INSTITUTIONAL EFFECTIVENESS BRIEF Delaware Study of Faculty Costs and Productivity, 2008-09 March 2010 Report The University of Scranton Planning Office www.scranton.edu/planning
Background Significant resources are devoted to measuring faculty workload within higher education. The University of Scranton is no different than any higher learning institution; we want to know how our faculty members spend their time. In efforts to learn about faculty workload on campus, and how it may or may not be comparable to peer universities, in 2008-09 the University of Scranton participated in the Delaware Study of Faculty Workload. Increases in student populations (both in number and variety) have increased faculty numbers, and increasing public scrutiny of higher education has led many institutions to focus on how they can best demonstrate the quality of the learning experience they offer students. Several large institutional surveys exist to help colleges and universities gather data and information to explore issues of faculty productivity, including the HERI Faculty Survey 1, the National Study of Postsecondary Faculty 2, and The Delaware Study of Instructional Costs and Productivity. The Delaware Study The Delaware Study measures and compares instructional costs and productivity by academic discipline 3, by highest degree awarded in the discipline, the undergraduate/graduate program mix for the discipline, and by benchmarking categories, which are determined by institutional Carnegie classifications. The University of Scranton is classified as a comprehensive institution, master s colleges and university medium programs. Catalogued into four major data categories, the study measures: (1) percentages of faculty types teaching undergraduate and graduate courses within individual disciplines; (2) percentage of time spent teaching undergraduate and graduate courses by faculty types within individual disciplines; (3) student credit hours and number of students taught by faculty types within individual disciplines; and (4) instruction costs per full time equivalent student within each discipline 4. The Delaware Study was completed in 2008-09 as part of a collaborative effort between the Offices of Institutional Research and Planning, the division of Academic Affairs, and with the support of Information Technology Development & Applications. The survey captures faculty data for fall 2007. Using the University s institutional peer, competitor, and aspirant list, the Planning Office identified a group of ten (10) similar schools 5 for institutional comparison. Data and reports were distributed to participating institutions in fall 2009. 1 The University of Scranton takes part in this survey roughly every three years, most recently in the 2004-05 academic year. The University is scheduled to administer this survey again in 2010-11. 2 The University of Scranton has not completed this survey in the past. 3 The U.S. Department of Education Classification of Instructional (CIP) codes are used to categorize and compare academic programs across institutions. 4 An FTE is a full-time equivalent student. This figure is derived by computing the sum of full-time and part-time students divided by a fraction of one-third. 5 This group includes: Creighton University, Gonzaga University, Ithaca College, James Madison University, John Carroll University, Le Moyne College, Lehigh University, Saint Joseph s University, Seattle University, and Wilkes University.
Key Data Points The first category of the Delaware Study measures percentages of tenure/tenure track faculty teaching both undergraduate and graduate courses during fall 2007. To focus analysis, this report identifies programs that are on the low or high end of the spectrum of programs 6. Percentage lows are defined as any percentage that is below 50%; percentage highs are those above 70%. I. Percent of Faculty Teaching Undergraduate and Graduate Courses, fall 2007 Within our institution and amongst the peer group, low percentages of tenure/tenure track faculty teaching undergraduate and graduate courses were found in the several disciplines: Table 1: Low percentages of tenure/tenure track faculty teaching courses within program, Scranton % Tenure/Tenure Track Faculty Teaching Counseling Psychology 38% undergraduate, 46% graduate Health and Medical Administration 40% undergraduate Nursing 23% graduate History 39% graduate Table 2: Low percentages of tenure/tenure track faculty teaching courses within program, Peer Group % Tenure/Tenure Track Faculty Teaching Linguistic, Comparative, and Relative Language 33% undergraduate Studies Education 47% graduate Health and Physical Education/Fitness 37% undergraduate At the University of Scranton, high percentages of tenure/tenure track faculty teaching courses are within the following disciplines: Table 3: High percentages of tenure/tenure track faculty teaching courses within program, Scranton % Tenure/Tenure Track Faculty Teaching Computer and Information Sciences Health and Physical Education/Fitness Religion/Religious Studies Chemistry Criminal Justice and Corrections 91% undergraduate Management Science and Quantitative Methods and undergraduate 6 For data on a particular program, contact the Institutional Research or Planning Office.
Within our peer group, the following disciplines have the highest percentages of tenure/tenure track faculty teaching: Table 4: High percentages of tenure/tenure track faculty teaching courses within program, Peer Group % Tenure/Tenure Track Faculty Teaching Philosophy Religion/Religious Studies 97% graduate Chemistry 71% undergraduate Physics Business Administration 73% graduate, 71% undergraduate II. Percentage of time spent teaching courses by tenure/tenure track faculty, fall 2007. This category measures the percent of time tenure/tenure track faculty spend teaching graduate and undergraduate courses. Notable are those disciplines in which there is less than 50% difference between the graduate and undergraduate level. Within the University of Scranton, three programs show notable results; two programs within the overall peer group show small gaps: Table 5: <50% gap between percentages of time spent teaching graduates, undergraduates: Scranton % Time Teaching graduate, % Difference between graduate, undergraduate courses undergraduate teaching Counseling Psychology 56% graduate, 44% undergraduate 12% difference Health and Medical 73% graduate, 27% undergraduate 46% difference Administrative Services Rehabilitation and Therapeutic 67% graduate, 33% undergraduate 34% difference Services Table 6: <50% gap between percentages of time spent teaching graduates, undergraduates: Peer Group % Time Teaching graduate, undergraduate courses % Difference between graduate, undergraduate teaching Computer and Information 37% graduate, 78% 41% difference Sciences undergraduate Education 66% graduate, 51% undergraduate 15% difference III. Total undergraduate and graduate student credit hours (SCH) 7 taught by tenure/tenure track faculty and average FTE students taught by tenure/tenure track faculty 8. For the University of Scranton, the highest numbers of of SCH taught by tenure/tenure track faculty at the University can be found in the following programs: 7 A student credit hours is the credit value of a course (typically 3 or 4 credits) multiplied by the enrollment in the course. 8 See Appendix 1 for a comprehensive listing of SCH, FTE, and Costs data for each of the programs reported by the University of Scranton.
Table 7: Most SCH taught by tenure/tenure track, undergraduates: Scranton Philosophy 286 SCH Psychology 314 SCH History 278 SCH Criminal Justice & Corrections 271 SCH 323 SCH SCH Taught It is also within these programs that averages of FTE students taught by tenure/tenure track faculty are highest: Table 8: Most FTE taught by tenure/tenure track, Scranton Philosophy 19.1 FTE Psychology 20.9 FTE History 18.7 FTE Criminal Justice & Corrections 18.1 FTE 16.3 FTE FTE Taught For our peer group, the highest amounts of student credit hours are within in the following programs: Table 9: Most SCH taught by tenure/tenure track, undergraduates: Peer Group SCH Taught 284 SCH Business Administration 238 SCH Finance & Financial Mgmt Services 223 SCH Accounting & Related Services 218 SCH Mathematics 217 SCH It is within these same programs that our averages rank highest for FTE students taught by tenure/tenure track faculty: Table 10: Most FTE taught by tenure/tenure track, undergraduates: Peer Group FTE Taught 19.7 FTE Business Administration 17.7 FTE Accounting & Related Services 16.1 FTE Finance & Financial Mgmt Services 16.3 FTE Mathematics 14.5 FTE Averaging at 13.8 FTE, the nursing program has the lowest average of FTE students taught by tenure/tenure track faculty within the University; low peer group averages are found in the
Linguistic, Comparative, and Related Studies (9 FTE) and Drama/Theatre Arts & Stagecraft (8.6 FTE) disciplines. IV. Percent of tenure/tenure track faculty within each academic discipline by CIP code and direct instructional costs the University incurs per FTE student. Tables 11 through 14 shows the programs with the highest and lowest percent of tenure/tenure track faculty for the 2007 2008 academic year for the University; there is no peer comparison for the first part of this category. The University of Scranton s institutional average of tenure/tenure track faculty is 67.06%. Disciplines with the highest percentages of tenure/tenure track faculty are: Table 10: Highest percent tenure/tenure track faculty, Scranton Criminal Justice & Corrections 93% Management Sciences and Quantitative Methods 100% % Tenure/Tenure Track Faculty The disciplines with the lowest percentages of tenure/tenure track faculty at the University are: Table 11: Lowest percent tenure/tenure track faculty, Scranton Communication and Media Studies 39% Physics 46% % Tenure/Tenure Track At the University, direct instructional costs per FTE student at University are highest within: Table 12: Highest direct instructional costs per FTE, Scranton Physics $10,854.00 Rehabilitation and Therapeutic Services $9,453.00 Cost Costs per FTE student are lowest within: Table 13: Lowest direct instructional costs per FTE, Scranton Religion/Religious Studies $4,730.00 History $4,460.00 Peer group averages are highest within the following disciplines: Table 14: Highest direct instructional costs per FTE, Peer Group Computer and Information Sciences $12,795.00 Drama/Theatre Arts and Stagecraft $9,962.00 Peer group average costs are lowest within the following disciplines: Table 15: Lowest direct instructional costs per FTE, Peer Group Philosophy $4,709.00 History $4,544.00 Cost Costs Costs
Overall Findings: The Delaware Study collects a large quantity of data related to faculty workload and productivity. The tables in the previous pages present an overview of areas with the highest/lowest percent of tenure/tenure track faculty engaged in instruction, programs with highest/lowest FTE and SCH taught by tenure/tenure track faculty, and highest and lowest direct instructional costs associated with academic departments. Though this paper offers an overview of findings, detailed information on specific programs is available. One of the limitations of the study is that it presents self-selected peer comparison data (and Carnegie classification normative comparisons) in a masked, aggregate format; that is, although we know the institutions who are part of the peer group, we do not know which specific institutions data are included in particular metrics within the report. Though masked comparisons are typical in benchmarking projects, and do offer value for institutional comparison purposes, given the wide variety of programs offered by the institutions within the group, it is difficult to make useful comparisons that are useful on a programmatic basis. Individual programs/colleges may have their own peer groups, which can make broad analysis challenging. Questions to consider in determining whether to repeat this study: 1. The Delaware Study provides extensive, detailed information on several specific areas related to faculty workload and productivity. However, are these the right metrics for us to look at for the purpose of institutional analysis? Might other data be more appropriate? In addition, the turnover rate of data in the Delaware Study leaves us with information that is two to three years old. Given the schedule of data needed by the Office of the Provost, creating a process for standard, annual release of departmental faculty workload data may create a stronger foundation for data-based decision making. In addition, the data reported by the Delaware Study is only as good as the data we are able to pull from our enterprise data systems. We must be consistent in the definitions of data used within Banner to be sure we are creating accurate data of record for standard reporting. 2. One of the selling points of the study is its ability to offer peer comparisons. However, due to the masked nature of peer comparisons, and the considerably large groupings of Carnegie-based comparison groups, making program-to-program comparisons is difficult. In addition, as participation in the study is voluntary, institutions that academic programs might ordinarily consider peers/competitors/aspirants may not have taken part. 3. Many other institutions have made the analysis of faculty workload and productivity data a priority along with the gathering of the types of data that are used in tenure process decisions (most particularly scholarly and service activity), and have devised internal methods to collect this data. Though benchmarking with other institutions may be done, it is the deep analysis of program costs and performance that is of highest importance. The Institutional Research Office has already built a system for academic departments to view data regarding their program 9 for the purpose of planning, assessment, etc. We may consider producing enhanced internal reporting processes, relying on the data of record that exists in our own enterprise data systems, to provide data consistent with that reported by the Delaware Study, but on a more regular and current basis, as other universities have done. 9 This system currently includes the following data points by academic program: number of faculty, average student age, student gender, student residency, number of students by class level, class size by course, average term credits, degree completions, number of majors, number of new freshmen, number of new graduate students (if applicable), average QPI, average undergraduate SAT score.
For more information on the Delaware Study, contact the Planning Office at planning@scranton.edu.
FTE, SCH, and Costs: University of Scranton s *SCH = Student Credit Hours **FTE = Full Time Equivalent CIP Discipline Total SCH* Taught by FTE** Faculty Average FTE Students Taught by FTE Faculty Direct Instructional Cost per FTE Student 9.01 Communication and Media Studies 221 14.7 $ 4,480.00 11.01 Computer and Information Sciences, General 146 10.3 $ 7,845.00 13.01 Education, General 164 12.1 $ 5,962.00 16.01 Linguistic, Comparative, and Related Language Studies 159 10.6 $ 6,652.00 23.01 English, Language and Literature, General 160 10.7 $ 6,165.00 26.01 Biology, General 227 15.2 $ 6,210.00 27.01 Mathematics 207 13.8 $ 6,447.00 31.05 Health and Physical Education/Fitness 153 10.3 $ 4,925.00 38.01 Philosophy 286 19.1 $ 4,572.00 38.02 Religion/Religious Studies 228 15.5 $ 4,370.00 40.05 Chemistry 201 14.4 $ 6,974.00 40.08 Physics 172 11.5 $ 10,854.00 42.01 Psychology, General 314 20.9 $ 4,736.00 42.06 Counseling Psycholoy 126 11.5 $ 4,560.00 43.01 Criminal Justice and Corrections 271 18.1 $ 4,698.00 45.06 232 16.3 $ 5,609.00 45.1 Political Science and Government 197 13.1 $ 6,869.00 51.07 Health and medical Administrative Services 141 14 $ 5,326.00 51.16 Nursing 117 8.4 $ 8,937.00 51.23 Rehabilitation and Theraputic Professions 124 12 $ 9,453.00 52.02 Business Administration, Management and Operations 190 13.7 $ 6,253.00 52.03 Accounting and Related Services 200 14 $ 5,753.00 52.13 Management Sciences and Quantitative Methods 209 14.9 $ 8,434.00 54.01 History 278 18.7 $ 4,460.00 99.99 INSTITUTIONAL TOTALS/AVERAGES 196 13.8 $ 5,983.00