Assessing Faculty Productivity: Looking at The Delaware Study

1
Assessing Faculty Productivity Looking at The
Delaware Study

• Heather Kelly, Ed.D.
• Assistant Director
• Office of Institutional Research Planning
• University of Delaware

• 2008 Spring Conference
• March 14, 2008
• St. Pete Beach, FL

2
The Delaware Study

• Begun in 1992 with 15 research universities, 16
  doctoral universities, and 65 comprehensive and
  baccalaureate institutions to address Who is
  Teaching What to Whom, and at What Cost?
• With funding from TIAA-CREF and Fund for
  Improvement of Postsecondary Education (FIPSE),
  the Studys instrumentation and methodology was
  refined and enhanced in mid-1990s.
• Currently embraces over 400 four-year colleges
  and universities across the country.
• Is the tool of choice for benchmarking detailed
  information of teaching loads, instructional
  costs, and externally funded scholarship at the
  academic discipline level of analysis.

3
Focus on Academic Discipline is Not a Trivial
Issue

• A study done for NCES found that over 80 percent
  in the variation in instructional costs across
  four-year colleges and universities is accounted
  for by the disciplines that comprise the
  curriculum at those institutions.

4
The Typical Delaware Study Participant Pool In
Any Given Year

• 45 to 55 Research Universities
• 25 to 35 Doctoral Universities
• 60 to 75 Comprehensive Institutions
• 20 to 30 Baccalaureate Institutions
• Note Since 2005, the Delaware Study has
  utilized the current Carnegie Institutional
  Taxonomy. More information can be found at
  http//www.udel.edu/IR/cost/carnegie.html

5
The Delaware Study has emerged as an important
reporting tool for a diverse group of constituents

• AAU Data Exchange
• HEDS
• Southern Universities Group Data Exchange
• Big 12 Universities
• University of North Carolina System
• Tennessee Board of Regents
• Louisiana Board of Regents
• Mississippi Board of Regents
• South Dakota Board of Regents

6
The Delaware StudyData Collection Template
7
Delaware Study Benchmarks are Produced for All
Participating Institutions

• By Carnegie Institutional Type
• By Highest Degree Offered
• By Relative Emphasis on Undergraduate versus
  Graduate Instruction

8
The Delaware Study benchmarks detailed teaching
load data

• By faculty category (tenured/tenure track, other
  regular faculty supplemental faculty graduate
  teaching assistants)
• By level of instruction (lower division
  undergraduate upper division undergraduate
  graduate)
• By student credit hours and organized class
  sections taught

9
Benchmark Data for Measuring Teaching Loads

• Undergraduate Student Credit Hours Taught per FTE
  Faculty
• Graduate Student Credit Hours Taught per FTE
  Faculty
• Total Student Credit Hours Taught per FTE Faculty
• Total Organized Class Sections Taught per FTE
  Faculty
• FTE Students Taught per FTE Faculty

10
Benchmark Data for Measuring Fiscal Variables

• Direct Instructional Expense per Student Credit
  Hour Taught
• Direct Instructional Expense per FTE Student
  Taught
• Separately Budgeted Research and Service
  Expenditures per FTE Tenured and Tenure Track
  Faculty

11
In Addition to the Standard Delaware Study
Benchmarks

• You may request up to 5 peer analyses, each
  comprised of at least 10 participating
  institutions. Each peer analysis contains the
  same benchmarks as in the full Delaware Study
  analysis.
• You receive access to the Delaware Studys secure
  website, and to the basic data set from which the
  national benchmarks were generated. You may
  massage these data to generate further analyses.

12
Lets look at a practical example of using the
Delaware Study data
13
The Provost chooses to focus on tenured/tenure
track faculty when examining data from the
Delaware Study

• Direct instructional costs are 85 to 90 on
  average driven by faculty salaries.
• Tenured and tenure track faculty are fixed
  costs. They are essentially with us until
  retirement.
• Tenured and tenure track faculty are the most
  visible of faculty categories.
• What is the return on investment?

14

• We provide the Provost with data from multiple
  years of the Delaware Study, looking at the
  University indicators as a percentage of the
  national benchmark for research universities.
• The Provost receives a single sheet for each
  academic department, with graphs reflecting
  numerous indicators.

15
Sample BenchmarkingScience Department
16
Using Delaware Study Data at the Institutional
Level

• From its inception, the Delaware Study has had as
  its primary function that of being a management
  tool for provosts, deans, and department chairs
  to assess the relative position of their academic
  departments and programs vis-à-vis those at
  appropriate comparator institutions.
• The Delaware Study is not intended to be used as
  a tool to reward or penalize programs, but rather
  to focus on strategies for program improvement.

17
The NCES Study

• Examined data from three Delaware Study data
  collection cycles 1998, 2000, and 2001 for 25
  disciplines typically found at four year colleges
  and universities.
• The initial hypothesis was that Carnegie
  institutional classification would be a
  significant cost driver, i.e., research
  universities would teach fewer credit hours at
  higher cost than doctoral universities, which in
  turn would teach less and at higher cost than
  either comprehensive or baccalaureate
  institutions.
• Hierarchical linear modeling was used to analyze
  the variance in instructional cost across the
  institutions that participated in each of the
  three data collection cycles.

18
Delaware Study of Instructional Costs and
Productivity
19
Delaware Study of Instructional Costs and
Productivity
20
Cost per Student Credit Hour Taught in Selected
Disciplines
21
Cost per Student Credit Hour Taught in Selected
Disciplines
22
Delaware Study of Instructional Costs and
Productivity

• The volume of teaching activity, as measured by
  student credit hours taught, is a major expense
  factor. As one might expect, given a relatively
  constant faculty size, expense decreases as the
  volume of teaching increases.
• Department size, as measured in terms of total
  number of faculty, is consistently associated
  with expense. The larger the department, the
  higher the cost.
• The proportion of a departmental faculty holding
  tenure is associated with expense. Since tenured
  faculty are fixed costs, not surprisingly the
  higher the proportion of tenured faculty, the
  higher the cost.

23
Delaware Study of Instructional Costs and
Productivity

• A surprising finding was that, while the presence
  of graduate level instruction is associated with
  higher expense, the measured effect of this
  variable on the magnitude of cost is smaller than
  teaching volume, department size, and tenure
  rate.
• It is frequently assumed that disciplines such as
  engineering and the physical sciences are
  expensive, in part, owing to the
  equipment-intensive nature of those disciplines.
  While measurable, the extent to which expense is
  associated with personnel cost, as opposed to
  equipment cost, has less impact on the magnitude
  of expense than teaching volume, department size,
  and tenure rate.

24
Major Findings from the NCES Study

• Across almost all disciplines, the volume of
  teaching activity, measured in student credit
  hours taught, is always associated with direct
  instructional expense. Cost decreases as the
  volume of teaching increases.
• Department size, measured in terms of total
  number of faculty, and total number of tenured
  and tenure track faculty, is consistently
  associated with cost across the disciplines. The
  larger the faculty size, the higher the cost.

25
Major Findings from the NCES Study

• The proportion of total faculty who are tenured
  or who are on tenure track is associated with
  cost. The higher that proportion, the higher the
  cost.
• Among variables that measure faculty teaching
  workload, the mean number of student credit hours
  taught per FTE faculty is the most common cost
  factor across the disciplines. The larger the
  average number of student credit hours taught,
  the lower the cost.

26
We invite you to visit the Delaware Study website
http//www.udel.edu/IR/cost
27
As useful and comprehensive as quantitative
instructional ratios and benchmarks are..

• They do not address the non-classroom dimensions
  of faculty activity in an institution and its
  academic programs.
• It is possible that quantitative productivity and
  cost indicators for a given program/discipline
  may differ significantly from other
  institutional, peer, and national benchmarks for
  wholly justifiable reasons of quality that can be
  reflected in what faculty do outside of the
  classroom.
• This cannot be determined unless measurable
  indicators of quality are collected.

28
Expanding the Delaware Study

• Those working with the Delaware Study over the
  years are highly sensitive to the possibility of
  misinterpretation of benchmark data.
• It is quite conceivable that a department may
  have teaching loads well below national
  benchmarks, and instructional costs well above,
  and pride itself on those measures for purely
  qualitative reasons.
• To be sure, what faculty do outside of the
  classroom instructional support, scholarship,
  and service - substantively contributes to the
  quality of an academic program, but may also
  significantly impact how much faculty teach, and
  at what expense.

29
Expanding the Delaware Study

• The University of Delaware, which received a
  major FIPSE grant in 1996-99 to underwrite the
  teaching load/cost portion of the Delaware Study,
  received a second FIPSE grant to expand data
  collection to include measures of
  out-of-classroom faulty activity.
• The core activity in the current FIPSE grant, as
  was the case with the earlier grant, is the use
  of an Advisory Committee to develop data
  definitions, data collection instruments, and
  calculation conventions. The Committee is
  comprised of faculty, institutional researchers,
  and other experts in measuring what faculty do.

30
Is Faculty Work Understood?
National Center for Education Statistics indicate
that full-time faculty at four-year institutions
report they spend approximately one-half of their
time on teaching activities, which includes
approximately 10 hours per week in the classroom
(Zimbler, 2001).
The term work load is often thought to refer to
the time faculty spend in the classroom. However,
work load relates to faculty work and the
numerous associated activities and
responsibilities in and out of the classroom
(Braskamp Ory, 1994).
31
Consider.

• NSOPF survey results indicate
• (1999) full-time instructional faculty report
  they spend approximately 53 of their time on
  teaching activities including 10 hours per week
  in the classroom (NCES Zimbler, 2001).
• (2004) full-time instructional faculty report
  they spend 58 of their time on teaching
  activities, including approximately 9 hours per
  week in the classroom (NCES Cataldi, Bradburn,
  Fahimi, Zimbler, 2005).
• These data suggest while faculty may be spending
  more time on teaching activities, they spend
  slightly less time in the classroom.

32
Faculty Activity Study - Purpose

• Help alleviate misunderstandings of faculty
  activity by providing information to discuss what
  faculty actually do, how much they do, and the
  associated products.

33
Faculty Activity Study - Goal

• Demonstrate faculty outputs that are a result of
  faculty spending time outside the classroom on
  non-instructional activities.
• Teaching (i.e., redesigning course curriculum,
  advising students, or conducting research with
  students)
• Scholarship (i.e., refereed and non-refereed
  publications, editorial positions, juried shows
  and commissioned performances, or grant activity)
• Service (i.e., institutional service, faculty
  extension and outreach activities, or
  professional service).
• The overall goal is to provide evidence regarding
  program productivity, as well as the means to
  encourage more effective management in higher
  education.

34
The Delaware Faculty Activity Study

• Helps to articulate the different expectations
  for what faculty are expected to do outside of
  the classroom, based on institutional mission.
• Helps to quantify what faculty actually do
  outside of the classroom as a management tool for
  assessing the extent to which an institution is
  fulfilling its mission.

35
Faculty Activity StudyData Collection Template
36
Faculty Activity Study Participants

• 2002 Faculty Activity Study Total of 57
  institutions
• 23 comprehensive institutions (40)
• 20 baccalaureate institutions (35)
• 7 doctoral universities (12)
• 7 research universities (12)
• 29 private institutions (51)
• 28 public institutions (49)

• 2003 Faculty Activity Study Total of 47
  institutions
• 27 comprehensive institutions (57)
• 7 baccalaureate institutions (15)
• 7 doctoral universities (15)
• 6 research universities (13)
• 33 public institutions (70)
• 14 private institutions (30)

37
Faculty Activity Study - Results

• Refined means were not calculated for the
  variables owing to the relatively small number of
  participating institutions within each Carnegie
  institution type, and the large variance in data
  responses.
• The large variance for the majority of the
  variables within each Carnegie classification
  makes the median a better statistic to describe
  the central tendency for the sample.

38
Activities Related to Teaching
39
Activities Related to Scholarship
40
Activities Related to Service
41
Utilizing theFaculty Activity Study

• Provides contextual information and supplies a
  backdrop for examining DE Studys teaching loads
  and associated costs.
• Institutions experiencing state mandates have
  combined state-mandated elements with the Faculty
  Activity Study variables to develop one
  instrument.
• Institutions have integrated Faculty Activity
  Study variables into their annual review process.
• Data facilitates informed decision-making
  processes.
• Data helpful in answering requests from state
  agencies, as well as other external constituents.

42
We invite you to visit the Faculty Activity Study
website
http//www.udel.edu/IR/focs/
43
Summarizing the Findings

• Certain factors are associated with the magnitude
  of direct instructional cost. These include
  volume of student credit hours taught, department
  size in terms of full time equivalent faculty,
  and tenure rate. However, before manipulating
  these factors in any draconian fashion to contain
  costs, it must be underscored that faculty engage
  in activities other than teaching that have
  significant value to students, the institution,
  and the larger society.
• Faculty are typically involved in
  out-of-classroom activities such as curriculum
  re-design, academic advising, thesis/dissertation
  supervision, academic scholarship, and service to
  the profession/institution/community.
• Emphasis on various types of out-of-classroom
  faculty activity generally reflect institutional
  choices related to mission and to the balance
  between and among teaching, research, and
  service.

44
Closing Thoughts

• It is also incumbent upon institutions to manage
  their resources, including faculty teaching
  loads.
• Benchmarking tools such as the Delaware Study of
  Instructional Costs and Productivity assist
  provosts and department chairs in assessing their
  resources in comparison with peer departments and
  other departments to which they aspire.
• Colleges and universities must be proactive in
  describing how and why they deploy human and
  fiscal resources in the manner in which they do.

45
Questions and Discussion
46
Useful Resources

• Middaugh, M.F. (2001). Understanding faculty
  productivity Standards and benchmarks for
  colleges and universities. San Francisco
  Jossey-Bass.
• Middaugh, M.F., Graham, R., Shahid, A. (2003).
  A study of higher education instructional
  expenditures The Delaware Study of Instructional
  Costs and Productivity. (NCES Publication No.
  2003-161). U.S. Department of Education.
  Washington, DC Institute of Education Sciences.
• Middaugh, M.F., Isaacs, H.K. (2005).
  Benchmarking departmental activity via a
  consortial approach The Delaware Study. In J.E.
  Groccia J.E. Miller (Eds.), On Becoming a
  Productive University Strategies for Reducing
  Costs and Increasing Quality in Higher Education
  (pp. 70-83). Bolton, MA Anker Publishing
  Company, Inc.
• Middaugh, M.F. (2005). Understanding higher
  education costs. Planning for Higher Education,
  33(3), 5-18.

47
Thank you!http//www.udel.edu/IR/
http//www.udel.edu/IR/cost/http//www.udel.edu/I
R/focs/

• Please feel free to contact me
• hkelly_at_udel.edu
• 302.831.2021