1. Report on the Status of Academic Work Life: CSU AAUP Eastern Connecticut State University September 21, 2011

3. CSU AAUP selected the New England Resource Center for Higher Education (NERCHE) at UMass Boston to conduct the study

4. Data collection

5. spring 2009, fall 2009, spring 2010

6. Data analysis and draft reports

7. fall 2010

8. Final reports presented

9. spring 2011

10. CSU AAUP State Council meeting, April 21, 20112

12. Quantitativestudy findings

13. Full-time faculty work hours

14. Faculty load credit (FLC) categories

15. Pedagogical practices

16. Quality of the work environment

17. Qualitative study findings

18. Teaching loads and teaching effectiveness

19. Strategic initiatives and faculty workload

20. Rising research expectations

21. Faculty load credit system

22. Part-time faculty, librarians, coaches, counselors

23. Questions and discussion3

24. Methods and Data Sources Institutional Data Faculty load credit data supplied by the CSU system for four academic years: 2005-2006, 2006-2007, 2007-2008, and 2008-2009 Survey Data Two surveys of all full-time faculty members in the CSU system (spring 2009, fall 2009) Two surveys of all part-time faculty members in the CSU system (spring 2009, fall 2009) Surveys of all full-time and part-time librarians, coaches, trainers, and counselors in the CSU system (spring 2010) Interview Data 133 interviews and 4 focus groups 4

26. Response rate 37.1% (N=435)

27. Full-time faculty survey 2 (fall 2009)

28. Response rate 35.0% (N=446)

29. Part-time faculty survey 1 (spring 2009)

30. Response rate 16.1% (N=175)

31. Part-time faculty survey 2 (fall 2009)

32. Response rate 11.3% (N=190)

33. Librarians, coaches/trainers, counselors (spring 2010)

34. Response rates: 43.8%, 26.4%, and 50.0%, respectively

35. Interview participants (N=133)

36. 40 full-time faculty, 19 part-time faculty, 23 department chairs, and 11 faculty search committee chairs

37. 17 administrators,

38. 8 librarians, 8 coaches/trainers, and 7 counselors5

39. Methods and Data Sources Project deliverables to CSU AAUP four Faculty Load Credit (FLC) reports (one for each university) four data analysis reports (one for each university) a system-wide report compendium of surveys used in the study 6

40. Quantitative study findings Full-time Faculty Work Week: Academic Year Note: All national averages are derived from the National Survey of Postsecondary Faculty (NSOPF), U.S. Department of Education. Institutional type: public master’s I universities. 7

41. Quantitative study findings Full-time faculty work week: Academic year, itemized tasks 8

43. Full-time faculty at Eastern reported that they spent an average of 206 hours on academic work during the summer (not including summer teaching)

44. Equivalent of more than five 40-hour work weeks

45. Among these summer tasks, the largest number of hours was devoted to:

46. Research and other scholarly activity (124 hours)

47. Administrative responsibilities (33 hours)

49. Instructional and Non-Instructional10

50. 11

52. Instructional and Non-InstructionalWhat is the desired balance between instructional and non-instructional load credits? In interviews, faculty indicated that non-instructional load credits are insufficient (e.g., reassigned time for research) Financial pressures, however, will likely reshape class sizes (larger) and affect FLC allocation decisions regarding reassigned time (less) Policy implication: what will be prioritized – maintaining class sizes or preserving current level of non-instructional load credits? 12

53. Quantitative study findings Faculty Load Credits Reassigned time for research 13

54. Quantitative study findings Faculty Load Credits Curriculum development Article 10.6.5 – broad category that includes academic program direction and direction of centers and institutes (makes interpretation difficult) 14

56. Otherwise, the important work of academic program improvement will be compromised

57. Link this issue to ongoing efforts to strengthen student retention and improve student learning outcomes15

58. Quantitative study findings Faculty Load Credits: Sabbaticals Eastern awarded an average of 162 sabbatical load credits per year That total factors into 13.5 half-year sabbaticals per year What is a sufficient number of sabbaticals? Faculty interview participants expressed dissatisfaction with current levels. Language in collective bargaining agreement is vague, ambiguous (see p. 96) 70 each year – full-year or half-year?; total for all four universities? 16

60. Eastern met this minimum threshold in each semester since the collective bargaining agreement was ratified.

61. In order to award one load credit for each lab/studio hour taught, Eastern would need to allocate 10.0 additional load credits per year 17

62. Quantitative study findings Pedagogical practices 18

63. Quantitative study findings Work environment 19

64. Qualitative study findings Teaching loads and teaching effectiveness Current teaching loads limit pedagogical innovation and interfere with faculty efforts to promote student learning. Current teaching loads may not allow faculty to remain current in their respective disciplines, and therefore, they may not be able to deliver a state-of-the-art, university-level curriculum to students. Study participants made references to proposal for teaching 3 four-credit courses, rather than 4 three-credit courses 20

66. Multiple initiatives require faculty participation if improvements in student outcomes are to be achieved

67. Most frequently mentioned initiatives at Eastern:

68. liberal arts core (LAC) curriculum, strategic planning process, and efforts to link curriculum to experiential learning opportunities, such as undergraduate research, service learning, study abroad, cooperative education, and internships

69. “Committee fatigue”

70. Significant workload implications for department chairs

71. Resource constraints hinder implementation of these initiatives

72. Need to incorporate workload considerations into each major initiative (that is, determine the FLCs that will be needed to design and implement a particular initiative)21

73. Qualitative study findings Research expectations, promotion, and tenure Rising research expectations have created workload challenges Difficult to balance teaching and research, given few graduate programs Faculty argued that the current amount of reassigned time for research is inadequate 22

74. Qualitative study findings Faculty load credit system Load credits for lab and studio courses Few non-instructional load credits Too little reassigned time to support strategic initiatives Too little reassigned time for department chairs, especially since assessment of student learning outcomes is a key component of the liberal arts core (LAC) curriculum initiative 23

76. CSU part-time faculty members were more likely than the national averagefor part-time faculty in “public master’s I” institutions to use the following teaching practices:

77. essay exams

78. research papers and writing assignments

79. assessing multiple drafts of students’ written work

80. short-answer exams [potential concern]

81. CSU part-time faculty members were less likely than the national average for part-time faculty in “public master’s I” institutions to use the following teaching practices.

82. laboratory, shop, or studio assignments [potential concern]

83. service-learning or co-op experiences [potential concern]24

85. institutional support for instructional technology

86. institutional support for teaching improvement

87. their workload

88. They were also less likely than the national average to agree that:

89. faculty at this institution are rewarded for good teaching

90. women faculty members are treated fairly at this institution

91. part-time faculty are treated fairly at this institution25

93. time available for research, creative, and other scholarly activities (66.7% dissatisfied)

94. institutional support for research, creative, and other scholarly activities (60.0% dissatisfied)

95. time available for keeping current in your professional field (56.7% dissatisfied)

96. High levels of satisfaction, however, were reported for benefits, salary, and overall job satisfaction.

97. Librarians generally agreed that the criteria for promotion and tenure were clear (69.0%) and that the work environment at their university fosters a balance between work and personal life (66.6%)26

99. Practices regarding time sheets, flex time, and comp time were viewed negatively

100. Expressed the need for promotion and tenure committees to develop more extensive understandings of the work of librarians

101. Called for more cooperation with information technology units on campus27

103. quality of athletic fields, facilities, and venues for practice and competition (68% dissatisfied)

104. institutional support for professional development (60% dissatisfied)

105. support services, secretarial and/or professional staff (56% dissatisfied)28

107. people at this institution have a clear understanding of what coaches and trainers do (84.0% disagree)

108. review processes for promotion at this institution appropriately account for the unique work context of coaches and trainers (81.0% disagree)

109. coaches and trainers are sufficiently involved in campus decision making (72.0% disagree)

110. part-time coaches are treated fairly at this institution (69.6% disagree)

111. Coaches and trainers expressed the belief that their roles are not well understood and not accounted for properly in the collective bargaining agreement

112. Expressed a desire for greater professional flexibility in setting their work schedules29

114. Large numbers of CSU counselors were dissatisfied with:

115. time available for research, creative, and other scholarly activities; and

116. institutional support for research, creative, and other scholarly activities

117. Counselors also indicated that the CSU AAUP contract is not flexible enough to permit them to teach courses 30

119. to support faculty research,

120. to encourage faculty involvement in university-wide initiatives,

121. to enable faculty to experiment with cutting-edge pedagogical practices

122. New allocations of reassigned time

123. Reallocations of existing reassigned time

124. New hiring of full-time faculty31

126. Now that the CSU system has supplied complete load credit data for four consecutive academic years, this practice needs to be maintained for the benefit of all university members.

127. These data can be used to understand how faculty workloads are currently comprised, and whether existing allocations of reassigned time need to be changed or increased in order to accommodate new initiatives.32

129. Establish a standard practice for providing course load reductions to all new junior faculty members 33

131. could establish greater confidence that P&T guidelines from all departments will be viewed as valid and legitimate by administration

132. The university could establish stronger communication between departmental evaluation committees (DECs) and the university’s P&T committee.

133. Forums for discussion among DEC chairs, P&T committee members, AAUP representatives, and university administrators

134. The availability of reassigned time and sabbaticals to support research needs to examined.

135. First, university members need to determine the optimal level of reassigned time that would be needed to support faculty research.

136. Second, university members should consider alternative structures for awarding reassigned time, including multi-year blocks, which would allow faculty to pursue projects of greater scope and significance

137. Third, the CSU institutions should benchmark their sabbatical practices against other premier teaching universities 34

139. Universities may need to hire additional support staff or establish offices to support assessment and accreditation efforts within the academic departments.

140. Some CSU institutions may choose to create new departmental leadership structures that include associate department chairs and/or graduate and undergraduate program coordinators 35

142. The CSU institutions should establish a process whereby university administrators report annually on the non-instructional assignments of faculty members36

144. All four CSU institutions need to examine their evaluation processes for part-time faculty

145. The CSU institutions should tailor professional development and orientation sessions to the unique needs of these instructors 37

147. They described a “time clock” mentality in which administrators treated them as hourly employees, rather than as academic professionals.

148. In order to promote professionalism, the CSU institutions need to compare their policies and practices regarding librarians, coaches, trainers, and counselors.

149. Policies regarding schedule flexibility (e.g., flex time) could be a focal point for an initial examination 38