18.009: Faculty Responsibility and Evaluation
June 25, 1994
Issued by David Stewart
The purpose of this policy is to comply with the faculty workload policy requirement of Am. Sub. H.B. 152, Sec. 84.14 and Sec. 3345.45 as interpreted by the Report of the Regents' Advisory Committee on Faculty Workload Standards and Guidelines.
History and Rationale
Under the formula funding models adopted by the Ohio Board of Regents, Ohio University receives student instructional subsidy on the basis of students taught. Funding from the state and tuition fees covering the costs of instruction and general expenses are driven by enrollment by level. By extension, any group of faculty, departments, or colleges not fully supported by these sources of income are dependent on other groups of faculty, departments, or colleges exceeding the minimum number of students taught required to sustain the program. The intent of this policy is not to require the same level and type of activity of every faculty member but to recognize that differentiation of roles is necessary to allow departments to carry out their mission.
Distribution of Effort
Teaching, research, and service, each broadly defined, constitute the three major areas of faculty responsibility. The educational responsibility of faculty includes more than the hours directly spent in classroom instruction and scholarship. Other factors to be considered are class preparation; grading and other forms of evaluation of students' work; thesis and dissertation direction; academic advising of students; laboratory, studio, or practicum requirements; size of classes; availability and use of teaching assistants. Service includes assistance to the public and the profession and the community in the form of professional activities external to the University. Research includes a variety of professional, scholarly, and creative activities. At its best, these three dimensions of faculty effort are mutually reinforcing. In the language of Ernest Boyer (Scholarship Reconsidered, p. 77), the goal is to support "scholars who not only skillfully explore the frontiers of knowledge, but also integrate ideas, connect thought to action, and inspire students."
Quantitative standards for teaching, research, and service may be weighted for individual faculty upon recommendation of chairs and directors and approval by the dean to reflect the particular strengths and interest of faculty. For example, a faculty member may have a higher percentage of effort directed toward teaching, with a corresponding decrease in research and service expectations. Faculty with major research commitments may negotiate reductions in the other areas of faculty responsibility in order to devote more effort to research or scholarly and creative activities.
College and Departmental Responsibility for Policies
Following the Board of Regents' document, Faculty Workload: Standards & Guidelines, each college, or equivalent unit having permanent faculty, shall develop a policy on faculty workload that will allow for differentiation of mission for departments and schools within the college and for faculty within the departments and schools. The college policy should allow for flexibility and for ranges in teaching, research, scholarship, creative activity, and service expectations. The college document shall be developed in consultation with chairs/directors or a faculty advisory committee and be subject to approval by the provost.
In line with the narrative criteria prescribed by the college guidelines, each department, school or equivalent unit will develop a workload policy that insures that the department or school meets the Board of Regents standards that are appropriate to its mission. Within the department or school there may be significant differences in the assignment of responsibilities to individual faculty members so long as the department or school is able to meet its responsibilities for instruction.
Departmental and school policies are subject to approval by the college dean. In general, it is expected that the mission of the academic unit will determine the relative balance of teaching to research/scholarship/creative activity and public service. Units with an associate degree or two-year programs will be expected to devote 80-90 percent of effort to teaching. Programs with a baccalaureate program only will devote 70-80 percent of effort to teaching. Departments with an active masters program will be expected to devote 60-70 percent departmental workload to teaching. Departments with active doctoral programs will be expected to devote 50-60 percent of departmental workload to teaching.
Each college, or equivalent unit having faculty, will develop faculty workload guidelines in line with the standards of this policy. These guidelines will reflect the fact that a well articulated statement of faculty workload will allow individual faculty, the academic unit, and its college to understand how each contributes to the accomplishment of the University's mission.
For regular Group I faculty participating in normal University activities including student advising, course preparation and curriculum revision, professional development activities, and participation in University, college, and departmental governance, a typical teaching load should be no more than 12 credit hours. Adjustments in teaching loads will take into account faculty teaching large class sections, classes with an unusually large number of contact hours relative to credit hours, faculty teaching more advanced classes, number of different preparations, direction of special studies, direction of graduate research, demonstrable programs of research, scholarship, grant writing, creative activity, special administrative duties, and other factors important to fulfilling the educational mission of a Research II University.
For part-time or non-tenure eligible teaching faculty (Group II and Group III), the full-time equivalency would be based on 15 credit hours in that these faculty do not normally participate in the other activities listed above. Adjustments to this equivalency may be given for several of the special cases listed above. The teaching assignments of Group IV faculty will be determined on a case-by-case basis referencing the above distinctions.
The standards for quantitative assessment of faculty teaching activity are tied to the Ohio Board of Regents (OBOR) staffing and funding models. This model includes a course classification system through which each course taught at a state college or university is placed in one of fourteen program levels ranging from general I to doctoral II. In order to compare the teaching activity of faculty members teaching at these various levels, the University will use ratios or weights reflecting the differing staffing assumptions of these levels and expressed in terms of weighted student credit hours (WSCH). These staffing assumptions may be adjusted to reflect actual funding of the OBOR model and used to measure how effectively the unit is serving its mission.
Where appropriate, at the college level, deans, in consultation with department chairs/directors may use measures other than WSCH analyses in determining appropriate staffing and funding levels in line with the Board of Regents funding model. In annual reports supplied by the provost the extent of departmental teaching may be measured by one or a combination of three standards: (1) number of credit hours taught, (2) annual student credit hours taught, or (3) annual students credit hours taught weighted by the Regents' funding model depending on the mission of the college.
Although quantitative evaluation is necessary, it can only be effective when accompanied by qualitative review as well. Qualitative evaluation of faculty will commence with peer review as described in the Faculty Handbook (II.E. 1): "Annually, departmental chairpersons shall evaluate all members of their faculty with regard to salary. Each chairperson shall employ a departmental committee or committees in the evaluation process, which shall conform to the department's established written procedures. This evaluation process must result in recommendations with respect to salary increases for all faculty."
Both the quantitative and qualitative assessments described above will be used by deans in approving distribution of merit pay and by the provost in allocation of resources.