variable effort allocations in workload models using quantitative productivity tools to guide...

Variable Effort Allocations in Workload Models

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

Alan R. WhiteDean, Thomas Harriot College of Arts and Sciences

Professor, Department of BiologyEast Carolina University

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%

What do we mean by:

• Variable Workload• Differentiated Workload• Variable Effort Allocation• Flexible Workload Allocation

Defining “Workload”

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


(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 PublicThe 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


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


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


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


What is a course?• Laboratory courses• Seminar courses; Special Topics• Internships; Practicum; Student Teaching• Research supervision• Thesis and dissertation supervision


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


Discipline Considerations

• Professional Programs

Nursing Health Sciences

Education Business

Engineering Social Work


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

Developing College-wide Strategies

Workload Policies or SOPs

• 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

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

General 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.

Special Considerations


• 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

Department Strategies


Buy Outs from External Sources• External funding pays to hire an instructor• Grants, contracts• Federal, state, private foundations• Corporate grants• Other universities

Other Department Considerations


Buy Outs from Internal Sources• Funding from other institutional units• Administrative duties• Interim appointments• Research centers or institutes• Special funded projects

Other Department Considerations

East Carolina Workload Analysis Model

ECU Workload Analysis Spreadsheet

Department Data File

(Y or N) (Graduate Assistantships)

ButOut/Reassigned -

FTE

Faculty Gender EthnicityResident

AlienHighest Degree Title Status Room Bldg. Shared

FTE Research Assistant Assigned BuyOut For: Faculty FTE Status

M W N doctorate Assistant Professor TT N 0.375 N 1.00 TTM W N MA Teaching Instructor FT N 0 N 0.50 FTM W N doctorate Professor TT N 0.25 N 1.00 TTF W N doctorate Assistant Professor TT N 0.25 N 1.00 TTM W N doctorate Associate Professor T N 0.25 N 1.00 T

F W N doctorate Assistant Professor TT N 0.25 YResearch-

.50 1.00 TTM W N doctorate Associate Professor T N 0.25 N 1.00 TF A Y doctorate Assistant Professor TT N 0.25 N 1.00 TTM W N doctorate Associate Professor T N 0 N 0.00 T

M W N doctorate Chair and Professor T N 0.125 YAdmin. -

.50 1.00 T

M W N doctorate Professor T N 0.25 N 1.00 TF W N doctorate Professor T N 0.5 N 1.00 TF W N doctorate Visiting Asst. Prof FT Off Campus N 0 N 0.25 FTM W N doctorate Visiting Asst. Prof FT N 0.25 N 1.00 FTM W N doctorate Assistant Professor TT N 0.375 N 1.00 TTM W N doctorate Visiting Asst. Prof FT Off Campus N 0 N 0.25 FTF W N doctorate Assistant Professor TT N 0.25 N 1.00 TTM W Y doctorate Assistant Professor TT N 0.25 N 1.00 TTM H N doctorate Visiting Asst. Prof FT N 0.25 N 1.00 FTM W Y doctorate Associate Professor T N 0.25 N 1.00 TM W N doctorate Associate Professor T N 0.25 N 1.00 TM W N doctorate Phased Retirement T N 0 N 1.00 TF W N doctorate Associate Professor T N 0.125 N 1.00 TM W N doctorate Associate Professor T N 0.25 N 1.00 T

7F17M 2A1H21W 3RA 1M23D 5FT8TT11T 5FT8TT11T

SPA Staff

SPA Staff

F W Office Assistant N N 1.00F B Office Assistant N N 1.00

23.00

Fall 2008 .25 FTE = 10 hrs per week; .50 = 20, etc.


Department Data File(as per discipline- /manuscripts submitted, abstracts,

2007-2008 AY 2007-2008 AY 2007-2008AY 2007-2008AY 2007-2008AY 2007-2008AY presentations, proceedings,Editorial Review Boards,

(anticipated)SCH per faculty

In Print/published

In Press/accepted

In Print/published

In Press/accepted

In Print/published

In Press/accepted conferences, book reviews, grants submitted, etc.)

Teaching Load GENERATED

# Peer RevPub # Peer RevPubs # Books Pub # Books Pub Faculty Book Chapters Book Chapters Other Productivity Consideration

2/2 837.00 3 8 2 0 4 1 5 papers at conferences + 1 forthcoming2/4 39.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 Temp Faculty3/2 216.00 0 0 2 0 1 0 2 paper at a conference + 2 forthcoming2/2 156.00 0 2 0 2 0 0 5 papers at conferences2/3 204 0 0 1 0 0 0

2/0 138.00 1 3 0 0 0 2 4 papers at conferences + 3 external grants2/2 292.00 6 1 1 1 2 2 2 papers at conferences1/2 45.00 2 0 0 0 0 0 New Faculty member

0 0 0 0 0 0 Not Really in dept.

1/1 132.00 3 1 1 0 0 0 1 paper at a conference

3/2 171.00 1 0 0 0 1 01 paper at a conference + 2 forthcoming and 3 proceedings

2/2 147.00 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 papers at conferences + 1 book review0/1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Temp Faculty3/3 348.00 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 conference presentation2/2 117.00 2 5 1 0 3 0 4 papers at conferences1/0 45.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 Temp Faculty2/2 90.00 2 1 1 0 2 0 2 papers at conferences + 3 forthcoming1/2 222.00 1 2 0 0 0 22/3 135.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 Resigned as of 12/15/20082/2 144.00 1 0 0 1 1 1 3 papers at conferences + 2 forthcoming2/3 183.00 2 1 0 0 3 0 1 case published + 1 book review2/2 78.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 Phased retirement2/2 307.002/2 16.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 paper at a conference + 1 book review

SPA Staff

Fall 2008\ (Spring 2009) Fall 2008


Department Workload Analysis

2008-09

LN FN Appt RankApptFTE

SctnLoad FALL 08 SPR 09

Tch FTE Produced Research

Fdns/ Grants/

ContractsProg

CoordAdmin/Svce

Med. Leave Research

Fdns/ Grants/

ContractsProg

CoordAdmin/Svce

Med. Leave

TotalReassnmts

Workload Index

A TT asstP 1.00 2/2 1.1727 0.4149 1.5875 0.500 0.500 0.500 2.088

B PT Tch Inst 0.50 2/4 0.1978 0.4055 0.6033 0.000 0.603C TT Prof 1.00 3/2 0.3006 0.2709 0.5715 0.250 0.250 0.250 0.822

D TT asstP 1.00 2/2 0.3236 0.1101 0.4337 0.500 0.500 0.500 0.934E T AssocP 1.00 2/3 0.2836 0.3852 0.6689 0.250 0.250 0.250 0.919

F TT asstP 1.00 2/0 0.1863 0.1863 0.500 1.000 0.750 0.936

G T AssocP 1.00 2/2 0.4121 0.3514 0.7634 0.500 0.500 0.500 1.263H TT asstP 1.00 1/2 0.2654 0.3362 0.6016 0.750 0.250 0.500 1.102I T AssocP 0.00 0/1 0.1238 0.1238 0.000 0.124J T Chair and Professor 1.00 1/1 0.1863 0.0296 0.2159 0.250 0.500 0.250 0.500 0.750 0.966K T Prof 1.00 3/2 0.4028 0.1990 0.6018 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 1.089M PF Visiting asstP 0.25 0/1 0.1946 0.1946 0.000 0.195N FT Visiting asstP 1.00 3/3 0.4868 0.4826 0.9695 0.000 0.969

O TT asstP 1.00 2/2 0.1651 0.3725 0.5376 0.500 0.500 0.500 1.038P PT Visiting asstP 0.25 1/0 0.2654 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 0.916R TT asstP 1.00 1/2 0.3090 0.1238 0.4329 0.250 0.250 0.250 0.683S FT Visiting asstP 1.00 2/3 0.1905 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 1.181U T AssocP 1.00 2/3 0.4467 0.6756 1.1223 0.250 0.250 0.250 1.372V T Phased 1.00 2/2 0.1058 0.2540 0.3598 0.000 0.360W 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

Total FTE 21 7.0710 6.2719 13.3430 6.75 0.00 0.50 0.50 0.00 6.75 0.00 0.50 0.50 0.00 7.75 21.09

Department of

Teaching Fall Reassignments Spring Reassignments


Department Workload AnalysisIn Print/

publishedIn Press/accepted

In Print/published

In Press/accepted

In Print/published

In Press/accepted

LN FN# Peer Rev

Pubs# Peer Rev

Pubs # Books # Books Book

ChaptersBook

Chapters Other Productivity Consideration

A 3 9 2 0 5 1 5 papers at conferences + 1 forthcoming

B 0 0 0 0 0 0 Temp FacultyC 0 0 2 0 1 0 2 paper at a conference + 2 forthcoming

D 0 2 0 2 0 0 5 papers at conferencesE 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 conferencesH 2 0 0 0 0 0 New Faculty memberI 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 paperbackK 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 reviewM 0 0 0 0 0 0 Temp FacultyN 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 conference presentation

O 2 6 1 0 4 0 4 papers at conferencesP 0 0 0 0 0 0 Temp Faculty

Q 2 1 1 0 2 0 2 papers at conferences + 3 forthcomingR 1 2 0 0 0 2S 0 0 0 0 0 0 Resigned as of 12/15/2008

T 1 0 0 1 1 1 3 papers at conferences + 2 forthcomingU 2 1 0 0 3 0 1 case published + 1 book reviewV 0 0 0 0 0 0 Phased retirementW

X 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 paper at a conference + 1 book review

Features from Other ModelsUniv 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. WhiteDean, Thomas Harriot College of Arts and Sciences

Professor, Department of Biology

East Carolina University

[email protected]

variable effort allocations in workload models using quantitative productivity tools to guide...

Documents

workload slide

variable workload

theory of faculty workload

time slide

workload models

workload management

hrsweek slide

university faculty members