File
Nitsch W.1, Liphart J.2, Manella K.3, Peters-Brinkerhoff C.1
1University of St. Augustine for Health Sciences, San Marcos, United States, 2University of St. Augustine for Health Sciences, St. Augustine, United States, 3University of St. Augustine for Health Sciences, Austin, United States
Background: Counting credit hours is the typical method to determine faculty workloads, but is not equitable to physical therapy education considering online learning, laboratory hours, and use of one-to-one learning assessments. Heavy faculty teaching workloads can have a direct correlation with faculty satisfaction student outcome achievement and meeting research expectations. The University of St. Augustine for Health Sciences (USAHS) is a specialized graduate-level institution in the United States, with seven doctor of physical therapy programs (DPT) in four locations. The institution's current faculty workload includes 50% teaching, 20% research 20% service, and 10% administration. USAHS has several complicating factors to measuring workload, with administrators challenged to find an equitable method of measurement and faculty expressing dissatisfaction with high workloads.
Purpose: The aim of this study is to develop a faculty workload measurement tool that will quantify productivity, is easy to use, and demonstrate transparency.
Methods: Faculty formed a workload taskforce. Data was gathered regarding teaching time per course, committee and research time. The taskforce reviewed literature and analyzed workload methodologies from three health science programs. Contact hour-point conversion tables were created based on delivery method, number of students, number of faculty teaching in the course, and number and type of learning assessments completed; also for each committee and type of research project. A worksheet template was developed that embedded the conversion tables. A small pilot of five faculty was completed, adjustments made to the template, instructions added based on faculty feedback,and input sought from the Universitys faculty governance. A larger faculty pilot was completed in October 2016. This data is currently being analyzed to produce the final version of the workload measurement tool.
Results: A master faculty workload tool was produced with the expectation that all full-time faculty (1 FTE) with a 100% workload should have 100 points after completing the tool. The self-calculating formulas embedded in the worksheet allowed faculty to consistently and easily calculate workload for teaching, research, and service. Three issues arose during the development process that required additional attention:
1) standardized faculty expectations had to be determined before tool development,
2) some faculty with high administrative responsibilities need adjusted workload formulas; and
3) any curriculum change will require new conversion tables.
There remains concern among faculty that this tool does not account for adequate course development and revision time.
Conclusion(s): Utilizing an environment of respect, looking beyond biases, and seeking input from colleagues, the taskforce developed a workload measurement tool that appears to be fair, transparent, and impartial. With the addition of directions and the self-calculating formulas, the form was easy to complete and provided quick information to faculty and their supervisors regarding regarding workload. Additional measures are needed to give faculty release time from teaching responsibilities for course development.
Implications: The findings of this study indicate that an equitable measurement of faculty workload in physical therapy programs can be achieved. An accurate and transparent measurement tool can support efficient use of resources, productivity, and faculty satisfaction.
Funding acknowledgements: None
Topic: Education
Ethics approval: Ethics approval was not required for this study
All authors, affiliations and abstracts have been published as submitted.
