University of North Carolina System: A Complex Model What is a

Report
Variable Effort Allocations in
Workload Models
Alan R. White
Dean, Thomas Harriot College of Arts and Sciences
Professor, Department of Biology
East Carolina University
Using Quantitative Productivity Tools
to Guide Academic Decision-Making:
A workshop for deans, associate/assistant deans and budget managers
CCAS / University of Cincinnati
25 & 26 March 2011
There’s nothing new . . .
Ernest L. Boyer, 1990, Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities
for the professoriate.
Howard Mancing, 1994, A theory of faculty workload.
ADFL Bulletin. 25 (3): 31-37.
Gary S. Krahenbuhl, 1997, The Integration of Faculty
Responsibilities and Institutional Needs. Arizona State
University.
http://is.asu.edu/workload/resources/faculty.html
There’s nothing new . . .
As legislatures and governing boards look for ways to
provide access to higher education at a reasonable cost,
attention frequently turns to the teaching loads of
university faculty. The popular view is that faculty
members are underutilized in teaching and preoccupied
with their research. A redirection of faculty effort, away
from research and toward teaching, is a common
prescription for providing more classes without
increasing costs.
Gary S. Krahenbuhl, Arizona State Univ., 1997
Workload Management at the
College Level
• Workloads are implemented by department
chairs in an interaction with individual
faculty members.
• Deans must manage the workload
expectations of various departments and
disciplines across the whole college.
Defining “Workload”
• Not just teaching load; Student Credit Hours
• Workload = Teaching + Research + Service
• Course Load Allocations (Fall/Spring)
4/4 3/3 3/2 2/2 1/1 0/1
• Percent Effort Allocations (T / R / S)
40% / 40% / 20%
20% / 60% / 20%
Defining “Workload”
What do we mean by:
• Variable Workload
• Differentiated Workload
• Variable Effort Allocation
• Flexible Workload Allocation
Misconceptions
Governing Bodies and the General Public
(Board of Trustees, legislators, your neighbors)
• Think we in higher education work only 12
hours per week
(4/4 = 4 courses X 3 hrs = 12 hrs/week)
(2/2 = 2 courses X 3 hrs = 6 hrs/week)
Misconceptions
Governing Bodies and the General Public
(Board of Trustees, legislators, your neighbors)
• Don’t understand what we do.
• Don’t understand the research/scholarship
component of the university mission.
• Don’t understand how we spend our time
Governing Bodies and the General Public
The integration of various activities is not unique to university
faculty members; it is common in the professions. The typical
surgeon spends a small portion of the day in surgery, but the
time spent in such activities as patient care, continuing medical
education and service to a hospital board or the AMA is
important to his/her professional development and practice.
Attorneys spend important time in court, but their success in
litigation is strongly influenced by their other professional
activities.
Simply put, a surgeon’s work extends beyond the operating room,
the lawyer’s beyond the courtroom, and the professor’s beyond
the classroom. It is the integration of a rich set of activities that
leads to full effectiveness in each profession, and full benefits
for the patient, client, or student.
Gary S. Krahenbuhl, Arizona State Univ., 1997
Governing Bodies and the General Public
Public View
• T/R/S are distinct, compartmentalized
activities that compete for time – zero sum
– more of one means less of another.
• Focus on transmission of knowledge.
Academic View
• T/R/S are overlapping and integrated efforts
that lead to generation, transmission and
application of knowledge.
Faculty Considerations
Faculty Reaction
• Most faculty members also don’t understand what
their colleagues in different disciplines do.
• Humanities, fine and performing arts, social
sciences, natural sciences, mathematics, education,
business, health sciences.
• Concern that workloads are imposed on faculty
rather than negotiated.
• You’re using a spreadsheet to determine my
annual performance evaluation.
Course Definitions
What is a course? Does 2/2 = 2/2?
• Laboratory courses
• Large auditorium lecture sections
• Seminar courses
• Undergraduate vs Masters vs PhD
• Research supervision
• Thesis and dissertation supervision
Tenure and Promotion
Considerations
Tenure and Promotion Expectations
• T & P criteria are paramount
• Workload assignments should not interfere
or conflict with T & P expectations
• Variation from standard workload
expectations should be used with caution (if
at all) with pre-tenure faculty.
Workload Policy
Considerations
Goals of Workload
Management Models
At all levels (university, college, department, program, faculty):
• Meet the mission expectations
• Assure that teaching and scholarship
expectations are met
• Assure understanding of all parties
• Provide framework for evaluation
Features of Flexible and
Differentiated Workload
Models
• Allow faculty members to deviate from
standard workloads
• Provide flexibility for faculty and
disciplines
• Not mandatory - provide for negotiated
agreement, rather than imposed workload
assignments
Features of Flexible and
Differentiated Workload
Models
• Recognize aptitudes and preferences of
individual faculty members
• Recognize stages of careers; Career
trajectory
• Recognize discipline differences
An Example from the
University of North Carolina
System
University of North Carolina System:
A Complex Model
• 15 University Campuses
• Undergraduate, Comprehensive Masters,
Historically Black Institutions,Research II,
Research I (flagships)
• SCH Enrollment Change Funding Model
University of North Carolina System:
A Complex Model
Base workload is 12 hours/semester
• Undergraduate
12 hrs @ 3 hrs per course = 4 courses or 4/4
• Graduate
9 hrs @ 3 hrs per course = 3 courses or 3/3
University of North Carolina System:
A Complex Model
What is a course?
• Standard 3 hour course
• Section Size: Undergraduate enrollment
can be 20 to over 500
• Introductory or General Education
• Upper division undergraduate
• Undergraduate vs Masters vs PhD
University of North Carolina System:
A Complex Model
What is a course?
• Laboratory courses
• Seminar courses; Special Topics
• Internships; Practicum; Student Teaching
• Research supervision
• Thesis and dissertation supervision
University of North Carolina System:
A Complex Model
Discipline Considerations
• General Education – large sections
• Standard 3 hr didactic courses
• Natural Sciences with labs
• Music, theater, dance, fine arts – practice
• Math, English and Foreign Languages –
small sections
University of North Carolina System:
A Complex Model
Discipline Considerations
• Professional Programs
Nursing
Health Sciences
Education
Business
Engineering
Social Work
University of North Carolina System:
A Complex Model
SCH Production
• A general measure of scope of instruction
• Quantitative, NOT qualitative
• Can set up competition; zero sum game
University of North Carolina System:
Enrollment Change Funding Model
• Designed for system-level allocation of
resources to whole institutions
• Based on a growth model
• Accounts for some variability from
Disciplines and Level of Instruction
• Attempts to be equitable across a complex
state-wide system
University of North Carolina System:
Enrollment Change Funding Model
University of North Carolina System:
Enrollment Change Funding Model
Developing College-wide
Strategies
Workload Policies or SOPs
General Considerations
• Workload = Teaching / Research / Service
• Flexibility for different department and
faculty situations
• Recognizes change over time
• Negotiated agreement, rather than an
imposed workload on a faculty member
Workload Policies or SOPs
General Considerations
• Focus is on the department collective load
• Department chair has responsibility to
balance individual expectations with
collective expectations for the department.
Teaching/Research/Service – all three.
• Chair must balance SCH production, course
offerings, general education with faculty
scholarship and research
Workload Policies or SOPs
Special Considerations
• Tenure and promotion expectations remain
• Used mostly for post-tenure faculty
• Annual evaluations must align with
negotiated workload expectations.
• Rewards (salary increases) should also align
with workload and evaluation.
Workload Policies or SOPs
Department Strategies
• Keep SCH production up. Like it or not,
dropping SCH production will be noticed.
• Modify frequency and pattern of course
offerings for efficiency.
Offer less often
Cross-listing
Switch to every other semester or year
• Increase class size, while maintaining
instructional quality
Workload Policies or SOPs
Other Department Considerations
Buy Outs from External Sources
• External funding pays to hire an instructor
• Grants, contracts
• Federal, state, private foundations
• Corporate grants
• Other universities
Workload Policies or SOPs
Other Department Considerations
Buy Outs from Internal Sources
• Funding from other institutional units
• Administrative duties
• Interim appointments
• Research centers or institutes
• Special funded projects
East Carolina Workload
Analysis Model
ECU Workload Analysis
Spreadsheet
Department Data File
Fall 2008
(Y or N)
Resident
Faculty Gender Ethnicity
Alien
M
W
N
M
W
N
M
W
N
F
W
N
M
W
N
.25 FTE = 10 hrs per week; .50 = 20, etc.
ButOut/Re
assigned (Graduate Assistantships)
FTE
Highest
Degree
doctorate
MA
doctorate
doctorate
doctorate
Title
Assistant Professor
Teaching Instructor
Professor
Assistant Professor
Associate Professor
Status
TT
FT
TT
TT
T
Shared
N
N
N
N
N
Assistant Professor
Associate Professor
Assistant Professor
Associate Professor
TT
T
TT
T
N
N
N
N
0.25
0.25
0.25
0
Y
N
N
N
T
N
0.125
Y
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
0.25
0.5
0
0.25
0.375
0
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0
0.125
0.25
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
F
M
F
M
W
W
A
W
N
N
Y
N
doctorate
doctorate
doctorate
doctorate
M
W
N
doctorate Chair and Professor
M
F
F
M
M
M
F
M
M
M
M
M
F
M
7F17M
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
H
W
W
W
W
W
2A1H21W
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Y
N
Y
N
N
N
N
3RA
doctorate
doctorate
doctorate
doctorate
doctorate
doctorate
doctorate
doctorate
doctorate
doctorate
doctorate
doctorate
doctorate
doctorate
1M23D
Professor
Professor
Visiting Asst. Prof
Visiting Asst. Prof
Assistant Professor
Visiting Asst. Prof
Assistant Professor
Assistant Professor
Visiting Asst. Prof
Associate Professor
Associate Professor
Phased Retirement
Associate Professor
Associate Professor
Room
T
T
FT
Off Campus
FT
TT
FT
Off Campus
TT
TT
FT
T
T
T
T
T
5FT8TT11T
Bldg.
FTE Research Assistant
Assigned
BuyOut
0.375
N
0
N
0.25
N
0.25
N
0.25
N
SPA
Staff
For:
Faculty FTE
1.00
0.50
1.00
1.00
1.00
Research.50
Admin. .50
W
B
Office Assistant
Office Assistant
N
N
N
N
TT
FT
TT
TT
T
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.00
TT
T
TT
T
1.00
T
1.00
1.00
0.25
1.00
1.00
0.25
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
T
T
FT
FT
TT
FT
TT
TT
FT
T
T
T
T
T
5FT8TT11T
SPA
Staff
F
F
Status
1.00
1.00
23.00
ECU Workload Analysis
Spreadsheet
Department Data File
(as per discipline- /manuscripts submitted, abstracts,
Fall 2008\
(Spring 2009)
(anticipated)
Teaching
Load
2/2
2/4
3/2
2/2
2/3
Fall 2008
2007-2008 AY
2007-2008 AY
2007-2008AY
2007-2008AY
2007-2008AY
2007-2008AY
presentations, proceedings,Editorial Review Boards,
In
In
In
In
In
In
Print/published Press/accepted Print/published Press/accepted
Print/published Press/accepted
conferences, book reviews, grants submitted, etc.)
# Peer
GENERATED
RevPub
# Peer RevPubs # Books Pub # Books Pub Faculty Book Chapters Book Chapters
Other Productivity Consideration
837.00
3
8
2
0
4
1
5 papers at conferences + 1 forthcoming
39.00
0
0
0
0
0
0
Temp Faculty
216.00
0
0
2
0
1
0
2 paper at a conference + 2 forthcoming
156.00
0
2
0
2
0
0
5 papers at conferences
204
0
0
1
0
0
0
SCH per
faculty
2/0
2/2
1/2
138.00
292.00
45.00
1
6
2
0
3
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
2
0
0
2
2
0
0
4 papers at conferences + 3 external grants
2 papers at conferences
New Faculty member
Not Really in dept.
1/1
132.00
3
1
1
0
0
0
3/2
2/2
0/1
3/3
2/2
1/0
2/2
1/2
2/3
2/2
2/3
2/2
2/2
2/2
171.00
147.00
1
0
0
0
2
0
2
1
0
1
2
0
0
0
0
1
5
0
1
2
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
3
0
2
0
0
1
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
1
0
0
1 paper at a conference
1 paper at a conference + 2 forthcoming and 3
proceedings
2 papers at conferences + 1 book review
Temp Faculty
1 conference presentation
4 papers at conferences
Temp Faculty
2 papers at conferences + 3 forthcoming
0
0
0
0
0
0
348.00
117.00
45.00
90.00
222.00
135.00
144.00
183.00
78.00
307.00
16.00
SPA
Staff
Resigned as of 12/15/2008
3 papers at conferences + 2 forthcoming
1 case published + 1 book review
Phased retirement
1 paper at a conference + 1 book review
ECU Workload Analysis
Spreadsheet
Department Workload Analysis
Department of
Teaching
LN
FN
A
B
C
Appt
TT
PT
Rank
asstP
Tch Inst
Appt
FTE
1.00
0.50
Sctn
Load
2/2
2/4
FALL 08
1.1727
0.1978
Fall Reassignments
Fdns/
Fdns/
Grants/
Prog Admin/ Med.
Grants/
Leave Research Contracts
Research Contracts Coord Svce
0.500
0.500
SPR 09
0.4149
0.4055
0.2709
Tch FTE
Produced
1.5875
0.6033
0.5715
0.250
0.1101
0.3852
0.4337
0.6689
0.500
2008-09
Spring Reassignments
Prog
Coord
Admin/
Svce
Med.
Leave
Total
Reassnmts
0.500
0.000
Workload
Index
2.088
0.603
0.250
0.250
0.822
0.500
0.500
0.934
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.919
0.1863
0.500
1.000
0.750
0.936
TT
Prof
1.00
3/2
0.3006
D
TT
asstP
1.00
2/2
0.3236
E
T
AssocP
1.00
2/3
0.2836
F
TT
asstP
1.00
2/0
0.1863
G
T
AssocP
1.00
2/2
0.4121
0.3514
0.7634
0.500
0.500
0.500
1.263
H
TT
asstP
1.00
1/2
0.2654
0.3362
0.6016
0.750
0.250
0.500
1.102
I
T
AssocP
0.00
0/1
0.1238
0.1238
0.000
0.124
J
T
Chair and Professor
1.00
1/1
0.1863
0.750
0.966
T
Prof
1.00
3/2
0.4028
0.2159
0.6018
0.250
K
0.0296
0.1990
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.852
L
T
Prof
1.00
2/2
0.4051
0.1839
0.5890
0.500
0.500
0.500
1.089
M
PF
Visiting asstP
0.25
0/1
0.195
FT
Visiting asstP
1.00
3/3
0.4868
0.1946
0.9695
0.000
N
0.1946
0.4826
0.000
0.969
O
TT
asstP
1.00
2/2
0.1651
0.3725
0.500
0.500
1.038
P
PT
Visiting asstP
0.25
1/0
0.2654
0.5376
0.2654
0.000
0.265
Q
TT
Visiting asstP
1.00
2/2
0.1405
0.2752
0.4156
0.500
0.500
0.500
0.916
R
TT
asstP
1.00
1/2
0.3090
0.1238
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.683
S
FT
Visiting asstP
1.00
2/3
0.1905
0.4329
0.1905
0.000
0.191
T
TT
Visiting asstP
1.00
2/2
0.2974
0.3839
0.6814
0.500
0.500
0.500
1.181
U
T
AssocP
1.00
2/3
0.4467
0.6756
1.1223
0.250
0.250
0.250
1.372
V
T
Phased
1.00
2/2
0.1058
0.2540
0.3598
0.000
0.360
W
T
AssocP
1.00
2/2
0.4332
0.2921
0.7253
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.500
1.225
X
T
AssocP
1.00
2/2
0.0944
0.4069
0.5013
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.500
1.001
0.000
0.000
7.75
21.09
Total
FTE
21
7.0710
6.2719
13.3430
6.75
0.500
0.250
0.500
0.500
0.00
0.50
0.50
0.00
6.75
0.00
0.50
0.50
0.00
ECU Workload Analysis
Spreadsheet
Department Workload Analysis
In Print/
published
LN
A
B
C
FN
In Press/
accepted
# Peer Rev # Peer Rev
Pubs
Pubs
3
9
0
0
In Print/ In Press/ In Print/ In Press/
published accepted published accepted
# Books
2
0
# Books
0
0
Book
Chapters
5
0
Book
Chapters Other Productivity Consideration
1
5 papers at conferences + 1 forthcoming
0
Temp Faculty
0
0
2
0
1
0
2 paper at a conference + 2 forthcoming
D
0
2
0
2
0
0
5 papers at conferences
E
0
0
1
0
0
0
F
1
3
0
0
0
2
4 papers at conferences + 3 external grants
G
6
2
1
1
3
2
2 papers at conferences
H
2
0
0
0
0
0
New Faculty member
I
0
0
0
0
0
0
Not Really in dept.
J
3
2
1
0
0
1
1 paper at a conference + book reissued in paperback
K
1
0
0
0
1
0
1 paper at a conference + 2 forthcoming and 3 proceedings
L
0
0
1
0
0
0
2 papers at conferences + 1 book review
M
0
0
0
0
0
0
Temp Faculty
N
0
1
0
0
0
0
1 conference presentation
O
2
6
1
0
4
0
4 papers at conferences
P
0
0
0
0
0
0
Temp Faculty
Q
2
1
1
0
2
0
2 papers at conferences + 3 forthcoming
R
1
2
0
0
0
2
S
0
0
0
0
0
0
Resigned as of 12/15/2008
T
1
0
0
1
1
1
3 papers at conferences + 2 forthcoming
U
2
1
0
0
3
0
1 case published + 1 book review
V
0
0
0
0
0
0
Phased retirement
0
0
0
0
0
0
1 paper at a conference + 1 book review
W
X
Features from Other Models
Univ Colo –Denver; Arizona State Univ; Iowa State Univ
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Assume 40/40/20 for all faculty
Can adjust any category up or down
No less than 10% in any category
Must apply for adjustment
Agreement by faculty, chair, dean
Changes active for one semester, one year
Reverts back to default 40/40/20 at end of
agreement
Questions and Discussion
Alan R. White
Dean, Thomas Harriot College of Arts and Sciences
Professor, Department of Biology
East Carolina University
[email protected]

similar documents