomplished to be a good teacher, a good researcher, and a good committee member… I’m faced with a choice point here – I am going to have to sacrifice being good at one of these three components, but the criteria for promotion and tenure are so hazy that I don’t know how much service I can sacrifice to concentrate on being a good teacher and a good researcher without going insane… I think that if the university made the promotion and tenure requirements more systematic and clearly defined, a lot of anxiety would be alleviated in me and I wouldn’t have to work 60 hours a week (some weeks more) to feel like I’m making progress. I love it here, and I want to stay here, so I’m beating myself up trying to prepare to jump through these hoops that are currently invisible.

Very little support for work/life issues and limited support for faculty research time. As a

department chair I find it very hard to sustain a research agenda even in the summer and still have time for something other than work.

I assign multiple drafts of papers in every class, and multiple (9-15) tests for each class, to

improve their skills. I need time for research so that I can be promoted. I would have to give up advising my student organization and my work with minority students to get this time, and I won’t do that.

60

4. The faculty load credit system.

Shifting to a three-course load, however, would probably not reduce the amount of work I do by very much. I would still work almost as many hours as I do now, but those hours would be divided among fewer classes (meaning that each of my classes would get more and better work from me, proportionally, than they do now)… I don’t want to work less. I want to work better.

The total real time for a lab is at least four hours for a nominal three-hour lab, for which we get

just 2.25 FLCs. Since the CC [community college] system and UConn both get full credit, this makes it particularly galling.

Science faculty are not given full credit for the hours spent teaching labs. In reality this increases

our workload above our colleagues in other departments. Since we are responsible for ordering and setting up the lab experiments on our own, we are further discounted when Faculty Load Credits are counted.

Art classes meet for 6 hours per week, but faculty only get 4.5 FLCs; no reassigned time (or

bonus $) is given for coordinating programs even though it’s extremely time sensitive; unclear which service positions get FLCs and why.

Many faculty accrue overload credits (from administrative service, advising theses and

independent study students) but are not able to take them because the department needs to offer certain numbers of courses each semester to meet the needs of the major. Also, the university does not offer enough teaching reassign time for research and service to the university—and with the budget cuts has been reducing the number of workload credits offered for certain administrative duties that faculty do.

5. Part-time faculty issues Part-timers do a lot of work helping students in different ways, because we love our job, but we

are not adequately compensated for that help.

Permanent access to phone and computer with a private workspace. I’m a gypsy who moves desk to desk and room to room to meet my obligations.

The labs are not weighted enough, in my opinion, for the amount of grading and effort required as an instructor.

Documents

Eastern Connecticut State University - CSU-AAUP · At Eastern Connecticut State University, ... The 4-4 teaching load ... This section will examine the number of hours worked per