James T. P. Yao, Professor of Civil Engineering, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843-3136

Sunday – 8 August 1999

Karen Frier introduced FC and predicted the future (budget cuts of approximately 15% this year and next year because of poor communications with the general public).

Monday – 9 August 1999

Jeff Froyd outlined what is needed in publicizing FC accomplishments to other schools. During this session, Jeff asked for strategies of better communication via journal papers and the Internet.

Walter Haisler talked about the 21X courses at Texas A&M University. Dennis O’Neal and Rich Griffin gave examples. As an example, students were asked to design a brake system for an electric car. They must use the knowledge learned in ENGR 211/212, and again in 213/214.

At the lunchtime, there were theme tables to discuss technology, freshman courses, sophomore courses, and faculty reward systems*.

In the afternoon, Jan Rinehart and Sandy Courter discussed Inclusive Learning Communities at various FC campuses. Teri Reed Rhoads and Rita Caso talked about assessment and evaluation programs.

Tuesday – 10 August 1999

Jim Richardson, Russ Pimmel, Jim Morgan, Dan Moore, and Ron Roedel lead a discussion on cooperative learning and teaming.

There were theme lunch tables on women and minorities, assessment, inclusive learning communities, and faculty reward systems*.

In the afternoon, Katherine Sanders, Patrick Farrell, and John Mitchell discussed faculty development. A free period and dinner at the lovely dining room in the Pyle Center followed it.

Wednesday – 11 August 1999

Sarah Phatteichen, Gwen Lee-Thomas, and Rita Caso talked about embedding assessment into curriculum reform. Jeff Froyd discussed the responsive curriculum and managing change.

*SUMMARY NOTES OF DISCUSSION ON FACULTY REWARD SYSTEM - FOUNDATION COALITION SUMMER CURRICULUM WORKSHOP (Initial draft: 8/11/99; reorganized by Jim Richardson and Walt Haisler and revised: 8/17/99)

Discussions were held during lunches (12:00noon to 1:30pm) on Monday-Tuesday, 9-10 August 1999. Participants included Ravi Chona, Don Edwards, Walt Haisler, Melinda Holt, Jim Morgan, Russ Pimmel, Jim Richardson, Judy Burry-Stock, Willis Tompkins, Jerry Wagner, and Jim Yao (Recorder). Results of the discussion are summarized as follows:

1. GOOD RESEARCH IS REWARDED MORE THAN GOOD TEACHING AT ENGINEERING SCHOOLS

1.1 There are three types of institutions of higher learning:

• junior colleges;

• non-research universities; and

• research universities.

For research universities, it is difficult to reward good teaching.

1.2 Nearly all engineering schools fall into the 3rd category (research universities).

1.3 The key for faculty rewards in a research university is to publish papers in refereed journals. The second factor is attracting competitive research funding.

1.4 At research universities, most people are rewarded for their research accomplishments.

1.5 Quality research is generally rewarded by merit pay raises and promotion (cumulative), while quality teaching is rewarded not at all or only through teaching awards (not cumulative).

1.6 The research activities are rewarded more because:

• university administrators are measured by how much they raise the status of the college or university

• it is easier to improve the status of a research university by emphasizing successful nationally competitive research activities (grants and peer reviewed papers);

• it is difficult to quantify and measure teaching effectiveness (depends on how you define it); and

• research projects bring in additional funds, (though NSF has changed it with engineering coalitions, etc. in recent years.)

2. WE NEED BETTER WAYS TO EVALUATE TEACHING

2.1 We are used to assuming that everyone can teach.

2.2 Students are not always qualified to evaluate teaching (though according to Rich Felder, results of approximately 3,000 studies in education support the validity of student evaluation). They are in a position to evaluate teachers' delivery, but not the course contents. Peers can evaluate the course contents. However, they are usually too busy to do a thorough job in most cases.

2.3 Students give good comments. Nevertheless students' impressions of the professors do change after they move through the curriculum and even after they graduate. We should measure teaching effectiveness with a set of detailed questions at various stages of students' lives.

2.4 We should measure the correlation between teaching and learning in addition to:

• peer evaluation,

• correlation of students' grades with their performance in the next course, and

• former students' evaluations.

3. WE NEED TO REWARD QUALITY

3.1 Tenure and promotion guidelines discuss quality teaching, but may not put much emphasis on the quality of teaching in reality.

3.2 Negative aspects on someone's teaching (e.g., students' complaints) are easy to register. Positive aspects are not so easy to obtain. This discourages innovation (i.e., risk-taking).

3.3 Parents are not informed customers. In addition, "quality" is customer driven. Who are the most important customers for research universities?

3.4 Not every individual is suited to do everything well. In a big department, people should be allowed to develop their own strengths.

3.5 The key factor in any faculty reward system is the philosophy of each university (how they value each activity). Even though a tenure and promotion committee may feel that teaching is important, it is often compelled to follow what is considered important by administrators and/or the university.

3.6 On the average, each paper in IEEE journals are read by seven people, three of whom are reviewers (reference unknown).There are many journals today because (1) it is driven by present faculty reward systems, and (2) there are more engineers than ever before.

4. CHANGING THE REWARD STRUCTURE WILL NOT BE EASY

4.1 Department heads, deans, provosts, etc. change form time to time. Whatever they say or do may also change. These people all rose under existing reward systems. Thus it is difficult for them to admit that the current systems are not balanced.

4.2 It is time-consuming to change the system. There is significant resistance to change the system.

4.3 Russ chaired a committee at UA and made a set of recommendations on quality of higher education. A major conclusion (from industry) was "it takes a crises to cause change."

Return to the Lohman homepage