next »

[acadamianut]

Hi,
Our school has a 5 course loads per year teaching load and it is stated on the contract that we either teach 2-3 or 3-2. Recently, several faculty have requested that they teach 5-0 or 0-5 so that they can focus on their research. They wanted me, as the Chair, to talk to the Dean. I recognize that this will be really helpful to research productivity but the initial response from the Dean is negative. I wonder how far should I push this issue and if there any ground for me to push such request.

Your advice will be greatly appreciated.

AcademianNut

[cgfunmathguy]

Instead of hitting the Dean with a bunch of 5-0 requests, how about suggesting a pilot program where ONE faculty member does a 4-1 and ONE other does a 1-4? Those two would be the only ones involved at first. Pick people you're sure will be productive. When they show up as being more (or less) productive, you will have some (anecdotal) data to show the Dean. The ball would now be in the Dean's court concerning expanding the use of the "4-1 or 1-4" program or even possibly trying a "5-0 or 0-5" pilot. Baby steps are almost always better than giant leaps for significant changes, which this would ultimately be.

[voxprincipalis]

Hi,
Our school has a 5 course loads per year teaching load and it is stated on the contract that we either teach 2-3 or 3-2. Recently, several faculty have requested that they teach 5-0 or 0-5 so that they can focus on their research. They wanted me, as the Chair, to talk to the Dean. I recognize that this will be really helpful to research productivity but the initial response from the Dean is negative. I wonder how far should I push this issue and if there any ground for me to push such request.

I am not a chair or dean, so take my words for what they are worth, which might be nothing.

But. If you are at a school with a 3-2 load, that says to me that you are at a school at which teaching is valued. And when teaching is valued at a school, the unspoken corollary is usually that *consistent* teaching is valued. In other words, teaching schools want faculty to be there all year, teaching a consistent load, consistently participating in service and departmental governance, and consistently forming relationships with students (Not That Kind). They do not want faculty who are going to be overworked with teaching in the fall (and very possibly not doing as good a job) and then absent in the spring. It's not consistent with institutional culture.

Now, maybe your school is different. But from my experience, I would be very, very surprised if your faculty members made any headway on this, and if I were you, I don't know the extent to which I could support their request, since you also have an obligation to ensure that institutional expectations are preserved.

P.S. -- Plus, if it's stated on the contract that the load is either 3-2 or 2-3, then the institution has foreseen such requests and has taken action to ensure that people have contractually obligated themselves to some sort of consistent teaching load.

VP

[offthemarket]

Ha.  I don't think the 5-0 is to focus on research (unless your faculty need to travel extensively for research).  I think the 5-0 is to have a sabbatical every year.   To focus on research, as suggested by fungi, float the 4-1 in your department.  Especially if it's an easy 1, like a seminar or something with little prep or grading required.

If you simply want to shut this down, you can bring it up with the dean like this: "So, faculty in my department have this harebrained scheme to get off campus one semester a year by teaching a 5-0.  Crazy, huh?"

[obprof]

If teaching is really valued, and the Dean wants everyone to be around all the time, can you pair the 4-1 and 1-4 requests with a specific student-focused service activity?

That is, could those folks be signed up to do something high-profile that would benefit from their increased availability (e.g., run the student tutoring centre, do targeted outreach to high school students, start an experiential learning program)?

[anthroid]

And who would handle the advising responsibilities when the person is on the "0"?  What about service--committee work, etc.?  VP makes some excellent points.

Frankly, I'd shut this down right now.  I don't buy the research argument.  I don't even buy the sabbatical argument.  I think folks are trying to work part-time on a full-time salary.  I wouldn't even entertain the suggestion.

[acadamianut]

Hi,
Thank you very much for all your helpful insights.

As VP pointed out, our school positions itself as a teaching school to students. Good teaching and service are part of our formal evaluation. On the other hand, we also aspired to be a research school and has hired good researchers over the years. Some of them have been productive and have also demonstrated their ability in teaching. These are the people who initiated the request of 5-0 or 0-5. They believe doing so will improve their research and teaching, and they have promised to do their service as usual.

When I float this idea around, some were wary about its practicality such as enforcing the teaching or the service standards (as anthroid said). One of them pointed out that doing so required modification of contract. So if I back this request, I need to convince the Dean and the others how I can manage these faculty on their teaching (during the 5 load) and service quality (during the 0 load).

Perhaps as cgfunmathguy, offthemarket and obprof suggested, a 1-4 4-1 trial may be a good counter offer (and a good starting point with the Dean) and see how this works out.

Thank you!

Acadamia Nut

[rear_view_mirror]

Tell the professors to re-read their contract.

[sci_case]

Ha.  I don't think the 5-0 is to focus on research (unless your faculty need to travel extensively for research).  I think the 5-0 is to have a sabbatical every year.   To focus on research, as suggested by fungi, float the 4-1 in your department.  Especially if it's an easy 1, like a seminar or something with little prep or grading required.

I think this is a likely explanation for many faculty (and it would be likely to be abused in my dept.).  However, I think this is overly dismissive of the idea, and a blanket rejection (and a blanket suspicion of the motives of all faculty) seems short sighted, penalizing faculty that might do the right thing and be productive, given this kind of opportunity.  Saying, "I'm not going to let you do something that would make you more productive, because others would abuse the opportunity" could penalize your best faculty.  Particularly if individual faculty have showed the promise of being productive scholars, and they have a concrete work proposal for which they can be evaluated afterward (and it is made clear ahead of time that they will be evaluated on that basis), it could be a very good thing (for some).

[msparticularity]

Ha.  I don't think the 5-0 is to focus on research (unless your faculty need to travel extensively for research).  I think the 5-0 is to have a sabbatical every year.   To focus on research, as suggested by fungi, float the 4-1 in your department.  Especially if it's an easy 1, like a seminar or something with little prep or grading required.

I think this is a likely explanation for many faculty (and it would be likely to be abused in my dept.).  However, I think this is overly dismissive of the idea, and a blanket rejection (and a blanket suspicion of the motives of all faculty) seems short sighted, penalizing faculty that might do the right thing and be productive, given this kind of opportunity.  Saying, "I'm not going to let you do something that would make you more productive, because others would abuse the opportunity" could penalize your best faculty.  Particularly if individual faculty have showed the promise of being productive scholars, and they have a concrete work proposal for which they can be evaluated afterward (and it is made clear ahead of time that they will be evaluated on that basis), it could be a very good thing (for some).

So perhaps a way to proceed would be to treat this like a sabbatical, to be awarded competitively to those who can articulate a really robust work proposal. This might even be used for the 4-1 or 1-4, to give the Dean something to explain exactly how this shift would benefit the institution.

[mellonia]

I'm at a different sort of institution--we do 2.5 courses a year and are expected to have substantial research programs--but we have floated an idea like this to higher-ups and we are making progress.  The reality is that we have graduate students and labs to run, and so the worry that we will 'disappear' for a big chunk of the year if we stack our courses (and not do service) isn't true.  But that was the first worry stated to us when we intiated discussions.  But because our research productivity, as well as our teaching quality, is a big deal for our admin, we have persisted in the discussion--because the assumption that a semester with a heavy teaching load means that teaching quality suffers is not necessarily true either.  What has helped the upper admin see the point of our request:

1.  not everyone automatically gets to stack courses; for any given year, when the faculty member makes the request for their 'optimal', wish-list teaching load, they'd need to justify if they request to stack.  It's not forever, but rather a justified one-off, and so we can evaluate how it worked, for that individual--including whether they disappeared, what happened to teaching quality, what happened to research productivity.  For some of us this flexibility would be amazing;  I'm a field biologist, for instance, with a field season that doesn't nicely overlap semesters.  The flexibility to be able to have a research-intensive year occasionally would be huge.  This is similar to what others have recommended for your trial run.

2.  Stacking is only allowed if there is no cost to our undergraduate and graduate programs.  For instance, if I wanted to teach all my courses in the spring, but one of the courses I regularly teach can only be offered in the fall for some reason (true for one of my lab courses), I don't get to go ahead.  The dept might consider me doing all my courses in the fall, for instance, but not in the spring.  This has assured upper admin that we aren't trying to weasel out of things (at least as a dept).

There is currently some disagreement about interpretation of a particular policy that is getting in the way of us moving forward, but we now have the dean on our side.  I think this can be done in the right circumstances.  The reality is that assignment of teaching is just about the only thing we are told we have to do in this business--so even though I've worked towards stacking of courses in my unit, I have little sympathy if people seem to be requesting it for reasons that won't benefit the unit in the long term.  For us, the research productivity argument does do the unit good, in terms of reputation within and outside the university.  For your institution that may also be true to some degree.

[new_bus_prof]

We have some faculty here who do this. Most actually prefer the 1-4/ 4-1 load where the 1 is an elective course. However, the office hour requirement is why this is preferred here. 

 
 

[rear_view_mirror]

Regarding:
"because the assumption that a semester with a heavy teaching load means that teaching quality suffers is not necessarily true either."
I guess the argument that adjuncts are not effective teachers is being challenged.

[compdoc]

Regarding:
"because the assumption that a semester with a heavy teaching load means that teaching quality suffers is not necessarily true either."
I guess the argument that adjuncts are not effective teachers is being challenged.

As an adjunct, and, I believe, an effective teacher, I had to jump in this discussion. If the issue is a 5-0 versus a 2-3, the teaching can be done well. If it's a 2-0 versus a 1-1, obviously it can be done well. It's when you are teaching 6-6-3 for years on end that the teaching drops, because very few people have that much energy.

[hegemony]

My department has done something like this.  Under some regimes it's been allowable, and then we have regime change and they nix it, and then we have another regime change and they allow it again.

What I can say is that it works best if the prof has the smallest number of preps possible (e.g. for five courses, three would be sections of course A and two would be sections of course B).  And the administration is happiest when this does not distort what the department would otherwise be offering.  So instead of everyone teaching one section of "Introduction to Basketweaving" and everyone teaching one section of "Basketweaving for Non-Majors," Professor Alberts gets all the sections of "Introduction to Basketweaving" and Professor Billingsley gets all the sections of "Basketweaving for Non-Majors."  Not Professor Albert suddenly getting five sections of "My Favorite Specialty Course" so he doesn't have to have multiple preps.