Faculty Workload: Implementing a Strategy for Assessing Faculty Utilization. AIR 1992 Annual Forum Paper.
Gespeichert in:
| Titel: | Faculty Workload: Implementing a Strategy for Assessing Faculty Utilization. AIR 1992 Annual Forum Paper. |
|---|---|
| Sprache: | English |
| Autoren: | Hopper, Lisa King |
| Peer Reviewed: | N |
| Page Count: | 16 |
| Publikationsdatum: | 1992 |
| Publikationsart: | Reports - Descriptive Speeches/Meeting Papers |
| Descriptors: | Data Analysis, Data Collection, Data Interpretation, Database Design, Databases, Evaluation Methods, Faculty Workload, Full Time Faculty, Higher Education, Noninstructional Responsibility, Productivity, Staff Utilization, Teacher Responsibility, Working Hours |
| Abstract: | This conference paper presents a description of how faculty workloads are assessed for fiscal and other purposes at Northern Arizona University (NAU). Following a discussion of workload issues, the paper examines: (1) definition of workload; (2) methodology for data collection; (3) development of a faculty full-time equivalency database and two linking databases on faculty demographics and course offerings; (4) usefulness of the workload data for assessing instructional productivity, instructional activity, noninstructional activity, and other areas in which the data can be used; (5) challenges and pitfalls; and (6) alternative methods such as self-reported surveys, time-based analysis and expectation/accomplishment documents. A conclusion lists elements that are important to consider in developing a system similar to the NAU system. (JB) |
| Entry Date: | 1993 |
| Dokumentencode: | ED349853 |
| Datenbank: | ERIC |
| Abstract: | This conference paper presents a description of how faculty workloads are assessed for fiscal and other purposes at Northern Arizona University (NAU). Following a discussion of workload issues, the paper examines: (1) definition of workload; (2) methodology for data collection; (3) development of a faculty full-time equivalency database and two linking databases on faculty demographics and course offerings; (4) usefulness of the workload data for assessing instructional productivity, instructional activity, noninstructional activity, and other areas in which the data can be used; (5) challenges and pitfalls; and (6) alternative methods such as self-reported surveys, time-based analysis and expectation/accomplishment documents. A conclusion lists elements that are important to consider in developing a system similar to the NAU system. (JB) |
|---|