An official website of the United States government
Abstract BackgroundThe University of California system has a novel tenure-track education-focused faculty position called Lecturer with Security of Employment (working titles: Teaching Professor or Professor of Teaching). We focus on the potential difference in implementation of active-learning strategies by faculty type, including tenure-track education-focused faculty, tenure-track research-focused faculty, and non-tenure-track lecturers. In addition, we consider other instructor characteristics (faculty rank, years of teaching, and gender) and classroom characteristics (campus, discipline, and class size). We use a robust clustering algorithm to determine the number of clusters, identify instructors using active learning, and to understand the instructor and classroom characteristics in relation to the adoption of active-learning strategies. ResultsWe observed 125 science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) undergraduate courses at three University of California campuses using the Classroom Observation Protocol for Undergraduate STEM to examine active-learning strategies implemented in the classroom. Tenure-track education-focused faculty are more likely to teach with active-learning strategies compared to tenure-track research-focused faculty. Instructor and classroom characteristics that are also related to active learning include campus, discipline, and class size. The campus with initiatives and programs to support undergraduate STEM education is more likely to have instructors who adopt active-learning strategies. There is no difference in instructors in the Biological Sciences, Engineering, or Information and Computer Sciences disciplines who teach actively. However, instructors in the Physical Sciences are less likely to teach actively. Smaller class sizes also tend to have instructors who teach more actively. ConclusionsThe novel tenure-track education-focused faculty position within the University of California system represents a formal structure that results in higher adoption of active-learning strategies in undergraduate STEM education. Campus context and evolving expectations of the position (faculty rank) contribute to the symbols related to learning and teaching that correlate with differential implementation of active learning.
more »
« less
This content will become publicly available on October 16, 2026
Reimagining the role of teaching-focused faculty in research-intensive universities: The evolution of scholarly expectations and departmental influence
Research-intensive universities aim to conduct cutting-edge research while providing the knowledge and skills necessary to prepare students to excel in their respective fields. As student enrollments surge, many institutions have turned to hiring teaching-focused faculty. In the University of California (UC) system, there exists a unique position known as the Professor of Teaching (PoT). This position is tenure-eligible, and members are required to engage in classroom teaching, scholarly activities, and service responsibilities. To shed light on the background characteristics, roles and perceptions of the impact of teaching-focused faculty in research-intensive institutions, we collected survey data from STEM PoT faculty across the UC system. We employed a mixed methods approach, using descriptive and inferential statistics to analyze quantitative responses and thematic analysis to examine open-ended qualitative data. Our analysis shows that pre-tenure PoTs place greater emphasis on scholarly activities relative to their peers who have been in the role for longer. However, their training and the institutional resources provided may not align with expectations for scholarly activities. Additionally, we find that PoTs who engage in research perceive that they have a more significant impact on their colleagues’ teaching. This finding underscores the value of research, even for teaching-focused faculty. This study informs the evolving landscape of teaching-focused faculty within research-intensive universities and provides recommendations for administrators considering how to ensure that their institutions are fulfilling their educational mission.
more »
« less
- Award ID(s):
- 1821724
- PAR ID:
- 10653808
- Editor(s):
- Clark, Mary Diane
- Publisher / Repository:
- PLOS One
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- PLOS One
- Volume:
- 20
- Issue:
- 10
- ISSN:
- 1932-6203
- Page Range / eLocation ID:
- e0334895
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
This article presents new quasi-experimental evidence regarding the effectiveness of teaching-oriented faculty with tenure-track appointment, a model pioneered at the University of California (UC) system. Using data from six cohorts of students at a UC campus, we examine the impact of initial course-taking with three distinct types of instructors—tenure-track research faculty, tenure-track teaching faculty, and contingent lecturers—on students’ current and subsequent academic outcomes. Descriptive analyses indicate that tenure-track teaching faculty assume a substantially larger teaching load than either research faculty or lecturers. Using a three-way fixed effects model, we find limited evidence supporting differences by faculty type on either current or downstream student outcomes.more » « less
-
Over the past 50 years the diversity of higher education faculty in the mathematical, physical, computer, and engineering sciences (MPCES) has advanced very little at 4-year universities in the United States. This is despite laws and policies such as affirmative action, interventions by universities, and enormous financial investment by federal agencies to diversify science, technology, mathematics, and engineering (STEM) career pathways into academia. Data comparing the fraction of underrepresented minority (URM) postdoctoral scholars to the fraction of faculty at these institutions offer a straightforward empirical explanation for this state of affairs. URM postdoc appointments lag significantly behind progress in terms of both undergraduate and Ph.D.-level STEM student populations. Indeed, URM postdoc appointments lag well-behind faculty diversity itself in the MPCES fields, most of which draw their faculty heavily from the postdoctoral ranks, particularly at research-intensive (R1) universities. Thus, a sea-change in how postdocs are recruited, how their careers are developed, and how they are identified as potential faculty is required in order to diversify the nation’s faculty, and particularly the R1 MPCES professoriate. Our research shows that both Ph.D. students and postdocs benefit from intentional structure at various levels of their respective “apprentice” experiences, a factor that we believe has been neglected. Several key structural approaches are highly effective in these regards: (1) A collaborative approach in which leading research universities collectively identify outstanding URM candidates; (2) Faculty engagement in recruiting and supporting these postdocs; (3) Inter-institutional exchange programs to heighten the visibility and broaden the professional experiences of these postdocs; (4) Community-building activities that create a sense of belonging and encourage continuing in academia for each cohort; and (5) Continuing research based on outcomes and new experimental approaches. The California Alliance, consisting of UC Berkeley, UCLA, Caltech, and Stanford, has been engaged in such a program for almost a decade now, with most of the California Alliance URM postdocs now in tenure track positions or on the path toward careers as faculty at research intensive (R1) institutions. If this approach was brought to scale by involving the top 25 or so URM Ph.D.-producing R1 institutions in the MPCES fields, about 40% of the national URM postdoctoral population in these fields could be affected. Although this impact would fall short of bringing URM MPCES faculty ranks up to full representation of the United States population as a whole, it would vastly improve the outlook for URM students and their aspirations to take on leadership roles as scientists and engineers.more » « less
-
University faculty divide their time into their main academic responsibilities, typically identified as teaching, research, service, and, at institutions with strong ties to their surrounding community, outreach. Most studies of time allocation have focused on faculty at Primarily White Institutions. The present study investigated how faculty at five Historically Black Universities (HBUs) allocate their time to their academic responsibilities. Data were analyzed based on their tenure status, gender, and representation in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Faculty estimated the percentage of time they currently allocate ( current ), the time they would ideally allocate ( ideal ), and the time they estimate their institution expects them to allocate ( expected ) to each academic responsibility. Across all demographics, there were discrepancies between current and ideal time allocation to research and teaching and, in some demographics, outreach. The greatest discrepancy between current and expected time allocation was observed in time allocated to research, with women and untenured faculty also showing a discrepancy in time allocated to teaching, and underrepresented faculty showing no discrepancies between current and expected time allocation. Women, untenured, and underrepresented faculty reported that their time allocation patterns were guided by external factors rather than personal preferences. The surveyed faculty also stated that the patterns of effort distribution expected to obtain tenure were not necessarily guided by the faculty handbooks at their institution. Although this study is limited by its relatively small sample size, it provides an insight into how faculty at HBUs divide their time and the reasons for them to do so.more » « less
-
Abstract In this paper, we theorize the intersectional gendered impacts of COVID‐19 on faculty labor, with a particular focus on how institutions of higher education in the United States evaluate faculty labor amidst the COVID‐19 transition and beyond. The pandemic has disrupted faculty research, teaching, and service in differential ways, having larger impacts on women faculty, faculty of color, and caregiving faculty in ways that further reflect the intersections of these groups. Universities have had to reconsider how evaluation occurs, given the impact of these disruptions on faculty careers. Through a case study of university pandemic responses in the United States, we summarize key components of how colleges and universities shifted evaluations of faculty labor in response to COVID‐19, including suspending teaching evaluations, implementing tenure delays, and allowing for impact statements in faculty reviews. While most institutional responses recenter neoliberal principles of the ideal academic worker that is both gendered and racialized, a few universities have taken more innovative approaches to better attend to equity concerns. We conclude by suggesting arecalibrationof the faculty evaluation system – one that maintains systematic faculty reviews and allows for academic freedom, but requires universities to take a more contextualized approach to evaluation in ways that center equity and inclusion for women faculty and faculty of color for the long term.more » « less
