Undergraduate Teaching Faculty: The HERI Faculty Survey 2016-2017
Undergraduate Teaching Faculty:The HERI Faculty Survey 2016-2017ELLEN BARA STOLZENBERG KEVIN EAGAN HILARY B. ZIMMERMAN JENNIFER BERDAN LOZANO NATACHA M. CESAR-DAVIS MELISSA C. ARAGON CECILIA RIOS-AGUILAR
Undergraduate Teaching Faculty:The HERI Faculty Survey 2016–2017Ellen Bara StolzenbergKevin EaganHilary B. ZimmermanJennifer Berdan LozanoNatacha M. Cesar-DavisMelissa C. AragonCecilia Rios-AguilarHigher Education Research InstituteGraduate School of Education & Information StudiesUniversity of California, Los Angeles
Higher Education Research InstituteUniversity of California, Los AngelesM. Kevin Eagan Jr., Assistant Professor, CIRP Director, and HERI DirectorHERI Affiliated ScholarsWalter R. Allen, Allan Murray Cartter Professorof Higher EducationAlexander W. Astin, Founding Director andSenior ScholarMitchell J. Chang, ProfessorM. Kevin Eagan Jr., Assistant ProfessorJessica Harris, Assistant ProfessorOzan Jaquette, Assistant ProfessorPatricia M. McDonough, ProfessorCecilia Rios-Aguilar, Associate ProfessorVictor B. Sáenz, Associate Professor,University of Texas at AustinLinda J. Sax, ProfessorSylvia Hurtado, ProfessorThe Higher Education Research Institute (HERI) is based in the Graduate School of Education & InformationStudies at the University of California, Los Angeles. The Institute serves as an interdisciplinary center for research,evaluation, information, policy studies, and research training in postsecondary education.3005 Moore Hall/Box 951521, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1521 www.heri.ucla.edu 310-825-1925ACKNOWLEDGMENTS: Cover design by Escott & Associates. Page layout and text design by The Oak Co.The authors wish to thank Dominique Harrison for her incredible efforts in managing the survey administrationprocess. We also owe our gratitude to CIRP’s graduate student researchers, an integral part of the CIRP team,contributing to the survey redesign process and expanding the use of CIRP data for research, amongst otheressential duties.Published by the Higher Education Research Institute. Suggested citation:Stolzenberg, E. B., Eagan, M. K., Zimmerman, H. B., Berdan Lozano, J., Cesar-Davis, N. M., Aragon,M. C., & Rios-Aguilar, C. (2019). Undergraduate teaching faculty: The HERI Faculty Survey 2016–2017.Los Angeles: Higher Education Research Institute, UCLA.To download additional copies of this monograph, please visit www.heri.ucla.eduCopyright 2019By the Regents of the University of CaliforniaISBN 978-1-878477-57-6 (e-book)ISBN 978-1-878477-58-3 (e-book, expanded edition)ISBN 978-1-878477-59-0 (print-on-demand)
CONTENTSList of Figures ivThe Survey Questionnaire 2An Overview of the 2016–2017 Faculty Survey Norms 2Discrimination a source of stress for female faculty of color andfemale STEM faculty 3Male and White faculty more likely to agree that women and faculty of colorare treated fairly 4Legitimacy in scholarship: Faculty of color and women perceive an unevenplaying field 5Satisfaction with equity of salary and job benefits varies by race, gender, andprimary responsibility 7Faculty believe they are not prepared to deal with diversity-related conflictin the classroom 10Faculty have complex mentoring relationships with undergraduates,graduate students, and other faculty Mentoring Undergraduates Mentoring Graduate Students Mentoring Other Faculty 11131314Newer and non-STEM faculty more likely to recognize/acknowledgetheir role in student development 14Faculty encourage students to be thoughtful and think critically 16Majority of faculty identify as politically liberal, but not increasingly so 17Lecturers and instructors overrepresented in teachingremedial/developmental courses 18Just half of undergraduate teaching faculty participated in teaching-relatedprofessional development opportunities 20Full-Time Undergraduate Faculty, Type of Institution and Control 23Full-Time Undergraduate Faculty, by Rank 47Appendix A: Research Methodology 71Appendix B: 2016–2017 HERI Faculty Survey Questionnaire 81Appendix C: Institutions Participating in the 2016–2017 HERI Faculty Survey 101Appendix D: The Precision of the Normative Data and Their Comparisons 107About the Authors 111Publications 112iii
FiguresFigure 1.Figure 2.Figure 3.Figure 4.Figure 5.Figure 6.Figure 7.Figure 8.Figure 9.ivDiscrimination as a Source of Stress, by Race/Ethnicity and Sex(% Responding “Somewhat” or “Extensive”) 3Campus Climate for Racial/Ethnic Diversity for Faculty,by Race/Ethnicity 5Feeling a Need to Work Harder Than Colleagues To BePerceived as a Legitimate Scholar, by Race/Ethnicity andGender (% Indicating “Agree Somewhat” or “Strongly Agree”) 6Perceiving a Need to Work Harder Than ColleaguesTo Be Perceived as a Legitimate Scholar, by AgreementThat Criteria for Promotion and Tenure Are Clear(% Marking “Agree Somewhat” or “Strongly Agree”) 7Satisfaction with Relative Equity of Salary and Job Benefits,by Race/Ethnicity and Sex (% “Satisfied” or “Very Satisfied”) 8Satisfaction with the Relative Equity of Salary and JobBenefits, by Hours per Week Teaching, Preparing for Teaching,and Research/Scholarly Writing 9There Is a Lot of Campus Racial Conflict Here, by Race/Ethnicity(% “Agree Somewhat” or “Strongly Agree”) 10Faculty Are Not Prepared to Handle Conflict Over DiversityIssues in the Classroom, by Race (% Indicating“Agree Somewhat” or “Strongly Agree”) 11Self-rated Mentoring Skills, by Mentor Training Participation(% Identifying as “Somewhat Strong” or “Major Strength”) 12Figure 10. Mentoring Activities with Undergraduates, by Sex(% Selecting “To a Very Large Extent”) 13Figure 11. Faculty Mentoring Activities with Faculty Mentees, by Sex(% Indicating “To a Large or Very Large Extent”) 14Figure 12. Faculty Roles in Undergraduate Education(% Selecting “Strongly Agree”) 15Figure 13. Faculty Roles in Undergraduate Education, by Non-STEM andSTEM (% Indicating “Strongly Agree”) 16Figure 14. Change in Faculty Encouragement To Think and Act Critically,2013–2014 to 2016–2017 17Figure 15. Faculty Liberal Political Views, by Year 18Figure 16. Teaching Remedial/Developmental Courses,by Professional Development Opportunities 19Figure 17. Course-related Resources, by Participation in Teaching-relatedProfessional Development Activities 21
This report summarizes the highlights of a national survey of college and universityfaculty conducted by the Cooperative Institutional Research Program (CIRP) at the HigherEducation Research Institute (HERI) during the 2016–2017 academic year. AlthoughHERI has been surveying higher education faculty since 1978, this report is thetenth in a series of faculty surveys adminis-Over the past three decades,tered on a triennial basis since 1989. Overthe HERI Faculty Survey hasthe past three decades, the HERI Facultycollected data from overSurvey has collected data from over half ahalf a million faculty atmillion faculty at more than 1,100 collegesmore than 1,100 collegesand universities.and u niversities.While HERI encourages institutionsto collect data on their entire faculty,historically these reports have focused on full-time undergraduate (FTUG) teaching faculty.Institutions receive reports for faculty respondents with teaching, research, and administrative obligations. Consistent with previous administrations, we included a set of questionsspecifically addressing the experiences of faculty employed in part-time positions as well asthose who work with graduate students.1
This year’s survey included four optionalmodules for campuses to append to the coresurvey. Similar to the 2013–2014 administration, institutions could choose to add modulesfocusing on campus climate, spirituality, orSTEM. Several changes to the core and modulesfor 2016–2017 included moving the sexualorientation and gender identity questions froma separate module to the core instrument.Further, items from the advising module wereadded to the core and a new module focusedon faculty mentoring undergraduates, graduatestudents, and other faculty was added. We highlight findings from the mentoring module inthis monograph.The bulk of theresults reported hereare based on responsesfrom 20,771 full-timeA section on mentoringundergraduate teachingexamines the complexfaculty members atmentoring relationships143 four-year collegesand universities.faculty members have withData for full-timeundergraduates, graduatefaculty are weightedstudents, and other faculty.to provide a normative national profileof full-time faculty atfour-year colleges anduniversities; Appendix A contains details aboutmethodological considerations, including howthese weights were calculated. Complete resultsof the survey presented for full-time faculty arereported separately for male and female facultyin each of eight different normative groups: allinstitutions, public universities, private universities, public four-year colleges, and privatefour-year colleges (combined and broken outby three sub-groupings: nonsectarian, RomanCatholic, and other religious). Survey data byacademic rank are also reported in additional2tables available in the online expanded version ofthis publication.1The Survey QuestionnaireThe 2016–2017 questionnaire was basedlargely on items used in the nine previous facultysurveys, which were revised following the suggestions of HERI-affiliated researchers activelystudying faculty concerns and topics related toteaching and learning. In addition to collectingdemographic information, the web-basedquestionnaire focuses on topics such as howfaculty spend their time, how they interact withstudents, their preferred methods of teaching,their perceptions of institutional climate, theirprimary sources of stress and satisfaction, andtheir personal and professional goals. The questionnaire also includes a section that allowsindividual institutions to ask their faculty upto 30 locally designed closed-ended questionsand five open-ended questions, though thesecampus-specific questions are not reported here.An Overview of the 2016–2017Faculty Survey NormsThe 2016–2017 report first highlights findings related to faculty’s views on discriminationas a source of stress. We then explore facultyperspectives on the fair treatment of femalefaculty and faculty of color and note the differences in faculty feeling that they have to workharder than their colleagues to be perceived asa legitimate scholar. We also analyze respondents’ satisfaction with the equity of salary andjob benefits before addressing faculty readinessto deal with diversity-related conflict in the classroom. A section on mentoring examineshttps://heri.ucla.edu/publications-fac1
the complex mentoring relationships facultymembers have with undergraduates, graduatestudents, and other faculty. We then highlightfaculty views on the role they play in undergraduate student development and anotherfocusing on encouraging students to think andact critically.The final sections address media criticism offaculty as a liberalizing agent of college studentswith an analysis of faculty political views overtime. Another pressing topic is the teachingof remedial/developmental courses and theoverrepresentation of lecturers and instructorsoverseeing these courses. The report concludeswith a section on faculty taking advantageof teaching-related professional development opportunities.source of stress (36.2% compared to 18.0%).The largest gaps between men and women occurat public and private universities. Only 15.7%of men at private universities consider discrimination at least somewhat of a source of stress,compared to 38.7% of women, a difference of23 percentage points. A slightly larger gap existsat public universities, with 18.8% of men and43.3% of women considering discrimination asource of stress.Similar to the gap between men and women,White faculty (21.5%) are less likely than allother race/ethnicity groups to consider discrimination a source of stress. Of faculty of color,Asian/Pacific Islander faculty are least likely(30.9%) to consider discrimination at leastsomewhat a source of stress while Black/AfricanAmerican (49.9%) and Latino/a (51.4%) facultyare most likely to feel this way.When considering the intersecting identitiesof sex and race/ethnicity, larger gaps emerge.Figure 1 shows that White male faculty are leastlikely to consider discrimination a source ofDiscrimination a source of stressfor female faculty of color andfemale STEM facultyOverall, women are more likely than men tofeel that discrimination is at least somewhat aFigure 1. Discrimination as a Source of Stress, by Race/Ethnicity and Sex(% Responding “Somewhat” or “Extensive”)706060.156.0% of 5.224.22013.9100Native Women3
stress (13.9%), roughly 17 percentage pointslower than White female faculty. Though sexdifferences within race/ethnicity groups persist,men of all other race/ethnicity groups other thanAsian/Pacific Islander report a higher percentageof discrimination as a source of stress than Whitewomen. For example, more than one-third ofmale Native American (33.8%), other (35.5%),multiracial (35.2%), Black (40.5%), and Latino(44.1%) faculty report discrimination as at leastsomewhat a source of stress. Greater differencesemerge for women faculty. The percentagesfor women faculty of color range from 44.8%(Asian/Pacific Islander) to 60.2% (other race),multiracial (59.0%), Black, and Latina (60.1%each) faculty. In other words, more than half offemale faculty of color consider discrimination asomewhat or extensive source of stress.Of all institution types, women in STEMfields were most likely to consider discrimination at least somewhat of a source of stress atpublic universities. It is important to note,however, that women at public universities innon-STEM fields felt similar levels of stress fromdiscrimination (43.0% and 43.3%, respectively).By contrast, 13.1% of men in STEM fields and22.7% of men in non-STEM fields at publicuniversities consider discrimination at leastsomewhat a source of stress.Male and White faculty more likelyto agree that women and facultyof color are treated fairlyFaculty are asked about their perceptions ofinstitutional priorities, including the institutional commitment toward fostering a positivecampus climate for diversity. Almost two-thirds(64.7%) of faculty believed that their institutionplaced a high priority on developing a sense ofcommunity among students and faculty. Faculty4at private institutions (71.7%) were more likelyto believe that their institution placed a priorityon community engagement between studentsand faculty than faculty at public institutions (60.1%).Faculty also had mixed perceptions regardingthe recruitment and treatment of women andfaculty of color at their institutions. Overall,roughly half (50.5%) of faculty believed thattheir institution placed a high priority onpromoting gender diversity in the faculty andadministration. Additionally, slightly morethan half of faculty (55.7%) believed that theirinstitution placed a high priority on promotingracial and ethnic diversity in the faculty andadministration. There were variations in facultyperceptions based on race/ethnicity. Figure 2shows that faculty who identified as Asian/Pacific Islander (61.4%) and White (56.7%)were the most likely to believe the institutionplaced a high priority on promoting racial andethnic diversity in the faculty and administrationas compared to Native American (34.6%), Black(43.1%), and Latino/a faculty (47.7%).Faculty are also asked about their perceptionsof the treatment of women and faculty of color.Men and women held different perceptionsrelated to the treatment of female faculty at theirinstitution. Overall, just over three-quarters(77.4%) of faculty agreed that women facultywere treated fairly at their institution. Men(83.5%) were much more likely than women(69.3%) to agree with this statement. Whilefaculty overall (79.3%) believed that faculty ofcolor were treated fairly at their institutions,Asian/Pacific Islander (83.8%) and White(81.0%) faculty were more likely to agree thatfaculty of color are treated fairly than theirfaculty peers who identify as Latino/a (58.8%)or Black (61.4%) (see Figure 2).
Figure 2. Campus Climate for Racial/Ethnic Diversity for Faculty, by Race/Ethnicity9083.88072.2% of 754.071.547.63020100Native mote racial and ethnic diversity in the faculty and administration (High or highest priority)Faculty of color are treated fairly here (Agree somewhat or strongly agree)Legitimacy in scholarship:Faculty of color and women perceivean uneven playing fieldThe peer review culture and pressure toachieve excellence in the areas of teaching,research, and service can foster feelings of uncertainty and doubt among some faculty regardingthe adequacy of their productivity. Faculty whofeel such uneasiness may feel as though theyneed to work even harder to keep up with theirseemingly highly productive colleagues. Suchfeelings are often exacerbated among facultyfrom historically marginalized or vulnerablegroups, including faculty of color, women,and those without the protections of tenure.Although half of all full-time faculty (51.0%)felt they needed to work harder than theircolleagues to be perceived as a legitimate scholar,agreement with this statement varied considerably by race/ethnicity, gender, and faculty rank.More than three out of five women (61.0%)believed they needed to work harder than theircolleagues to be perceived as a legitimate scholarcompared to just 43.6% of men. Disaggregatingthe data by race/ethnicity leads to even largergaps between faculty of color and their Whitecounterparts. For example, substantially moreBlack (72.2%), Asian (70.7%), Latino/a(70.6%), and Native American (66.7%) facultyperceived a need to work harder than their peersto gain legitimacy compared to just 46.8% ofWhite faculty who felt similarly.The salience of race as a factor in explainingvariation in faculty’s responses to believing theyneeded to work harder than their colleaguesbecomes clear when examining intersectionsof race/ethnicity and gender. Almost withoutexception, rates of agreement among faculty ofcolor, regardless of race, exceed the proportionof White male and female faculty who felt theyneeded to work harder than their colleagues togain legitimacy. As shown in Figure 3, Whitemen feel the least vulnerable among all racegender pairings with 39.0% believing theyneed to work harder than their colleagues tobe perceived as a legitimate scholar. Similarly,among women, White faculty felt the leastvulnerable, as just over half (57.3%) agreed withthe statement.By contrast, substantially higher proportionsof men and women faculty of color perceiveda need to work harder than their colleagues tobe thought of as legitimate scholars. Withoutexception, within each racial/ethnic group the5
Figure 3. Feeling a Need to Work Harder Than Colleagues To Be Perceived as a Legitimate Scholar,by Race/Ethnicity and Gender(% Indicating “Agree Somewhat” or “Strongly Agree”)97.71009081.680% of iteBlackLatino/aAsianMenWomenNative AmericanMultiracialAllproportion of women expressing this beliefexceeded that of men. The largest gender gapemerged among Native American faculty,as 97.7% of women agreed with this sentiment compared to 54.5% of men. Roughly20 percentage points separated the proportionof Black (81.6%) and Latina (81.4%) womenwho agreed with this statement from their Blackand Latino male colleagues (63.7% and 61.7%,respectively). Asian/Pacific Islander faculty hadthe narrowest gender gap at 4.5 percentagepoints (73.7% of women and 69.2% of men feltthey had to work harder than their colleagues togain legitimacy).Trying to gain legitimacy among colleaguesby putting in longer hours may be triggered byuncertainty with respect to security of employment. Although just one in 10 faculty (10.4%)experience “extensive” stress related to their jobsecurity, faculty who experience uncertaintyat work are much more likely to think theyneed to work harder than their colleagues to beperceived as a legitimate scholar. Overall, threeout of four faculty (76.2%) reporting “extensive”stress associated with job security also indicatedhaving a sense they needed to work harder than6Othertheir colleagues. Three in five faculty (60.0%)feeling “somewhat” stressed with respect tosecurity of employment agreed they needed tooutwork their peers compared to just 42.8% offaculty who did not report feeling stressed abouttheir job security. Nearly all Black (90.5%),Asian/Pacific Islander (88.3%), and multiracial(86.2%) faculty who experienced “extensive”stress associated with their security of employment also felt compelled to work harder thantheir colleagues. Although less pronounced,the trend also applies to White (72.6%) andLatino/a (72.7%) faculty.Another catalyst prompting perceptionsof needing to exert more effort than one’scolleagues may stem from a lack of claritysurrounding the promotion and tenure process.Compared to their peers who reported havinga clear understanding of the criteria used inpromotion and tenure decisions, faculty wholacked clarity on this issue were 1.5 times aslikely to feel compelled to work harder thantheir colleagues (66.1% vs. 45.6%).As shown in Figure 4, seven out of 10 faculty(69.7%) who strongly disagreed that criteriafor promotion and tenure decisions were clear
Figure 4. Perceiving a Need to Work Harder Than Colleagues To Be Perceived as aLegitimate Scholar, by Agreement That Criteria for Promotion and Tenure Are Clear(% Marking “Agree Somewhat” or “Strongly Agree”)The criteria for promotionand tenure are clearalso believed they neededStrongly Agree25.213.7to work harder than theircolleagues to be perceivedas a legitimate scholar. ByAgree Somewhat16.933.6contrast, 38.9% of facultywho “strongly agreed” theyDisagree Somewhat34.530.0clearly understood policiessurrounding promotionand tenure perceived aStrongly Disagree27.741.9need to work harder thanother faculty members, a0102030405060%ofFacultydifference of more thanAgree SomewhatStrongly Agreethirty percentage points.The discrepancies suggestthat clearly communicatedsignals from the campus concerning expectationsbelieved they needed to work harder than theirabout faculty productivity could go a long waycolleagues (33.8%) reported having fewer thanin alleviating anxiety and helping faculty betterfive hours on average each week of “personalcalibrate self-assessments of their contributionstime” compared to 22.8% of respondents whoto the department, discipline, and institution.did not share this concern. Not surprisingly, theBelieving it is necessary to work harderproportion of faculty experiencing “extensive”than peers can also contribute to higher stressstress due to a lack of personal time was twice aslevels. Faculty who agreed either “somewhat” orhigh among faculty who felt a need to outwork“strongly” that they needed to work harder thantheir peers compared to respondents who didtheir colleagues to be perceived as a legitimatenot share this sentiment (34.3% vs. 16.7%).scholar also reported experiencing “extensive”stress at higher rates than their colleagues whoSatisfaction with equity of salary anddid not feel pressured to work harder thanjob benefits varies by race, gender, andtheir peers. Overall, about one-quarter of fullprimary responsibilitytime undergraduate teaching faculty reportedOverall, less than half of undergraduate “extensive” stress due to increased responsibiliteaching faculty (48.4%) are satisfied or veryties at work. One-third of faculty who believedsatisfied with the relative equity of salary andthey needed to work harder than their colleaguesjob benefits. Just over one-quarter of faculty(33.0%) experienced “extensive” stress due toare marginally satisfied (26.5%) and anotherincreased work responsibilities compared toquarter (25.1%) are not satisfied. Further,18.6% of respondents who did not feel presfaculty members at private universities are mostsured to work harder than their peers.likely (59.7%) to be satisfied or very satisPerceiving a need to work harder than othersfied with the relative equity of salary and joband acting upon those perceptions couldbenefits. Additionally, faculty members at publiccertainly reduce the amount of personal time ininstitutions are most likely to not be satisfiedfaculty members’ lives. One-third of faculty who70807
(27.4% at public universities and 28.2% atpublic four-year colleges).Satisfaction with relative equity of salaryand job benefits also varies by academic rank.Full professors are most likely to be satisfiedor very satisfied (54.8%), followed by assistantand associate professors (48.9% and 44.4%,respectively), instructors (40.0%), and finallylecturers (38.7%). In fact more than one-thirdof those in lecturer titles (35.3%) are not satisfied. Faculty whose principal activity is teaching(72.2%) are less likely to be satisfied than thosewhose principal activity is service to clients/patients (79.3%), administration (82.6%), orresearch (82.6%).Satisfaction with the relative equity of salaryand job benefits varies by sex and race/ethnicityas well. In general female faculty (43.5%“Satisfied” or “Very Satisfied”) are less satisfiedwith the relative equity of salary and job benefitsthan their male colleagues (52.1%). Multiracial(39.2%), Latino/a (39.8%), Black (46.7%),and Asian/Pacific Islander (47.1%) are all lesssatisfied with the relative equity of salary andjob benefits than their White peers (50.1%).However, Figure 5 shows that greater differencesemerge when considering faculty satisfaction atthe intersection of race/ethnicity and sex. Malefaculty are more satisfied with the relative equityof salary and job benefits in all racial/ethnicgroups except for Black faculty. The differencebetween men and women is most pronouncedfor Native American (more than 26 percentagepoints) and those who selected “Other” race(22 percentage points). The least pronounceddifference between men and women withina race/ethnicity group exists for Asian/PacificIslander faculty ( 2 percentage points) andBlack faculty, with male faculty 2.3 percentagepoints less satisfied (45.5%) with the relativeequity of salary and job benefits than their Blackfemale colleagues (47.9%)Looking at satisfaction by STEM-affiliation,STEM faculty are more satisfied (52.6%“Satisfied” or “Very Satisfied”) than those not inSTEM fields (46.5%). However, there is muchvariation within these larger fields as faculty inthe physical sciences (59.1%), a STEM field,and social sciences (58.0%), not a STEM field,are highest overall. This is true for those whoFigure 5. Satisfaction with Relative Equity of Salary and Job Benefits, by Race/Ethnicity and Sex(% “Satisfied” or “Very Satisfied”)70% of 3.241.934.334.33019.920100Native tiracial
are not satisfied as well as 29.2% of biologicalsciences faculty (STEM) and 31.8% of fine artsfaculty (not STEM) are not satisfied.Faculty are asked how many hours during thetypical week they spend doing a variety of activities. Differences in amount of time teaching,preparing for teaching, and doing research/scholarly writing were found by level of satisfaction with the relative equity of salary and jobbenefits. The 7-point scale for this item rangesfrom “none” (coded as 0) to 21 or more (codedas 6). Means for this item were calculated foreach level of satisfaction of the salary and benefits equity variable.In general, as shown in Figure 6, the level ofsatisfaction increased as the mean hours per weekspent on teaching and preparing for teachingdecreased. For example, faculty who were notsatisfied had a mean of 2.56 on the hours perweek scheduled teaching item (2 represents1–4 hours per week and 3 represents 5–8 hoursIn general the level ofsatisfaction increased asthe mean hours per weekspent on teaching andpreparing for teachingdecreased.per week), while those who were very satisfiedhad a mean of 1.98 on the hours per week ofscheduled teaching item. The same relationship is true for the hours per week preparing forteaching, which includes grading and readingstudents’ papers. Those who were not satisfiedwith the relative equity of salary and job benefitshad a mean of 3.11, as compared to those whowere very satisfied who had a mean of 2.60.By contrast, as time spent doing research andFigure 6. Satisfaction with the Relative Equity of Salary and Job Benefits,by Hours per Week Teaching, Preparing for Teaching, and Research/Scholarly 02.602.452.131.982.172.261.501.000.500.00Scheduled teachingPreparing for teachingNot satisfied with relative equity of salary and job benefitsMarginally SatisfiedResearch and scholarly writingSatisfiedVery Satisfied9
scholarly writing increased, so did the level ofsatisfaction, though the differences weren’t aslarge. Faculty who were not satisfied with equitysalary and benefits had an average of 2.13, whilethose who were very satisfied had an averageof 2.26. It is interesting to note that those whowere satisfied spent even more time on researchand scholarly writing, with a mean of 2.45.Faculty believe they are not preparedto deal with diversity-related conflictin the classroomThe HERI Faculty Survey has several questions related to campus climate, some of whichare dispersed throughout the core instrumentwhile others can be found in an optional campusclimate module. This section will focus specifically on items related to faculty perceptions ofcampus racial climate that are in the core survey.While just over a quarter (27.0%) of facultyfelt that there was campus racial conflict attheir institution; across both race/ethnicity andgender their percepti
This report summarizes the highlights of a national survey of college and university faculty conducted by the Cooperative Institutional Research Program (CIRP) at the Higher Education Research Institute (HERI) during the 2016-2017 academic year. Although . HERI has been surveying higher educa-tion faculty since 1978, this report is the
HERI Faculty Survey HERI Sponsored by the Higher Education Research Institute Dear Faculty Member: Welcome to the HERI Faculty Survey. This project is sponsored by the Higher Education Research Institute at UCLA, a national organization that has conducted research on the college faculty experience since 1989.
May 02, 2018 · D. Program Evaluation ͟The organization has provided a description of the framework for how each program will be evaluated. The framework should include all the elements below: ͟The evaluation methods are cost-effective for the organization ͟Quantitative and qualitative data is being collected (at Basics tier, data collection must have begun)
Silat is a combative art of self-defense and survival rooted from Matay archipelago. It was traced at thé early of Langkasuka Kingdom (2nd century CE) till thé reign of Melaka (Malaysia) Sultanate era (13th century). Silat has now evolved to become part of social culture and tradition with thé appearance of a fine physical and spiritual .
2011 HERI Faculty Survey What is the HERI Faculty Survey? The Higher Education Research Institute (HERI) at UCLA administers a faculty survey to institutions nationwide once every three year. The national comparison group includes collective results from UCLA of all public 4-year colleges and universities participating in the survey.
On an exceptional basis, Member States may request UNESCO to provide thé candidates with access to thé platform so they can complète thé form by themselves. Thèse requests must be addressed to esd rize unesco. or by 15 A ril 2021 UNESCO will provide thé nomineewith accessto thé platform via their émail address.
̶The leading indicator of employee engagement is based on the quality of the relationship between employee and supervisor Empower your managers! ̶Help them understand the impact on the organization ̶Share important changes, plan options, tasks, and deadlines ̶Provide key messages and talking points ̶Prepare them to answer employee questions
Dr. Sunita Bharatwal** Dr. Pawan Garga*** Abstract Customer satisfaction is derived from thè functionalities and values, a product or Service can provide. The current study aims to segregate thè dimensions of ordine Service quality and gather insights on its impact on web shopping. The trends of purchases have
Astrophysics also receives tactical-level advice from the external science community via the Astrophysics Subcommittee of the NASA Advisory Council, and advice on cooperative activities from the Congressionally chartered, National Science Foundation (NSF)-managed Astronomy and Astrophysics Advisory Committee. NASA enables research to understand the structure, content, and evolution of the .
