Accomplishments

As discussed above, Michigan Tech has been successful in accomplishing its goal of attracting and retaining excellent faculty. Our commitment to undergraduate teaching, graduate education, and research has meant that our moderately sized faculty have had to learn to balance teaching, research, and service, rather than rely on a division of labor in which some faculty concentrate on teaching while others focus on research. Appropriate teaching loads, opportunities for professional development, shared governance, and adequate compensation all support this balance and encourage faculty retention. Michigan Tech is improving in providing professional development opportunities and shared governance, and needs to continue to refine its evaluation and feedback processes for consistency across departments.

Balancing Teaching and Research

Michigan Tech serves the students and the public well by placing its most qualified faculty in the undergraduate classroom. We do not rely heavily on either non-tenure-track faculty, adjunct faculty, or graduate students to teach classes. In 1995/96, tenured/tenure-track faculty taught about 80% of our classes (excluding laboratory sections, which are often taught by graduate students who are supervised by faculty). Laboratory sections involve significant numbers of section credit hours; on a credit-hour basis, tenured/tenure-track faculty teach 66% of total section credit hours.

TABLE 12. Section Credit Hours Taught (000–400 Level) by Rank, 1995/96.

	Course Offering								Total
	Lecture		Recitation		Laboratory		Research
Rank	#	%	#	%	#	%	#	%	#	%
Tenured/ Tenure- Track	420	83	4,122	75	652	33	795	80	5,989	66
Instructor/ Lecturer	76	15	693	13	320	16	92	9	1,181	13
Graduate Student	3	1	594	10	889	44	56	6	1,542	17
Other	6	1	130	2	145	7	50	5	331	4
Total	505	100	5,539	100	2,006	100	993	100	9,043	100

Source: Institutional Analysis

This compares favorably to other institutions in Michigan. According to the 1996 State of Michigan Performance Survey, Michigan Tech has the least number of credit hours taught by graduate students among the research/doctoral universities, and among the highest number taught by ranked faculty. At Clarkson, a benchmark institution with fewer graduate programs, tenured/tenure-track faculty teach 62% of undergraduate credit hours.

The average teaching load for tenured/tenure-track faculty at Michigan Tech is 9.8 credit hours per quarter, or 526 student credit hours (credit hours X number of students) per year. This is a significant reduction from 1989 when faculty averaged 673 credit hours annually. Consistent with our commitment to balance between teaching and research, these workloads are generally heavier than many research institutions, but lighter than many teaching institutions. However, teaching workloads are not discussed in most departmental charters, nor are they consistently considered for evaluation purposes. Although the University clearly advocates balance between teaching and research, and the pattern of promotion and tenure decisions under the current administration reveals examples of tenure denial for poor teaching performance and tenure or promotion for excellent teaching, the Faculty Survey revealed that 67% of respondents still believed that research was rewarded more than teaching. One of the ways this perception is being addressed is the recent revision of Form F for tenure and promotion to include more evidence of teaching accomplishment.

Information for evaluating teaching is inadequate. Student evaluations of teaching are required of all faculty, but peer review of teaching is voluntary and inconsistently used. Students appear reasonably satisfied with Michigan Tech faculty, rating them University-wide an average of 4.1 on a 5-point scale. Nonetheless, neither students, faculty, nor administrators find the current evaluation instrument satisfactory. One of the first tasks of the new CTLFD (Center for Teaching, Learning, and Faculty Development) was to pilot a new instrument for student evaluation of teaching (see Chapter 3 and [2.6F1]) which will provide enhanced feedback based on national norms. The new instrument was endorsed by the University Senate in 1997. The CTLFD will also provide other services to improve teaching performance. Finally, learning outcomes assessment will provide faculty better indicators of student learning that will enable teaching improvement.

Specific faculty accomplishments in undergraduate teaching, graduate education, and research are discussed in Chapters 3, 7, and 8 respectively.

Faculty Development

• The Center for Teaching, Learning, and Faculty Development. Established in 1996, with a full-time Director and Assistant Director (see Chapter 3 and [2.6F1]).
• Orientation Programs. New faculty orientation programs have improved since 1995. University-wide orientation begins one week before fall classes begin, and some departments also hold orientations. A series of well-attended seminars organized by an ad hoc faculty group during 1995/96 addressed teaching, research, and the tenure process. In 1996, the CTLFD assumed responsibility for orientation.
• Internal Grants. The Vice Provost for Research reestablished "creativity" grants in 1995, now called Faculty Scholarship Grants ($70,000 annually), and administers the REF (see Chapter 8 for details on initiatives to develop research). The CTLFD now administers Faculty Development Grants ($11,000 annually) which support teaching improvement, curricular reform, visits by outside scholars to campus, and other avenues for faculty development. Funding in both programs is inadequate to meet faculty requests and continued improvements need to be made.
• Sabbatical Leaves. Although our sabbatical leave policy is adequate and comparable to other research universities [1.2A1], it appears to be underutilized. Only 3%–4% of eligible faculty took sabbaticals in 1990–95, and most took less than a year, citing financial constraints and relocation as impediments. A survey, a task force, and a University Senate committee [5.2B] have all recently addressed this issue, but no action has yet been taken.

Although University-wide initiatives are important to faculty development, the decentralized nature of academic activity suggests that departments should play a key role in faculty development. Mentoring of junior faculty is largely informal, and departmental self-studies rarely mention it. Formal mentoring should be done more consistently by departments, and informal mentoring should be encouraged and rewarded. Departmental self-studies consistently report financial constraints on SS&E (supplies, services, and equipment) budgets for providing travel funds, staff support, and copying; in response, these budgets will increase by an average of 4% in 1997.

Like many institutions, we have not tried to assess how our faculty develop over time, or identified patterns or cycles of growth. However, despite a commonly expressed concern about senior faculty plateauing or becoming ineffective, departmental self-studies show that senior faculty have played key roles in developing new degree programs and continue to develop new research programs.

Governance

University administration has made a commitment to shared governance with faculty and staff (see Chapter 2). Three accomplishments which reflect progress toward shared governance are the new University Senate constitution, positive faculty evaluation of upper administration, and the establishment of departmental charters.

After a two year trial period, in 1997 the University Senate ratified a new constitution, which was approved by the Board of Control [2.6I3]. Formerly representing primarily faculty, the new Senate represents both faculty and professional staff more equitably. Because each unit has a Senator and alternate, and both serve on at least one Senate committee, 42 tenurable faculty members participate in governance through the Senate. The new constitution provides a clear and detailed list of areas in which the Senate has policy-making advising and advisory power, and outlines the procedures for submitting proposals to the University administration and time limits for response. Procedures for conducting faculty-wide referenda are also outlined, and were utilized several times during the 1996/97 trial period for the new constitution. Communication between faculty, staff, and the administration has improved since the trial period began.

In addition, in 1994, the University Senate passed a policy and procedure for regular faculty evaluation of the upper administration. The first evaluation was completed in 1996. Upper administration received positive ratings from approximately 75% of the faculty, a reversal of the findings in the 1991 Report of the Commission to Evaluate the Upper Administration [5.3E1] in which 72% of respondents did not believe that upper administration as a whole encouraged dialogue with the faculty and staff, and 75% did not believe that they encouraged open discussion and debate when establishing institutional goals and objectives.

In 1992/93, the University Senate authorized the establishment of departmental charters for every department. The charter is the central document which guides departmental governance, and includes written policies on appointment, promotion, and tenure of faculty; grievances; committee structure and internal governance; and department chairs. Every department now has an approved charter. However, a review of departmental charters reveals that not all departments have policies in all areas of concern to faculty.

Of particular interest for shared governance are procedures in the charters for the selection, appointment, evaluation, and reappointment of department chairs. Previously, departments had "heads" and faculty involvement in selection was limited to informal solicitation of opinions. Now, departments have "chairs" and faculty are formally involved in the selection process, as well as in evaluation for reappointment. This suggests that chairs are accountable to faculty as well as the administration. The majority of department chairs have been selected under the new procedures, which appear to have a favorable reception from faculty.

Service

Michigan Tech faculty are actively involved in service to the University and their departments, as detailed on their curricula vitae. Both assessment and accreditation have been faculty-driven. In this University Self-Study alone, 44 tenured/tenure-track faculty participated at a significant level. Search committees, task forces, standing committees, and ad hoc committees have taken considerable amounts of faculty time over the past decade as a new administrative team and a new faculty have been assembled.

Our faculty are also actively involved in service to their professions. Many faculty contribute to professional organizations as officers or committee members, and serve on professional journal editorial boards. They are also elected to public boards.

Compensation

In the 1996/97 Faculty Salary Survey conducted by Oklahoma State [8.4A], Michigan Tech was behind in compensation by 10% compared to its regional reference group. This is an improvement from 1992/93 when we were 13% behind, and can be attributed to the priority given to faculty salaries in the budget process. University administration tracks faculty salaries by discipline against benchmark institutions, and in 1992/93 it conducted a salary equity study, which found no significant disparities by gender. Periodically funds are targeted to address significant deficiencies.

Michigan Tech’s medical benefits are extensive and premiums are fully paid by the University. A flexible benefits plan was instituted in 1996. In 1997, the University offered to increase its contribution to TIAA-CREF retirement accounts with the introduction of a 1% matching program (planned to go to 2% in 1998/99). The University currently contributes 10.55% of salary. Employees who enroll in the matching program and thereby contribute 1% of their salary will receive 11.55% from the University, for a total retirement contribution of 12.55%. The University allocated a 1% salary increase in 1997/98 which employees could elect to use for their contribution. This matching program was designed to replace a retirees health benefits program adopted by the Board of Control in 1992. That plan will be phased out over a ten year period in recognition of the increase in the TIAA-CREF contributions. Michigan Tech also provides a variety of other benefits which include the newly approved Tuition Reduction Incentive Program (50% tuition reduction for employees’ spouses and dependent children).

The merit pay process for all tenurable faculty is clearly defined in the departmental charters. Most departments have explicit statements of merit pay criteria that reflect the mission of teaching and research. However, service is not always adequately considered in decisions about merit pay, teaching load, or promotion. This may be a weakness in an era emphasizing decentralized assessment of learning and participation in strategic planning. Faculty will need realistic teaching loads and rewards for these services.

NEXT