Standard Five

Faculty

Faculty Role in the University's Mission

Faculty efforts are central to the success of any university. Such success is enhanced as the qualifications, numbers, and performance of the faculty improve. However, success must also be judged in the context of the institution's mission and the demands that that mission makes on faculty. (5.1)

The University of Connecticut, founded in 1881, is a Land and Sea Grant institution with a commitment to teaching, research, and service in the interests of the citizens of the state. It is the only educational institution in Connecticut combining a Land-Grant mandate with research university responsibilities, and it is the only doctoral degree granting public institution in the state, other than a targeted Ed.D. program in the Connecticut State University system. Further, it has Schools of Medicine and Dentistry. Thus the range of its programs and activities is especially broad and poses special challenges to its faculty.

With regard to teaching, the University offers graduate, professional, and extended and continuing education programs, and has a particularly important responsibility to undergraduates. On the one hand, the University seeks to help students achieve their career goals in such professional areas as agriculture, allied health, applied genomics, business, education, engineering, family studies, nursing, performing arts, social work and pharmacy; on the other hand, the University is committed to promoting intellectual growth, personal development, and responsible citizenship through an education grounded in the liberal arts and sciences and enhanced by meaningful co-curricular activities.

What qualifications do faculty bring to the task of education, and what indicators do we have of performance? The vast majority of full-time faculty in fall 2005 (93%) hold the Ph.D. or appropriate terminal degree for their field, and regularly conducted evaluations of undergraduate courses consistently show solid ratings for faculty teaching across all schools and colleges, with a slight but perceptible improving trend. From fall 1995 through spring of 2006, overall student ratings of specific aspects of faculty teaching ranged, on an average, from roughly 8.0 to 9.0 on a ten-point scale. Other indicators of strong faculty teaching performance may be found in the annual survey of alumni conducted six months after graduation. Among 1,365 graduates, ninety-six percent of survey respondents said they would recommend the University of Connecticut to others planning to attend college. In the same survey, alumni satisfaction with the quality of instruction has remained steady over the last ten years, ranging from a high of roughly 5.8 (on a 7-point) scale for courses in the major to 5.0 for general education courses.

Scholarship is the underpinning of vital teaching. The University of Connecticut faculty is clearly an active and productive scholarly body. Details of scholarship productivity of academic units have been collected in Annual Reports to the Provost for the past fifteen years. The cumulative reports show a high level of scholarly activity. See Appendix 5.1 for the Provost’s Academic Planning Model. Established metrics have also been used as part of the College/School profile for the annual budget hearings. See Section 7 of the 2006 Board of Trustees Budget Workshop workbook for the latest College/ School profile.

Scholarship and research are also reflected in the grant-getting activities of University of Connecticut faculty. Over the last fiscal year ending June 30, 2006, there were 502 different individuals at Storrs and the Regional Campuses who submitted 1,378 grant proposals. During this time period, there were 928 active awards. A substantial number of grant proposal submissions and grant awards also occur annually at the Health Center. Grants from all campuses, including the Health Center, in fiscal year 2005 brought in $184 million, seventy-eight percent of it from federal sources, seven percent from state sources, and fifteen percent from private and other sources. Since there are a number of fields (e.g. philosophy or foreign language) in which funding is very limited, this represents an unusually high level of proposal submission and success. As a result, the University of Connecticut ranks seventy-fourth out of six-hundred and one institutions of higher education in the U.S. in FY 2004 research and development funds expended, and fifty-second among public universities. These rankings are all the more impressive given University of Connecticut's relatively small size among public universities.

University of Connecticut faculty serve, both nationally and internationally, as officers of professional societies, editors of professional journals, and members of professional review panels. They contribute to local communities, the state, and the nation.  Metrics on internal service activities (e.g., administration, committee work, and faculty governance) as well as external service activities (e.g., extension, outreach, committee memberships, consultancies, and community service) have been compiled annually by means of the faculty coding sheets for the Academic Planning Model, which has been compiled annually since 1992. Here, as with grant-getting, there are some parts of the University that have a more obvious external service mission than others. Thus, for example, the School of Education collaborates with the Connecticut Departments of Education and Mental Health, the Schools of Engineering and Business Administration have numerous ties to business and industry, and the School of Nursing, together with the Spanish program in Liberal Arts and Sciences, offer training to physical and mental health professionals in the state. The School of Social Work is a major collaborator with the State Department of Social Services and the Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services through over five million dollars of joint programming annually in the areas of professional training and research. The metrics here, as in scholarship, show a consistent level of activity. It should be noted that in 2004, the Board of Trustees adopted formal metrics for appraisal of the academic enterprise at UConn.  Exhibit 5.1 can be found in Tab 7 of the Board of Trustees Budget Workshop Notebook (06.20.06).  Also, the State of Connecticut Department of Higher Education has been compiling Performance Measures data on the University of Connecticut since 1999. For the latest Performance Measures Accountability Report, see www.ctdhe.org/info/pdfs/2006/2006AccountabilityReport.pdf.   These DHE metrics are presented to the General Assembly annually and used by the legislature in budget deliberations.

Faculty Composition, Size and Qualifications

Deployment of the faculty resource at the University of Connecticut is a complex undertaking, given the comprehensive nature of the university, the existence of nine major instructional sites (including the Health Center but excluding the Co-operative Extension centers), and the complexity of instructional, research and outreach programs. Please refer to Exhibit 5.2 for a detailed depiction of the types and deployment of faculty.  The present percentages of categories of faculty including adjuncts are similar to 1995.

Composition
Faculty categories are well-defined in both the Laws, Bylaws and Rules of the University of Connecticut and the AAUP contract that applies to the Storrs and regional campuses (but not the Schools of Law, Medicine & Dentistry) (5.9).  Because the University of Connecticut is a comprehensive institution with an important research and outreach mission, as well as a strong emphasis on undergraduate education, there are different types of faculty, the most common being tenured or tenure-track, instructor and in-residence, as well as special designations such as research, clinical, and extension.  In addition, there are adjunct faculty and graduate teaching assistants. Exhibit 5.2 depicts the numbers of faculty by rank and the various other instructional staff categories at all University of Connecticut locations. (5.1)

The large majority of classroom instruction is provided by full-time faculty, with the assistance of graduate student teaching assistants and adjunct lecturers. The fall 2005 Office of Institutional Research (OIR) data for all sites other than the Health Center, reports the following full-time faculty by tenure status: 791 tenured full-time, 213 untenured tenure-track, and 247 non-tenure-track. For the fall of 2005 at the Health Center, OIR statistics indicate for full-time faculty: 163 tenured full-time, 44 untenured on tenure-track, and 291 non-tenure track.

Teaching assistants usually have obtained, or are in the process of pursuing, graduate study and are usually doctoral students. The classroom instruction provided by graduate teaching assistants is mainly in core courses with large enrollment and multiple sections. These include core courses in the departments of Mathematics, Statistics, Economics, Sociology, the School of Business Administration, and required general education courses in English composition.  Training in teaching and pedagogy is available through the Institute for Teaching and Learning (ITL) for new teaching assistants, and ITL has a special intensive training program for foreign teaching assistants.  

While not all adjunct lecturers have doctoral degrees, most do, or are otherwise professionally qualified. In every case and at all University locations, an adjunct’s credentials must be approved by the department responsible for delivery of the course. Many of the adjunct lecturers teach at the regional campuses, and many have continued for years under this arrangement.  Certain professional schools, notably law and business graduate programs, and the Professional Science Masters programs within CLAS, regularly use adjuncts to teach specialized upper level elective courses. In addition, particularly in the health fields (including the Schools of Medicine, Dentistry and Pharmacy), there are a large number of clinical faculty with adjunct appointments who provide instruction through preceptorships.  The Office of Institutional Research 2005 Health Center data has the following faculty distribution: 164 tenured faculty, 49 tenure-track faculty, 421 non-tenured or tenure-track faculty, creating a total of 634 (498 full-time and 136 part-time).  In addition, Health Center records indicate that 2516 non-paid professionals provide preceptorships and other like student teaching and supervision.  These 2516 faculty include 449 affiliated faculty (School of Medicine – faculty employed eighty percent or greater by an affiliated hospital), 1842 community-based (School of Medicine – faculty in private practice or employed less than eighty percent by an affiliated institution who engage in our teaching missions) and 225 non-paid faculty (School of Dental Medicine).

As mentioned above, there are a variety of types of faculty appointments at the University.  The largest category of faculty at Storrs and regional campuses are tenured (sixty-three percent), which is appropriate for a nationally recognized flagship and research institution dedicated to principles of academic freedom. The Academic Affairs central administration and Deans  have always been wary of using too many teaching assistants and adjuncts in their faculty resource deployment, because these groups typically do not perform the advising, service and outreach functions carried out by full-time faculty.  However, these administrators have had to balance providing instruction to large numbers of students who need a significant learning experience with the University’s mission as a research institution that needs large numbers of research-productive faculty.  The national teaching load norm for research productive tenured and tenure track faculty is typically two courses per semester, or less.  One method for balancing the desire for most teaching to be done by full-time instructional faculty with the need to provide lower teaching loads to research faculty has been the use, on a selected basis, of in-residence faculty.  The term “in-residence faculty” technically means that an individual has all the attributes of a “regular” full-time faculty member, but is not tenured or tenure-track.  This designation is allowed under both the Laws, By-Laws and Rules of the University of Connecticut and the AAUP collective bargaining contract.  There are two types of situations where in-residence appointments have been made at UConn during the self study years. The first type, which has been used for decades and is very common in some parts of the University such as the School of Business, is to appoint a faculty member to a renewable one year “teaching-service” position with a higher teaching load than research faulty, and lesser research and higher service expectations. Under this practice, it is possible for such in-residence faculty to obtain three-year renewable contracts after they have been at the University for five years. An experimental type of in-residence faculty position that has been used in recent years, particularly in the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, to help with the staffing of General Education courses, is a type of post doctoral fellow called a “teaching fellow.” These appointments have been given to newly-minted Ph.D.s who are given a maximum three-year contract (one year appointments that can be renewed no more than twice) and who are expected to have heightened teaching loads (typically three courses per semester) with large numbers of students.  There have been varying degrees of acceptance of the use of in-residence faculty within academic units across the University, and the practice is somewhat controversial.  There is a general consensus within the academic administration and the faculty that overuse of in-residence faculty should be avoided, because they do not have the protection that tenure affords, and because the University of Connecticut is a research institution that needs a strong core of tenured research faculty.

Size

The below table indicates the fluctuating size of the faculty from in selected years between 1995 and 2005.  Due particularly to early retirement incentives, there was a pronounced drop in the number of faculty in 1997.  There was also an overall drop in 2003 due to a retirement incentive, but this diminution was somewhat compensated for by short-term hiring, including a number of “temporary” full time faculty, so that the resultant decrease in faculty was not as severe as in 1997. The fall 2005 faculty number of 1166 for Storrs and the regional campuses depicted below represents a “steady state” on which the Administration request for one hundred and seventy-five new faculty will be built.

Due to a number of factors, including a determined recruitment strategy by Enrollment Management and an increase in the desirability of the UConn brand name, as depicted by the below chart, student enrollments, particularly at Storrs and the regional campuses, rose significantly at the same time faculty numbers were declining.

During the ten years of this self-study, the student-to-faculty ratio has increased due to a substantial enrollment growth coupled with only a modest net increase in faculty.  During the same period, as shown in the below chart, this ratio has varied from a low of 14.21:1 in 1995, to 18.16 in 2003, to 17.21:1 in fall of 2005.

As might be expected, the growth in student enrollments has placed additional burden on the teaching loads of faculty members at the University. While there has been some modest growth in FTE over this six-year period it has not been sufficient to maintain the ratio that existed in 1999.  The target for the University is to return to a ratio of 15:1 which would put us more in line with our peer schools.  The comparison with peer schools can be found in 2006 BOT Budget Workshop Manual. (5.3)

The University has set goals for the enrollments at its Storrs campus as well as the Regional campuses.  The goal has generally been stated based on new freshman enrollments and transfer students.  The goals are as follows:

The following table reflects the changes in these statistics over the last ten years and 2005 data reflect the achievement of these goals (Source: Office of Enrollment Management).

As its reputation and aspirations have increased, the University of Connecticut has modified its peer set.  The average student-to-faculty ratio in fall of 2004 at its present peer institutions is 16:1.  The University’s stated goal, approved by the Board of Trustees, is to achieve a ratio of 15:1, which will bring UCONN to a level comparable to its peers.  Beginning with the 2005 legislative session the University has emphasized as one of its main legislative goals obtaining an operating budget increase to allow the hiring of additional faculty.  While the net number of full-time faculty increased by one hundred and twenty-five between fall 2000 and 2005 assuming the fall 2006 student body size of 20,784 remains stable, the University of Connecticut still needs one hundred and seventy-five more faculty to achieve the goal of a 15:1 student/faculty ratio.

Qualifications
Faculty qualifications at the University of Connecticut are consistent with its status as a leading public research university. For 2005-06, ninety-three percent of full-time faculty at Storrs/Regionals and at the Health Center hold the Ph.D. or appropriate terminal degree for their field. Full-time regional campus faculty are required to meet the same standards of preparation and qualifications as their Storrs counterparts. Although the courses taught by regional campus faculty teach are predominantly freshman- and sophomore-level courses, each campus now has four year degree programs, which have increased the opportunity for faculty there to teach upper level courses.  Also, they often teach a course at the Storrs campus as part of their regular teaching assignments.  In selected areas, where appropriate, “professionally qualified” faculty are utilized.  An example of this type of faculty member is a MBA/CPA teaching accounting courses, or an accredited forensic scientist teaching a forensic DNA typing course. (5.2)

Appraisal
The University of Connecticut utilizes a variety of types of faculty in order to carry out its tripartite mission of teaching, research, and service/outreach.  The qualifications of the faculty are appropriate to the types of activities the individual faculty member is performing.  Use of teaching assistants as a method of graduate student training, and of part-time adjunct faculty is part of the appropriate deployment of the faculty resource.  While the student-to-faculty ratio is well within national norms overall, it is high vis a vis UConn’s identified peers.  If the University of Connecticut is to be successful in its aspirations to be a nationally and internationally recognized research institution, it needs the resources to obtain a student-to-faculty ratio equivalent to its peers.  Since it is not politically feasible to lower the number of students (particularly undergraduates), given the strong demand, the University must strive to increase the number of its faculty.  One potential component of obtaining the desired student to faculty ratio is to utilize more in-residence faculty. Appointment of in-residence faculty is a compromise between use of large numbers of adjuncts and use of expensive lower-teaching load tenured or tenure track faculty.  However, this approach is unpopular with many faculty and academic administrators on campus and must be limited so as to preserve a strong core of tenured faculty dedicated to research.

Projection
The University of Connecticut’s faculty will continue to be top-quality and terminally qualified, with strong contributions to teaching, research and service/outreach.  The stated goal of reducing the student-to-faculty ratio to 15:1 is ambitious, but appears reachable.  Constant re-evaluation of the quality and quantity of the faculty will continue to be one of the highest institutional priorities.

Faculty Selection and Terms and Conditions of Employment

Faculty Recruitment
The recruitment of faculty is initiated at the department level after approval to fill a position has been obtained from the Dean and Provost. The search process is organized by the department in consultation with Human Resources and the Office of Diversity and Equity. This process, which is described on the ODE website (www.ode.uconn.edu), typically includes national advertising in appropriate publications, notices to relevant departments at other research universities, notices to professional organizations supportive of underrepresented groups, and other contacts. The Search Committee reviews the applicants' credentials and identifies the most promising candidates. The short list of candidates invited for campus visits is approved through the Office of Diversity and Equity. In addition to meetings with the Search Committee, Department Head, and Dean, the on-campus interview typically includes a public lecture by the candidate, and/or a demonstration of teaching ability, and meetings with faculty and graduate students. The Search Committee, in consultation with other faculty, recommends the top interviewee for hire to the Department Head, who negotiates with the Dean and others concerning salary and possibly other start-up resources such as space or equipment. An offer is then made to the top candidate, after approval by the Provost’s Office and the Office of Diversity and Equity, spelling out the terms of appointment and any start-up resources.  The terms and conditions of every appointment are stated or confirmed in writing, and a copy of the appointment is supplied to the faculty member. Beginning with appointment to the rank of full-time instructor, the tenure probationary period does not exceed seven years. Until the faculty member has tenure status, he or she is informed each year in writing of his or her reappointment in conformity with published Promotion, Tenure and Reappointment rules. It is possible to provide for one year renewable contracts for in-residence faculty, with the possibility of three year appointments after five years (5.4).

Diversity 
Efforts have been made to ensure a diverse faculty. Of full-time faculty in fall 2005, women constituted 34.6 percent of the faculty and 27.3 percent of tenured faculty; this may be compared to fourteen percent of full-time faculty in 1965, eighteen percent in 1975, twenty percent in 1985, and twenty-six percent in 1995. Minorities (including non-U.S. citizens) constituted 16.70 percent of full-time faculty (Black 3.59 percent, Hispanic 3.67 percent, Asian-American 9.19 percent, Native American 0.23 percent) as of fall 2005. This compares with 5.1 percent minority faculty in 1975, 7.0 percent in 1985, and 12.7 percent in 1995.

University efforts to achieve a diverse faculty are bolstered by a number of units or committees that enjoy administrative or union support, e.g., the African-American Cultural Center, the Asian-American Cultural Center, the Puerto-Rica/Latin American Cultural Center, the Women's Center, the Provost's Commission on the Status of Women, the Vice Provost for Multicultural and International Affairs Advisory Committee.

Diversity has been a central goal of the University of Connecticut for many years.  Its 1995 Strategic Plan, Beyond 2000: Change highlighted the importance of diversity.  In 1999, a new Vice Provostship for Multicultural and International Affairs was created.  This Vice Provost works closely with the Director of Diversity and Equity.  In 2002, the Board of Trustees adopted the Report of the Task Force on Multicultural Affairs.  An important component of this report is strategy for recruiting and retaining minority faculty members.  The report of the Task Force is in Appendix 2.4.  The Vice Provost for Multicultural Affairs makes annual reports to the Board of Trustees on the implementation of the Diversity Plan.  The Office of Diversity and Equity makes annual reports to the Connecticut Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities about the progress in affirmative action hiring.  Since fall 2001, the University has adopted a practice of “opportunity hires,” which allows a Dean or Department Head to be eligible to receive special funding for hiring of underrepresented faculty.

Despite many years of effort, the University's attempts to achieve a diverse faculty have been met with mixed results. Recruitment has proven a challenge, given national factors such as relatively small numbers of minorities with advanced degrees in some fields and local factors such as the somewhat isolated, rural location of Storrs. Retention of those underrepresented faculty at the University is also a challenge, possibly because of the “rural” New England character of the Storrs environs. It is hoped that the development of the Storrs Downtown Center will make the town more attractive to diverse constituencies.  The Vice Provost for Multicultural and International Affairs has been conducting exit interviews with minority faculty who choose to leave the institution to try to identify and address the reasons for their exits.

The first chart below depicts the minority and female composition of the faculty.

The second chart below indicates how the University of Connecticut compares to selected identified peers in regard to numbers of minority faculty.

Academic Freedom
Academic freedom is a cornerstone of the University and is forcefully articulated in the Laws, By-Laws and Rules of the University of Connecticut and AAUP contract. All members of the faculty, whether tenured or not, are entitled to academic freedom set forth in the 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure formulated by the Association of American Colleges and the American Association of University Professors (see the University Laws and By-Laws, XV.B). The faculty member is entitled to full freedom in research and in the publication of results, subject to the adequate performance of his or her other academic duties, but research for pecuniary return is based upon an understanding with the authorities of the University. The faculty member is entitled to freedom in the classroom in treating his or her subject and in conducting a class. (5.13)

Contractual Security, Salary, and Benefits of Faculty
Upon hiring, every faculty member receives a copy of an offer letter that specifies the terms and conditions of his/her employment, including salary, rank, and tenure status and probationary status (if applicable). All of the faculty at Storrs and the regional campuses are represented by the AAUP union. AAUP faculty representatives have negotiated contractual security, salary and benefits with the University administration. A copy of the AAUP collective bargaining contract is contained in Appendix 5.2.  The faculty of the Schools of Law, Medicine and Dentistry are not represented by a collective bargaining agent.  However, in practice, the University extends the same terms and conditions of employment to Law School faculty as to AAUP members at Storrs and the regional campuses. In regard to security, salary and other benefits, state statutes and the Laws and By-Laws of the University of Connecticut bestow a number of rights. (5.6)

As a result of competitive hiring and the recurring salary raises provided for in the collective bargaining contract, the faculty salary average is superior to that of  most institutions locally in the New England region (other than some private elite institutions) and comparable with peers nationally for most schools and colleges within the University. The package may not be as competitive with those in the private sector for some professional schools such as Business and Engineering.

Faculty Workload
Faculty at the University of Connecticut perform a myriad of functions.  The workload for individual faculty is established on an individual basis, according to the terms of the University Policy on Faculty Professional Responsibilities (contained in Exhibit 5.3 and available on the Provost’s and Faculty/Staff websites at www.uconn.edu), taking into consideration such factors as generally nationally recognized disciplinary teaching loads, the type and percentage of faculty appointment, and faculty productivity and activities in teaching, research and service/outreach.

Appraisal
The University of Connecticut has in place a standardized and effective recruitment process supported by highly trained and competent academic administration and human resources departments.  Faculty terms and conditions of employment, including salary and benefits, are determined by a collective bargaining contract, state statute and regulation (except as noted above), and published university policies.  Individual faculty negotiate their initial hiring package according to university regulation.  Salaries and benefits are commensurate with the University’s peers and is a strong recruiting tool.

Projection
A strong salary and benefit package, with terms and conditions of employment contained in a written contract, make high quality faculty recruitment and retention a strong institutional attribute. This attribute will ensure that the University of Connecticut remains a strong research institution.

Teaching Assistants
Graduate students are employed in a variety of ways but mostly (in the educational domain) leading discussion sections, acting as Instructors of Record (IOR), laboratory teaching support, or grading. The selection of teaching assistants is a departmental or programmatic decision. For the first three categories of work, training sessions are provided by either the graduates’ home department or the Institute for Teaching and Learning (ITL). The ITL has a Teaching Assistant Program, with full time staff. In addition to pedagogical education, the ITL provides cultural and language classes to international students. The language component is tested using the PhonePass test with a follow-up Teach test for those at the pass/fail boundary. Language and accent modification courses are provided for those students who fall below acceptable standards. Evaluation of all IOR instructors is done formally through the Office of Institutional Research (OIR) and departments often provide an evaluation instrument for local assessment. The ITL sponsors a Teaching Assistant Award the recipients of which have included an international TA in the recent past. (5.5)

Appraisal
Whereas training is available to all Teaching Assistants from the ITL, some departments choose to do their own.  These departments include English, Modern & Classical Languages, History, and Psychology. In Psychology, students are strongly encouraged to take advantage of the ITL training opportunities. Although these four programs attend to their own TA training, there is no University or ITL oversight. However there do not seem to have been any serious complaints from any of these areas. One concern is that graduate TAs, though ‘required’ to be at ITL training sessions in August or January, are not always held to this requirement by departments or schools. Additionally, more might be done to assure a high quality of direct instruction and laboratory supervision. Although there is an extensive multi-day training session for TAs whose first language is not English by the Office of Teaching Assistant Programs within the ITL, as well as follow-up and resources available to all TAs, all components of the academic community need to give priority to ensuring that Teaching Assistants are effective in the classroom.

Projection
There is movement to strengthen partnerships between ITL and the departments presently doing their own TA training. A Chemistry pedagogue has been appointed and other science departments will likely follow. We also anticipate the appointment of a full-time International Teaching Assistants Program manager to support the growing activities of the TA program unit.  The Provost’s Task Force on Teaching, Learning and Assessment has making recommendations for improvement of teaching as part of its charge.

Faculty Handbook and Informational Web Site
The responsibilities of faculty and criteria for their recruitment, appointment, evaluation and promotion are clearly and consistently defined in the University Laws and By-Laws, the AAUP contract and the Faculty Handbook. These documents are equitable, consistently applied and periodically reviewed (5.10).

The University of Connecticut website (www.uconn.edu) has a special “Faculty and Staff” version.  The general UConn website has a “Faculty Handbook” listing in the main directory that also links to the Faculty and Staff website.  This website has extensive information and links on every subject pertaining to faculty training, support, rights and responsibilities.  Further, material for faculty is also contained on the pass-word protected Faculty On-line Resources website that can be accessed through VISTA.   The annual new faculty orientation acquaints faculty with the existence and contents of both of these resources. The University opted some time ago to stop printing a hard copy of the Faculty Handbook because it was too expensive to maintain, since continuous up-dating is necessary. (5.10) UConn faculty use electronic media and communication extensively, and the administration is not aware of any complaints about not having a hard copy of the Faculty Handbook.

The faculty grievance procedure is detailed in section XV.Q. I of the Laws, By-Laws and Rules of the University of Connecticut (5.5) as well as in Articles Eleven and Twelve of the AAUP Contract.  Under the Laws and By-Laws, if a member of the faculty believes there is cause for grievance which cannot be resolved by ordinary means, the complainant may request the Committee of Three (section X.G.) to appoint a hearing committee. Complaints regarding PTR may be brought to the Committee of Three only at the end of a sequence of peer review procedures. If this Committee is unable to mediate the complaint informally, it may appoint an ad hoc hearing committee of three or five faculty. The hearing committee makes a report of its findings and recommendations to the President of the University, and the collective bargaining agent is also informed of the findings. Within thirty days of receipt of the hearing committee's report, the President must inform the hearing committee and the collective bargaining agent of his decision, with a copy to the grievant. If not satisfied with the President's action, the grievant may, within thirty days of receiving the President's response, address a written appeal to the Board of Trustees. (5.9)

Appraisal
Both the Faculty On-line Resources and the Integrating New Faculty On-line web sites give faculty the opportunity to discuss issues privately among themselves and key academic administrators.  They give faculty access to news from the Provost’s Office, an opportunity to learn of upcoming faculty-focused workshops, access to teaching and learning with technology resources, and an opportunity to learn of Institute for Teaching and Learning activities.    These websites, plus the University webpages, also give faculty organized links to faculty related information including Laws, By-Laws and Rules of the University of Connecticut, the AAUP contract, the Faculty Handbook, University Senate Minutes, the University Strategic Plan, the University Academic Plan, and other University policies and procedures.  These websites are introduced to new faculty prior to their Orientation and reviewed at the New Faculty Orientation before the start of the fall semester.

Projection
While the faculty and staff websites’ information seems to be very good and up to date, during the self study process, issues were raised as to whether the entire community is aware of the existence of some of these sites.  Pertinent university administrators have promised to inform the community on a regular basis of this resource’s availability.

Responsibility for Evaluation of Content and Delivery, Program Improvement

Review of faculty takes place at department, school/college, and Provost levels each year of pre-tenure. The elements of research, teaching, and service are considered. These review processes include teaching evaluations that involve the OIR formats and other departmental assessments.

Content of courses tend to be faculty and discipline specific but there is a strong oversight of the General Education courses by the General Education Oversight Committee (see the General Education section of Chapter Four for a discussion of the GEOC). The recent Provost’s General Education courses competition has had particularly clear and closely monitored curriculum development aspects that include tying assessment to course objectives. Program improvement outside the General Education area tends to be focused at the department level and is not closely monitored by other bodies. Also, General Education courses have not been systematically assessed.  However, all courses are approved by Curriculum and Courses Committees at departmental or school/college levels and implementing assessment mechanisms in General Education courses is a priority of the institution. The Graduate School reviews all new graduate program proposals, although not individual courses.  Opportunities to help individuals or groups of faculty formulate new programs or courses are provided through the Institute for Teaching and Learning as requested. The Office of Institutional Research also provides support for monitoring course delivery by supporting projects such as the Course Content Checklist System developed by the School of Social Work to monitor the delivery of mandated course content in all its Graduate courses.

Programmatic reviews, initiated at Provost level, by external consultants have provided valuable feedback to the academic programs for improvement. Professional external reviews are often required of programs wishing to be accredited. See Chapters Two and Four for more on this program. (5.11)

Appraisal
At present there is a greater concentration on course evaluation than on program evaluation. Course evaluations in the past have tended to focus heavily on written anonymous surveys of student assessment of individual teacher’s effectiveness. An assessment project under the auspices of the Undergraduate Education and Instruction (UEI) has been on-going for several years to gather information about the present state of student learning outcomes assessment at the university, which varies widely among schools and programs, and to work with faculty and departments to foster assessment activities. In 2006, an Assistant Vice Provost in an Office of Assessment was appointed within UEI to further these activities, and a Task Force on Teaching, Learning and Assessment was charged (among other things) with reviewing the current course evaluation procedures. See more about these initiatives in the Assessment section of Chapter Four. The ITL’s Instructional Design group brings a rigorous structured approach to assessment and evaluation processes of courses with which we are engaged, and this work has proved extremely beneficial to faculty and associated course quality. However, only a small percentage of faculty have worked with this service. Instruction is still very much an individual activity and peer evaluation or systematic assessment approaches other than the administration of student teacher ratings are not common.

Projection
Though it is unlikely that there will be wholesale assessment and evaluation changes across the University, as discussed in Chapter Four, progress is being made. For example, the ITL is making significant inroads to all courses with which it is involved and all on-line General Education courses will, in the near future, be rigorously evaluated. The efforts of the Provost and Vice Provost in promoting an overall increase in attention to undergraduate education at all campuses are having a significant positive effect. The proactive attention to creating ‘one UConn’ is being strongly supported by the regional campus directors as programs are created to pull in the faculty, administrators, and students in a number of common activities. We are also looking at the possibility of changing our Office of Institutional Research (OIR) summative student evaluation forms to some form of electronic on-line surveying. This will allow both formative and summative evaluations as well as layered University, school/college, departmental, and instructor feedback.

Professional Development

The University provides substantial opportunities for the continued growth of its faculty as teachers, scholars, and practitioners. Professional development opportunities are also available to the staff. The Institute for Teaching and Learning and its dedicated instructional design staff offer a wide range of workshops, seminars, and consultations to assist faculty in improving teaching effectiveness, the use of technology in teaching and learning, and course management.  The Office for Sponsored Programs improves prospects for external funding by providing faculty with information on federal, state, and private funding opportunities and by sponsoring workshops to enhance grant-writing skills.  The Office of the Vice Provost for Research and Graduate Education presents monthly “helpline” workshops to enable faculty to better understand and navigate research services in the University’s internal environment.  The Human Resources department provides regular training sessions for faculty and staff on a variety of topics (see Exhibit 5.4 for a list of training sessions in the past few semesters.)  The Provost’s Office has a special professional development program for academic department heads, to which non-academic administrative department heads have sometimes been invited. 

The University provides for support of ongoing scholarly development through its sabbatical leave policy.  The Research Foundation and the AAUP make funds available for faculty travel to conferences, workshops, and short courses.  The Research Foundation provides further support for the exchange of ideas and expertise through its Guest Professorship Competition, Departmental Research Allocations, and Interdisciplinary Colloquia/Seminar Program.  (5.12)

Appraisal
The Research Foundation professional development awards program, mostly funded pursuant to the faculty collective bargaining contract, is highly competitive, with the demand always exceeding available funds.  Faculty initiative to take advantage of professional development opportunities outpaces the available resources. The University of Connecticut is aware of the importance of professional development for all its employees and has augmented opportunities through making travel funding available and by offering in-house professional development workshops.

Projection
The University of Connecticut will continue to identify opportunities and funding for professional development.

Teaching and Advising

Instructional Techniques and Delivery Systems

The facilities in the University’s classrooms are among the finest in the country. There are about one-hundred high-technology classrooms across all campuses with the ability to transmit courses between any or all campuses through Interactive Compressed Video (ICV) from some. It is the intention to make all new and currently non-high-tech rooms ‘technology ready’ in the near future. This latter development will enable any instructor to take advantage of digital projection from a laptop, DVD, or tape in any teaching classroom. Seminars and workshops are provided by the Institute for Teaching and Learning across the University to educate and train faculty and teaching assistants in the effective use of technology, such as WebCT, an exciting tool for providing internet web pages to support instruction that is gaining strong acceptance by the faculty and students. For example, in the past three years, all Graduate courses in the School of Social Work are provided with web pages to improve student access to course materials. In all instructional opportunities offered by the ITL, ‘pedagogy before technology’ is stressed so that goals and objectives together with their associated assessments of learning are considered first. (5.18)

Appraisal
It is well known that initially faculty teach the way in which they were taught. As a result one needs a directed development process to effect change in pedagogy, delivery, and evaluation. That is a slow process and cannot reasonably affect all faculty in a short time. Through the efforts of ITL, the GEOC, the Vice Provost for Undergraduate Education and Instruction, and the leaders in the schools/colleges, together with the regional campus administrators, the University of Connecticut is gradually moving towards a learner-centered model, providing active learning programs, interactive classes, and trying to match teaching styles to learning styles. It is a slow process, however.

Projection
The University of Connecticut intends to make technology available in all classrooms at all campuses and to train faculty in its effective use. Through this medium, particularly with Distance Learning courses, we are training faculty and students to be able to learn effectively. The introduction of Classroom Performance System (CPS) will be of great benefit to those faculty who choose to use it under guidance and will help students in their learning in a number of ways. There is a significant minority of innovative and early adopter faculty who will be used to promulgate new ideas through the ITL, which will support their development work. The introduction of e-portfolios will have a significant effect on student documentation and hopefully will foster a better presentation of faculty work in the Promotion, Tenure, and Reappointment process.

Academic Advising
The University’s advising system is school- and college-based but there are University wide structures, policies and practices in place to ensure quality advising for all students regardless of the location of instruction or the mode of delivery.  Many of the mechanisms designed to promote and assess quality advising were created as part of the University’s 1995 strategic plan and have been instituted throughout the last ten years.  The most significant change has been the addition of a Vice Provost for Undergraduate Education and Instruction with oversight and coordination for academic advising.  Under the direction of the Vice Provost a number of initiatives related to advising have been implemented.  The initiatives include the revision of the Handbook for Academic Advisement (http://www.registrar.uconn.edu/advisor1.htm); the creation of the Academic Center for Exploratory Students (ACES) which provides academic advising for students who are undecided about their major or need to complete specific requirements before applying to their major (www.aces.uconn.edu); the creation of the Outstanding Advisor Award for faculty and professional advisors; and the development of an Advising Council with representation from all academic advising units as well as offices that provide services related to advising, such as First Year Programs, Career Services, Office for Students with Disabilities, and the Financial Aid Office. 

These initiatives have led to specific improvements in the execution and assessment of advising.  For example, the Advising Council has led an annual campus-wide conference on advising, created subcommittees to focus on specific issues such as course availability and the use of technology in advising, and offered advising workshops for faculty from all schools and colleges.  The Academic Center for Exploratory Students has instituted an advisor assessment tool that is utilized on an annual basis to evaluate the performance of individual advisors.

A number of University-wide structural changes have also impacted advising.  The dedication of the Center for Undergraduate Education (CUE) building has brought many of the offices connected to advising under one roof.  Beyond the convenience this arrangement provides for students, the opportunity for ACES, Career Services, First Year Programs, Study Abroad, and the Honors Program to collaborate on a regular basis has proven invaluable.  The fact that the Wilbur Cross Building, which includes related student services such as the Registrar, Dean of Students Office, Financial Aid and the Office for Students with Disabilities, is also physically nearby has only increased the opportunities for campus offices to coordinate advising efforts and for students to resolve advising and enrollment issues in a timely and effective manner.  Finally, the adoption of the PeopleSoft computerized student data system has provided advisors and students with more accurate and timely information on degree progress and provided information, such as mid-term grades in 100-level courses, which allows for the early identification of “at risk” students.  (5.17)

Appraisal and Projection

The University has clearly established that quality advising is a priority.  However, despite obvious improvements in the overall system, challenges still remain.  The regional campuses do not yet enjoy all of the resources available at the Storrs campus and in some cases individual departments and advisors are not providing an adequate level of academic advising.  The focus over the next few years will be to use assessment to better identify where the challenges reside and provide training and/or alternative advising strategies, which may include greater use of professional advisors, to ensure that all students, regardless of major or campus, have a positive advising experience.

Academic Integrity
Please refer to the Academic Integrity section in Chapter Four. (5.18)

Scholarship, Research, and Creative Activity

Scholarship and Research

All faculty pursue scholarship and/or creative activities designed to ensure that they are current in the theory, knowledge, skills, and pedagogy of their discipline or profession. The institution, through the office of the Provost, the appropriate school or college, and/or a faculty member’s department and/or program, defines the scholarly expectations for its faculty based on Article XV-J of the Laws, By-Laws and Rules of the University of Connecticut. Such expectations are made clear in general terms during the orientation that takes place at the beginning of a faculty member’s first semester at the University. For tenure-track faculty, specific expectations in regard to research, teaching, and service are made clear in the offer letter and each year during the Promotion Tenure Review (PTR) process, which provides evaluations by department committees and the Dean of the School or College. Expectations of Associate Professors seeking promotion are contained in Article XIV of the Laws, By-Laws and Rules of the University, as well as school or departmental policies. As the University seeks to raise its profile and to hire faculty with national and international reputations, the PTR standards may become even more rigorous in the future.

The University of Connecticut has been very fortunate to attract scholars who have brought national and international recognition to the institution.  The accomplishments and recognition of the faculty and its academic accomplishments, individually or through centers and institutes, are too numerous to list.  The Office of the Vice Provost for Research and Graduate Education and the University of Connecticut Health Center maintain websites that note on-going academic accomplishments.  A few acclaimed scholarly and research activities are discussed here, but this listing is only emblematic of a much greater record of accomplishment.  The University of Connecticut has been particularly successful in selected scientific and technological research, as is reflected in its Academic Plan’s emphasis on Life Sciences and Scientific and Technological Innovations.  The Institute of Material Science has been recognized as a leader in research and development for decades.  A more recently established center whose accomplishments have garnered international recognition is the Center for Regenerative Biology, which produced one of the first cloned animals in the United States.  The School of Business’ Edgelab at the Stamford campus is a leader in developing cutting-edge technology in information technology and e-business.  The Human Right Institute has garnered international recognition, particularly for its close collaboration with South Africa’s African National Congress. This Institute’s endeavors are a part of the Academic Plan’s Globalization area of interest (“Arts, Culture and Society from Local to Global.”)  The University is home to a number of research initiatives regarding the environment and Environmental Sustainability, another area of emphasis in the Academic Plan.  The University of Connecticut Health Center conducts medical research and supports community medicine, in accordance with the Health Center’s Signature Programs strategy and the overall university’s areas of emphasis in Life Sciences, Scientific and Technological Innovation, and Health and Human Services Systems.  As mentioned in Chapter Two, Planning and Evaluation, the Provost is presently leading an effort to refine the Academic Plan with an aim to giving further support to programs in which the institution has achieved, or may achieve, excellence.

As part of the performance measures it reports to the Connecticut Department of Higher Education every year, the University of Connecticut produces a performance measures report on a number of criteria established by the Connecticut General Assembly.  The table below shows the measures’ results in the areas of research awards and faculty scholarly productivity that were presented in the 2006 Performance Measures.

Source: UConn Office of Sponsored Programs and UConn Health Center

It is well-accepted at the University that research activities provide the expertise necessary for high quality teaching. Scholarship and instruction are integrated and are mutually supportive. Faculty are encouraged to provide research opportunities for graduate students and, when appropriate, for undergraduates. Resources are available for the improvement of pedagogical skills at the Institute for Teaching and Learning. (5.19)

Research Administration

Concordant with the University of Connecticut’s designation as Carnegie Foundation Research University-Extensive, a designation shared by only four percent of the nation’s institutions of higher learning, its faculty and students undertake exploration and discovery to create new knowledge and applications.  In addition to traditional department and college support, these efforts are also promoted by more than ninety-five interdisciplinary academic centers and institutes.  The Office of the Vice Provost for Research and Graduate Education and the Research Foundation administer a number of internal programs to fund research, including the semi-annual Faculty Large Grant, the Faculty Small Grant and Supplement, and the Equipment Cost-Share to Federal Grant competitions.  Policies and procedures related to research, including the new Code of Conduct and Guidelines for State Compliance, are developed and communicated by the Office of Research Compliance.    Training in ethical decision making in the responsible conduct of research is available at the department, college, and university levels, and has been recently augmented by the creation of an Office of Audit, Compliance and Ethics.  Faculty input on research policies and practices is exerted through the Research Advisory Council (RAC), the Executive Committee of the Graduate School, the Graduate Faculty Council, the Institutional Review Board (IRB), the Institutional Animal Care & Use Committee (IACUC), and the Institutional Bio-safety Committee (IBC). (5.20)

Appraisal
A common theme echoed by faculty across the campus is that the rising enrollments of recent years have placed increased demands on faculty and graduate teaching assistant workloads at the expense of time spent on scholarship.  University-wide monitoring and action to accommodate expansion of enrollment in 100s entry level courses have largely been successful. However, as the larger freshman classes have moved forward through their educational program, in some areas there have been department-level problems triggered by increased enrollments in upper division courses.  Courses at the junior/senior level, especially those that are service courses for multiple majors, are experiencing enrollment stresses with long waiting lists a common occurrence.  Such departmental courses experience not only the vertical enrollment increases due to increased numbers of their own majors, but also have demands placed by students from other departments or colleges who converge on them.  Transfer students, the repeat forgiveness policy (which allows students to repeat a course that he/she has already taken), and the encouragement of minors are yet other sources of student demand on the seats available in upper level undergraduate courses.  Many departments report a disturbing trend as a result of actions to accommodate expanding demand in the absence of new faculty: cancellation or infrequent offerings of advanced and/or graduate courses. As is true for General Education courses, there are funds available to meet augmented demand in certain areas.  The Provost’s Office will work with the Deans to ensure that these upper level course blockages in steady progress towards graduation are addressed.         

Besides the need to accommodate increased student demand for courses, expanding student populations trigger a cascade of increased demands on faculty time.  Courses resort to larger lecture and laboratory sections, placing additional demands on office hours, electronic communication, preparation and distribution of course materials and grading.  The growing student expectation that courses will include electronic blackboard/discussion board components, as well as the necessity of mastering strategies for successful learning in large class situations, place further demands on faculty and teaching assistants to design and implement such value added elements.  Associated activities like advising, over-enrollment problems, and increased committee assignments also drain time from research.  Many of these additive time demands occur at a time when the faculty has less clerical support than in the past, transferring even greater numbers of routine tasks to the faculty member.  In the face of increasing demands on faculty time and declining support staff, the University must reaffirm its commitment to faculty workloads that will promote research and scholarship. 

Projection
Securing State of Connecticut funding to support the addition of a significant number of new faculty hires is the highest priority of the Administration.  If successful, it will help restore time to the faculty to dedicate to advanced courses and research.  It will also be necessary to secure increases in the numbers of graduate teaching assistants to support laboratory and discussion sections.  The University of Connecticut cannot attain its aspirations without an increase from the present number of faculty, assuming a student body of the present size.

Institutional Support
Scholarship, research, and creative activities receive appropriate encouragement and support from the institution. Such support can take various forms, from salary increases based on meritorious accomplishments, to sabbatic leave, to opportunities for grants in support of specific research or pedagogical initiatives, such as those provided by the Research Foundation, the Office of Sponsored Programs, the Humanities Institute, and the Institute for Teaching and Learning (See Chapter Four). The University also provides funding for travel and other research opportunities, Teaching and Research Fellow Awards, and aid in the submission of applications for federal, state, and private grants. Our successes in research and scholarship are reflected in the external funding record of University of Connecticut faculty.  For instance, the external funding level for sponsored activities for fiscal year 2006 stands at $182.2 million (includes the Health Center).  In the latest report available from the National Science Foundation for fiscal year 2004, the University is nationally ranked in the upper twelve percent (74/601) among all institutions, and in the upper fourteen percent (52/367) among public institutions, for research and development spending.  (5.21)

Appraisal and Projection
While these accomplishments remain impressive given the University of Connecticut’s relatively small size, they do represent a slight decline in ranking since fiscal year 1994. Grantsmanship and funding, reflected in the objective measurement of research and development spending by the National Science Foundation, are widely viewed as indicative of the quality of scholarship, and will likely be a key metric for the impending National Research Council review of graduate programs.  Analysis of the NSF data presents a more negative profile when compared with peer institutions.  Based on 2003 NSF data, the University of Connecticut’s rank based on total research and development spending is lower than all but two of our thirteen self-identified peer institutions.  The University must make a renewed commitment to faculty research and scholarship to avoid our falling even farther behind both peer institution and national cohorts. The hiring of more research faculty, stated as the highest priority of the University Administration, will be of great assistance in ensuring that the rankings in research and scholarship improve. Also, the exhaustion of Research Foundation Travel Funds in the spring of 2006, an occurrence that seems to befall our faculty toward the middle of every spring semester, suggests that the University will have to commit greater resources to this area in the future. 

Institutional Effectiveness

Through annual and biennial budgeting exercises, State of Connecticut and internal University of Connecticut mechanisms ensure that the institution evaluates its productive use of faculty members and other University resources.  Each year, as a component of the annual Board of Trustees Budget Workshop, the Office of Institutional Research (OIR), in conjunction with the University Budget Office, prepares the annual Budget Workshop Report, a comprehensive and detailed evaluation of all facets of university revenues and expenditures.  The budget and its supporting Report is compiled based on information and recommendations gleaned from hearings with all unit administrators on campus.  These units in turn base their recommendations on information drawn from the survey data created by the Academic Planning Model.  The Provost’s Office and Deans use the college/school and faculty annual report data, in conjunction with faculty workload data, to evaluate and plan for best utilization of the faculty resource.  The University of Connecticut possesses an excellent faculty.  Assuring the best use of this fundamental resource is an ongoing challenge.