Search Results

The rising employment of contingent faculty, once largely ignored, has become a major issue in American academia. Regular faculty, administrators, and the public at-large have joined their distinct interests to those of contingent faculty in demanding reform. Meanwhile, contingent faculty who would take a full-time job if available have reached a critical mass. This subgroup is fueling a new social activism. Since 1998, a social movement has taken shape that relies on community-wide coalitions and directs its demands to the public as well as administrators.--EconLit abstract

This report describes the roles and productivity of faculty members in the Oregon University System (OUS). Of the 3,199 ranked instructional faculty members in 2000-2001, three-fourths were full time, but the proportion of full-time faculty in the senior ranks and holding tenure has declined since 1995-1996. The proportion of faculty members who are women increased, and the proportion of ranked faculty of color increased. OUS offered 12% more class sections in fall 2000 compared with fall 1995, a gain that was accomplished mainly through an increase in adjunct faculty. OUS faculty produced 2.6 million student credit hours in 1999-2000 (up 13% overall in performance reported over three periods: 1995-1996, 1997-1998, and 2000-2001). OUS faculty attracted millions of dollars in new resources to Oregon, especially through grants, gifts, and contracts. Through public service activities, OUS faculty contribute knowledge in real-life settings to Oregon's citizens. Average faculty salaries have remained low at OUS, and these lower salaries have inhibited the ability of the university system to recruit effectively. The Oregon Board of Higher Education recognizes the need to retain and recruit quality faculty to sustain and accelerate the university system's productivity. Seventeen appendixes contain tables of data about faculty numbers, student enrollment, and salaries.--ERIC abstract

Although the focus of this handbook is on the teaching of psychology, we rarely teach in an academic vacuum (Fretz et al., 1993). The reality is that teaching is only a third of the tenure, promotion, and merit-based compensation process for the bulk of colleges and universities. If you want to continue to teach, you must adhere to the explicit and implicit encouragement by academia to engage in scholarship and service. However, that does not mean we should treat each of these areas separately. In fact, I argue that scholarship and service should be integrated with teaching; faculty should pursue activities in areas that match their personal and professional expertise, and look to always have fun when they are doing it.--from author(s)

This article introduces technology training designed for university professors who work with preservice and emergency teachers at a College of Education of a state university. The technology training was delivered in multiple ways: (a) large group workshops, (b) small group meetings, (c) individual mentoring, and (d) just-in-time training. Service learning and reverse mentoring were the highlights of the project; they were used in individual training during which graduate students in the Instructional Technology (IT) program served as mentors to the university professors. Formative evaluation was conducted, and the results were positive. Such training worked well in this Teacher Education program and may benefit other higher education institutions or K-12 schools.--Expanded Academic ASAP abstract

In this article, the authors discuss the professional development of three college professors as they actively seek to improve their technological skills. The expose uncovers faculty development issues regarding learning and using technology at the postsecondary level. Moreover, key questions that higher education faculty and administrators need to explore regarding faculty's technology development are disclosed. Revelations about how institutions can provide a systematic support framework for their faculty's technological professional development are explored.--from article

How much time do academic economists allocate to teaching, research, and service, and how much time do their departments want them to allocate to these pursuits? As a result of the decline in economics majors in the early 1990s, was there a change in the reward system and time allocation of academic economists toward teaching? In this study, the authors combine 1995 and 2000 survey data collected by Becker and Watts (1996, 2001) to describe teaching methods in undergraduate economics courses at five Carnegie Foundation categories of colleges and universities in the United States. The focus here is on a previously unreported section of these surveys, in which respondents were asked to indicate the percentage of time they allocated to teaching, research, and service and to provide the weightings they felt their own departments assigned to these activities in making decisions about annual raises or promotion and tenure.--ERIC abstract

Examines one English department in the midst of establishing an independent writing major and program. Analyzes situational constraints in the context of professional concerns regarding tenure and in current disciplinary concerns regarding recognition of computers and composition labor. Argues for establishing tenure and promotion guidelines that reward faculty who contribute to equity and access for the larger regional community.--ERIC abstract

Scholars of higher education have long recognized that existing reward systems and structures in academic communities do not weight faculty professional service as they do teaching and research. This paper examines how four colleges and universities with exemplary programs for assessing services as scholarship implemented these policies within colleges of education. Attention was paid to the policies, procedures, outcomes, and elements of academic culture of these institutions. Case studies suggest that policies to assess service as scholarship can: (1) increase consistency among an institution's service mission, faculty workload, and reward system; (2) expand faculty views of scholarship; (3) boost faculty satisfaction; and (4) strengthen the quality of an institution's service culture. The experiences of these four institutions suggest lessons for academic leaders for assessing and rewarding service as scholarship for promotion and tenure.--ERIC abstract

Research universities are concerned about financial conflict of interest because it strikes to the heart of the integrity of the institution and the public?s confidence in that integrity. The Task Force identified several key values which universities want to protect from such conflicts: ...their commitment to educating students; their commitment to academic freedom; their commitment to advancing the range and depth of knowledge and understanding of the natural world and our human condition; their commitment to the safety of patients under their care and participants in research; their commitment to open and timely communication and dissemination of knowledge; and their commitment to protect both the appearance and the actual integrity and objectivity of research, instruction, and public service.--from executive summary