QUESTION: FacultyD1

Faculty are expected to maintain their academic qualifications by meeting the College of Business scholarship standards.  

We all experience increased service and scholarship expectations, at the same time that enrollment grows year by year and we continue to offer a broad array of learning opportunities to students within and beyond the classroom.  An important goal is to find an appropriate balance among these competing and increasing demands in all areas.  In order to fulfill the Boyer teacher-scholar model of discovery, integration, application and teaching, a broad range of activities that contribute to these dimensions of scholarly performance must be recognized and rewarded.  

Faculty meet teaching responsibilities as the highest priority.  Requirements for scholarship are continuously increasing, and faculty work hard to secure research leaves and other support that will enable them to meet these expectations.  Recent efforts to raise scholarship expectations to those of research universities without reducing teaching loads have created pressure on faculty to produce scholarship at levels that are not compatible with teaching demands.  This imbalance needs to be addressed at the level of the university.  Our program review describes our faculty as “young and energetic, engaged in a multitude of university-wide programs and contributing to university goals in a variety of way,” and the main challenges to our faculty as “how to maintain the energy and dedication of this faculty, how to avoid burnout, and how to allocate their workload in equitable ways.”   

As we develop our museum program and maintain high quality participation in the other programs to which we contribute, it is essential that these contributions be valued and recognized and the work that goes into them given full due.  If not, we will find ourselves sideways to the NSF Science model that prevails among the natural science departments in our college, and much of the work that we do will remain undervalued because the scholarship we produce does not match a narrowly conceptualized version of science.

the Departmetnof Art faculty are evaluated on teaching at 1/2; scholarship/creativity at 1/3; and service at 1/6 in support of the mission of CWU.

One faculty member would like to see the administrative duties necessary to run a flight training program reduced, either by more equitable distribution amongst all faculty members or by assignment of most major responsibilities to a full-time administrator. This would free up those Department of Aviation faculty who came to Central primarily to teach and engage in scholarly pursuits to do so. As it currently stands, the administrative responsibilities preclude this faculty member from devoting the time necessary to improve course content or to engage in any ongoing meaningful research or to begin writing a book which he has been wanting to do for the past five years. This will be even more difficult now that new higher scholarship requirements for Post Tenure Review have been implemented within CEPS. 

One faculty member was time constrained the first two years here because she finished her Ph.D. in addition to instructional, service, and administrative activities.  Now that the Ph.D. is completed she feels the balance is relatively straight-forward and about as she expected for the level of research that is required at CWU.

Another faculty member has had difficulties meeting the research requirement of the position due to additional administrative duties, in particular the additional workload required during the 2004/2005 school year devoted to remedying a work-related situation which she is not legally allowed to discuss. This faculty member expended considerable time, energy, and personal expenses addressing the situation. She found it difficult to seek the inner passion required to productively tackle any research project. As the turmoil caused by this situation diminishes she foresees the ability to reduce time spent on the administrative/service component of her job with the ability to spend more time on research activities. The ability to find time and peace of mind to pursue research is paramount to her next step in her professional career: promotion to full professor. 

The chemistry department believes in the teacher/scholar model.  We believe it is important for all faculty to participate in all three areas of faculty work but understand that the balance among the three endeavors will not be the same for all faculty.  Our policy states that no faculty member should have less than half time teaching when averaged over any given year.  Recognizing that the teaching loads are high for carrying out publishable laboratory-based research with graduate and undergraduate students, we encourage faculty to write grants that will support reassigned time to scholarship.  We know that to meet Goal 5: Maintain an enthusiastic, active faculty, we must allow flexibility in faculty workload.

Scholarship:
Chemistry Department faculty consider scholarship of paramount importance as evidenced by their record in measures such as mentored student research, peer-review publication, and grant writing.  Faculty have presented at national and international conferences, authored peer-reviewed publications including papers with CWU student co-authors, and received external funding.  Considering the turnover in faculty and the youth of the department in general, this record is substantial.  Over the last three years the faculty have garnered over 3 million dollars in external funding. Chemistry faculty have also received support from CWU internal granting mechanisms.  The department values inquiry-driven research that involves CWU students and recognizes that such work may result in longer timeframes between publications, especially when most of the work is done in conjunction with undergraduate students.

Service:
The Chemistry Department faculty participate fully in service activities at all levels including department, college, university, local, and state.  Committee service for the department has remained high throughout the review period, despite the fact that the department was often working with high percentages of non tenure-track faculty.  Department faculty have been willing to serve the university in administration with one serving as COTS Associate Dean for Resource Development (Thomas) and one as the Science Education Program Director (Kurtz).  Recently Dr. Kurtz was promoted to Interim Dean of COTS.

In addition to service within the university, the department faculty serve in the local Kittitas County community and on state and national committees and boards.  One member of the department served as the Treasurer of PANWAT (Pacific Northwest Association of Toxicologists), one is the Treasurer of the local chapter of the honor society Phi Kappa Phi, one has consulted with local residents about their water quality, one has served on the Ellensburg School District Science Adoption committee, and one serves on the dissertation committee of a student at the University of Washington.  The majority of tenured and tenure-track faculty have either given invited seminars, reviewed journal or textbook manuscripts, or reviewed grant proposals.  

We ask our faculty to balance teaching at 60 percent, scholarship and service at 20 percent each.  In reality,  Communication faculty contribute a great deal of service that goes unrewarded or sometimes acknowledged.

January, 2008
As a small department establishing the proper balance between the three traditional areas of faculty responsibility is essential to fulfilling our mission.  With the support of the Dean and through the use of the Boyer model of scholarship, our faculty have identified roles that empahsize their strengths while keeping our mission in mind.  To further this idea the department supports the philosophy that while it is important for everyone to be effective in each of the traditional areas of teaching, scholarship, and service; it is efficient to allow faculty to develop roles that match their strengths.  Of the five current faculty members, two make their contribution to the undergraduate program as their primary emphasis with the scholarship of teaching as their research contirbution, two have chosen a role that emphasizes their research interests with the scholarship of discovery as their focus, while the chair’s time is divided fairly evenly between administration, teaching and scholarship activities also with the scholarship of discovery as his research emphasis.  Using this approach allows faculty, during our annual peer-review/program planning, to better understand current and future contributions to the teaching, scholarship and service missions of the department.  We believe that through this process we have a technique to ensure that we continue to meet our goals and maintain a balance where all faculty contribute in each area while focusing on their strengths.

The balance of teaching, scholarship, and service is seen in the Faculty Workloads of faculty. For the typical faculty member: Teaching = 67%, scholarship=33% service=19%.
           

We have taken on the responsibilities of teaching, scholarship, and service. Overall, the Department of Education has a strong record in Teaching. Department averages on SEOIs are higher than those of the College of Education and Professional Studies and the University. 

University and professional organization based service is very strong. We have members sitting on almost every university committee, and chairing many of them. We have members who are or have served as executive officers on state and national professional association boards. Community involvement extends from assisting in schools and shelters to leading learning retreats to other countries to serving on community organizations.

Scholarship is an area where there is some weakness. Teaching is our main purpose and research centered on teaching and schools is our strength. Presenting at national, state, and local organizations has been a strong suit for our faculty members. Having the time and resources needed to conduct more rigid research is often not available. This needs to be addressed at a higher level for the full balance to take place.

The English department’s productivity in relation to scholarship and creative work is remarkable in its consistency and diversity.  Total department scholarly and creative accomplishments average over 100 per year.

The English department faculty service record documents their prominent role in institutional governance, disciplinary participation and leadership, and state and institutional accountability efforts particularly in relation to writing and teacher education. 

Our current balance of teaching, scholarship, and service responsibilities is as follows:

Teaching: 69%
Scholarship: 16%
Service: 15%

Our service numbers are skewed somewhat higher than usual by faculty with administrative appointments in other programs.  The scholarship figure includes a sabbatical leave and a research quarter.  The balance is in line with department goals.

The FCS department maintain a 45-credit credit workload assignment for all tenure track faculty.  First year tenure track faculty teach 32 to 33 workload units.  Second year tenure track faculty teach 36 workload units.  Leas curriculum faculty receive three workload units for serving as program managers and teach 33 workload units.  All tenure track faculty are expected to use nine workload units per year for scholarship and service.  Reorganizing existing department programs and developing new department programs is very time intensive and reduces faculty time availability for research and scholarship.  The department currently has to prioritize program reorganization and development over scholarship productivity.  Scholarship productivity will be of little value if we do not have rigorous and relevant programs.

Teaching is 66% of faculty workload, scholarship is 22% and service is 11%.  The Dept's primary goal is excellence in teach.  This goal is supported faculty scholarship and service.  The balance between teaching, scholarship, and service is inline with our goals. 

Traditionally we have attempted to balance the three areas of faculty responsibility into:  teaching, 80%; research, 10%; and service, 10%.  As our full time TT positions have three faculty who are solely responsible for providing all of the academic programming within their respective languages, it has not always been feasible for all to follow this formula.  These faculty have the sole advising responsibility for both majors and minors, but student clubs as well.

Geography & Land Studies faculty are not unreasonable in their desire for a more balanced allocation of workload commitments.  We have no desire to totally “buy out” teaching time with grant monies.  On the contrast, we keenly desire to maintain a major presence in the classroom (or in the field with students), and to be able to conduct research that will inform and inspire our instruction.  Our service performance is well beyond expected performance levels, and it remains a point of pride by all of us for that to continue.  It is that healthy mixture of performing in these three categories that will enable our faculty to skillfully conduct themselves as professional geographers and as active participants in the academic community, both locally, in the setting of the CWU campus, and in the greater context of our collective teaching and learning project as members of the universal professorate.

UPDATED JULY 2008
The department supports a teacher-scholar model in which individual faculty determine the general balance among the three areas. 

Teaching loads are assigned based on department needs, reassignments (such as administrative or grant-funded), and amount of faculty-mentored student scholarship (including graduate student mentoring). In general, the loads range from 50 to 80% of the full time load. All geology faculty have active research programs that involve undergraduate and graduate students. All are involved in some combination of: external funding for their research, publications in internationally recognized peer reviewed journals, and presentations at national and international meetings. Thus, the commitment to scholarly activities, including those that involve students, is very high. Service expectations first include service to the department. As a department, we try to evenly divide the departmental load so that we are a functional and collegial department. Department members also tend to be heavily involved in university service. Because of the relatively research high profile most of us maintain, we also serve on lots of professional committees. Thus, the service load in the department is quite large. 

In terms of balance, much of the work of faculty members is completed outside of the “normal” 45 workload unit allocation. In general, the department has effectively maintained its programs through the dedication and hard work of its faculty. However, the long term outlook may present challenges. The output rate of department faculty in terms of service and research is high. If the department is to maintain its funding streams, and thus be able to continue to provide high quality research and other educational experiences for students, the balance will have to be re-examined. The teaching loads tend to be very high at CWU, and the university service loads are also quite high. These create challenges for faculty who need to maintain national and international reputations in order to bring in sufficient funding to run student-centered laboratory and field based programs. 

The balance 36 work load units for teaching and 9 for scholarship and service is appropriate, provided there is flexibility.  Unfortunately within the IET department there is not any flexibility to deviate from the 36 teaching and 9 service and scholarship.  The department just has too many classes to cover and too many programs to administer for the number of faculty on staff. 

The teaching and service demands on the faculty is high, leaving little time for research. Because we have lost two faculty lines in the department, the majority of faculty teach 36 credits per year. When I do reduce teaching time to 32-33 credits, I often have to sacrifice a course section or two, leading to course substitutions for the students. This, I believe, reduces the quality of the curriculum for our students.

Several faculty in our department have maintained healthy research agendas in information technology and retail technology; other faculty members engage in little or no research.

New terminally-degreed faculty usually arrive with some already established research programs. 

Sustaining high levels of research cannot be accomplished without an appropriate reduction in teaching and service, supported monetarily by the administration. 

As a teaching institution, about 80% of faculty time is focused upon teaching. Since one only has 20% left, often one must choose which to focus upon, scholarship or service. The implications are that one cannot excel at both scholarship and service, so must focus more on one of these areas. This is a particularly difficult choice, since scholarship is more valued in terms of rewards.

It is believed that the mathematics faculty is currently much more active then it was, say, ten years ago.  While teaching has always been important to the department and our department has always had a solid collection of excellent teachers, we are now seeing more of our faculty going to (and presenting at) conferences devoted to the teaching of undergraduate mathematics.

We are doing a better job of clearly articulating departmental expectations regarding teaching as well as scholarship, for new hires.  We are seeing an increase in scholarly activity among our faculty (published papers, presentations at conferences, supervising student research, securing internal and external funding).

Service requirements have remained constant despite the increased requests for scholarship. In addition to traditional service requirements (such as sitting on committees at the departmental, college, and university level), the faculty members have seen a significant increase in paperwork requirements (particularly at the level of the chair).

To encourage innovative ways of teaching and other effective ways of reaching students. The department places its students’ well-being and education at the top of its priorities, and faculty are expected to draw upon the innovations of the past and present to shape the future through these students. New technologies have received increasing attention, but the flow and exchange of collegial ideas seems to create the most innovative ways of reaching students. Team-teaching, interactive technologies, practicums and field opportunities are constantly explored. This goal is assessed in peer review, annual performance reviews, and promotion and tenure considerations.

To encourage active involvement in service activities, both on and off campus.  Music faculty have different schedules than most other university colleagues, yet all make time to contribute to department needs, university service activities, and local, state, national and international organizations. This goal is assessed in peer review, annual performance reviews, and promotion and tenure considerations.

Over all, faculty maintain a good balance between teaching, scholarship, and service. At times, individual faculty members may shoulder more work in one or two areas. But in the department there is a good balance and in the long run each individual faculty member maintains a good balance of these responsibilities.

As a small department establishing the proper balance between the three traditional areas of faculty responsibility is essential to fulfilling its mission.  With the support of the Dean and through the use of the Boyer model of scholarship, physics faculty have identified roles that emphasize their strengths while fulfilling its mission.  To further this idea the department supports the philosophy that while it is important for everyone to be effective in each of the traditional areas of teaching, scholarship, and service, it is efficient to allow faculty to develop roles that match their strengths.  Using this approach allows faculty to better understand current and future contributions to the teaching, scholarship and service missions of the Department.  It appears this process best ensures the Department continue to meet its goals while maintaining a balance agreed upon by faculty; allowing them to contribute to each area in varying degrees through focusing on their strengths.

With that said however, there is a concern among members of the Physics Department (and the University community at large) regarding the increased service and scholarship expectations while traditional teaching loads are maintained and University enrollments grow.  The Physics Department unanimously supports the “teacher-scholar” model but maintains the need to find an appropriate balance among the competing and increasing demands in the areas of teaching, scholarship and service.  

-By way of introduction, the Department continues to stress, and pride itself on, its role in undergraduate teaching, and believes this is the primary mission at an institution such as CWU.  However, faculty also are committed to scholarly and service activities, and while believing these are not mutually exclusive, does recognize that there is an inherent tradeoff between all three.  One cannot expect faculty to do more in all of these areas and expect that all of it will be done better.

-Absent any flexibility (or changes to the status quo) in Department program delivery or workload, we expect that our jobs will remain essentially the same.  Teaching will continue to take the bulk of our time, and juggling it with research and service responsibilities will continue to be a tough balancing act. 

-If the Administration wants improvement, or at least increased faculty activity, in the areas of research and service, they need to make resources (again, financial and/or temporal) available to adequately do so.  When push comes to shove, we believe service activities will be the ones sacrificed, which is particularly ironic given our field of study - but that is the logical conclusion of the current professional environment at this University (i.e., because it is the one that is least-valued).
Jan. 08

(January 2008)
Full-time faculty members normally have a load of 45 workload units. For FTNTT faculty, all 45 units are allocated to 45 credit hours of teaching. For tenured and tenure-track faculty, about 36 units (80%) are nominally allocated to teaching, 6 (14%) to scholarship, and 3 (6%) to service activities. This division of effort was prescribed by state coordinators of higher education decades ago and is still the nominal standard. However, unless teaching is very broadly defined, nearly all productive faculty members actually devote less time to teaching and more to scholarship and service activities than the standard ratios reflect. Active programs of scholarship and service that lead to tenure, promotion, and merit require more than the small amount of time reflected in the nominal standards. The faculty union contract permits negotiated deviations from the 36-6-3 rule, but most faculty members teach 36 credit hours of classes. For all these reasons, the distribution of effort consistent with department goals may vary widely from units reported on the Workload Form and Annual Activities Report. It is safe to say that, after the first year or two, tenure-track faculty members typically devote greater portions of their time to scholarship and service than reflected in the formal reports. 

The Faculty Profile Table provides a summary of faculty involvement in the three main spheres of academic life (teaching, service and scholarship).    It should come as no surprise for an undergraduate department that prides itself on its instruction that every faculty member associated with the department was involved in the supervision of undergraduate research projects each year.  What may be more surprising is that over half the members of the department participated on graduate committees and a quarter supervised graduate theses or projects during the period.  The table also indicates that the department’s faculty have been very active in service activities.  Every faculty member reported serving on at least one university committee (or the Faculty Senate) during the period, and clear majorities reported involvement university programs and panels, advisement to student organizations, and service to community/state agencies and organizations.  Department faculty were somewhat less likely to be involved in traditional academic and applied research endeavors.  However, a majority Department faculty members were involved in research activities that extend well beyond our locale.  As previously cited in this report, the following projects are underway within the department: Dr. Appleton’s multi-year voting survey, Dr. Dugan’s multi-year study of inmates in the Thurston county jail, Dr. Cleary’s policy research with Native American Indian tribes concerning issues such as education, gaming and federal grants, Dr. Xiao’s comprehensive study of Chinese family structure, values and child-rearing practices, Dr. Wessel’s research on undergraduate study abroad experiences and programs, Dr. Pichardo’s studies of social movements and political activism, Dr. Hennessy’s analysis of women on welfare, and Dr. Johnson’s longitudinal study of agricultural and industrial water metering across the state.  The table exhibits a level of research output appropriate for an undergraduate department with a high instructional demand and a lack of resources; during the past five years, a majority of our faculty have presented papers at professional conferences and have either been published (in on form or another) or been involved in applied sociological research.   

Teaching hours remain slightly lower than university expected standard of 36 hours primarily due to increase involvement in the creative work and mentoring of students in scholarship activities within the production program.

Scholarship and creative work is slightly higher than expected standard because of production work during the academic year as well as outside scholarship opportunities that are encouraged.

Faculty members have sought to promote community by being good citizens of the university and providing service above and beyond classroom duties. Most faculty serve on at least one university committee and many serve on several.  Department members have also been actively involved in establishing professional standards through work on a spectrum of issues relating to the Faculty Senate Code Committee.  The department has sought to promote a civil, productive, and pleasant workplace environment by bringing in a specialist to consult with the faculty and staff on personal and organizational performance dynamics and leadership.  Additionally, the department faculty and staff participate in quarterly retreats to discuss departmental vision.

This balance is beneficial to the goals established by the department.