1 / 20

Cleveland State University Gitanjali Kaul , Vice Provost Jeffrey Chen , IR Director

Defining and Measuring Faculty Workload Across Disciplines at a Comprehensive Four–Year Institution. Cleveland State University Gitanjali Kaul , Vice Provost Jeffrey Chen , IR Director Sowmya Tirukkovaluru , IR Application Developer AIR Annual Forum June 2, 2010 (No. 468).

bona
Download Presentation

Cleveland State University Gitanjali Kaul , Vice Provost Jeffrey Chen , IR Director

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Defining and Measuring Faculty Workload Across Disciplines at a Comprehensive Four–Year Institution Cleveland State University GitanjaliKaul, Vice Provost Jeffrey Chen, IR Director SowmyaTirukkovaluru, IR Application Developer AIR Annual Forum June 2, 2010 (No. 468)

  2. Introduction Internal reasons for studying workload – campus audit Questions raised by the audit: • Does PeopleSoft accurately depict faculty workload for non-standard instructional activities, such as team-taught courses, internships, practicum, independent studies, dissertations, etc.? • Are union contract policies for workload implemented consistently across campus? • Is the union contract policy for banking workload hours applied consistently among the colleges?

  3. Introduction External reasons for studying workload • 2008 economic downturn • Budget cuts • Hiring freezes • Increase in centralized decision-making by the Provost’s Office

  4. Goals for the Project • Identify current practices in faculty workload assignments across the disciplines • Examine colleges’ existing spreadsheets • Identify the discipline-specific variations in teaching and research workload assignments

  5. Goals for the Project (continued) • Create consensus among the colleges in adopting common conventions for workload tracking while documenting discipline-specific workload practices • Create an on-going system involving Deans’ Offices in the review and update of workload data for a set teaching period • Build transparency into workload assignment practices

  6. IR provides Fall 09 data on faculty and courses IR update with fall final values IR provides final report Colleges enter remaining workload fields Colleges update Research and banking details May 09 Sept 09 Oct 09 Dec 09 Jan 10 Sample Timeline, 2009 - 10

  7. Faculty Workload Template • Faculty Details and Course Details (A – M) • Fields affecting the calculation of CCH and SCH (N – S) • Teaching Load Weights (T – V) by: • Credit Hours • Head Count • Contact Hours

  8. Faculty Workload Template • Instructional Credit Hour Total (X) WeightCCHX CCH + WeightHC X HC + WeightContactHrs X CCH

  9. Teaching Research Service

  10. Faculty Workload Template • Research and Service (Y – AD) • Academic Year Total Workload : (AE) • Instructional + Research + Service • Banking Hours : (AF – AI) • Beginning Banked Credit Hours • Banked Hours used this year • Expected Workload Hours • AY Carry Forward Banked Credit Hours

  11. Examples of Exceptional Weights • College of Science – DPT graduate lecture courses are 2.5 • College of Education – PED lecture courses are 1.67 (by contact hours) • College of Liberal Arts and Social Sciences (CLASS) – MUS lab courses are 4.0 (by contact hours)

  12. Weights by Course Credit Hour

  13. Weights by Head Count

  14. Common Data Challenges Addressed • FTE calculation • Course and faculty department designation • Cross-listed courses • Instructor of record • Team-taught courses (%) • Consistency of course components across terms • Faculty type

  15. Interviews with Deans’ Offices’ Staff Assigned to Tracking Faculty Workload Selected topics addressed during the interview: • Mechanisms used to calculate & track banked hours • Differences in workload determination among disciplines • Faculty rotation in General Education/lower division courses • Cancellation policy for courses with low enrollment • Back-up plans for faculty when a course is cancelled • Uniformity in assigning lab credit • Balance in faculty assignments among teaching, research & service • Written policies for course buyouts for external research • Chairs and Deans’ Offices sharing of responsibility

  16. Results • Central tracking and maintenance of faculty workloads • Colleges learn from each other’s best practices • Provost’s Office receives more reliable data • Greater transparency in workload assignments • Consistent implementation of union contract policy

  17. Challenges • Colleges may fear losing autonomy • Concern that the Provost’s Office will use incomplete information • Additional work created for Associate Deans • Resistance to change

  18. Factors Supporting Success • Some colleges support reliable and valid workload assessment, as they benefit from accurate comparisons • Other colleges have poorly functioning tracking systems and seek an opportunity to improve them • Some Deans and Associate Deans are new to their roles and have much to gain from participating

  19. Questions & Comments ? Thank You!

More Related