Transcript You’ve Got Questions We’ve Got Answers-The National Study of Instructional Costs and Productivity Dr.

You’ve Got Questions
We’ve Got Answers-The National Study of Instructional
Costs and Productivity
Dr. Heather A. Kelly
Assistant Director, Office of Institutional Research & Planning
University of Delaware
2006 SUS Data Workshop
Tallahassee, FL
July 27, 2006
The Delaware Study




Begun in 1992 with 15 research universities, 16 doctoral
universities, and 65 comprehensive and baccalaureate
institutions to address “Who is Teaching What to Whom, and
at What Cost?”
With funding from TIAA-CREF and Fund for Improvement of
Postsecondary Education (FIPSE), the Study’s instrumentation
and methodology was refined and enhanced in mid-1990s.
Currently embraces over 400 four-year colleges and
universities across the country.
Is the tool of choice for benchmarking detailed information of
teaching loads, instructional costs, and externally funded
scholarship at the academic discipline level of analysis.
Focus on Academic Discipline is
Not a Trivial Issue

A study done for NCES found that over 80 percent
in the variation in instructional costs across fouryear colleges and universities is accounted for by
the disciplines that comprise the curriculum at
those institutions.
The Typical Delaware Study
Participant Pool In Any Given Year

45 to 55 Research Universities

25 to 35 Doctoral Universities

60 to75 Comprehensive Institutions

20 to 30 Baccalaureate Institutions
Note: The Delaware Study utilizes the 1995 Carnegie Institutional Taxonomy.
For analytical purposes, it is far more meaningful than the current version.
The Delaware Study has emerged as an
important reporting tool for a diverse
group of constituents









AAU Data Exchange
HEDS
Southern Universities Group Data Exchange
Big 12 Universities
University of North Carolina System
Tennessee Board of Regents
Louisiana Board of Regents
Mississippi Board of Regents
South Dakota Board of Regents
The Delaware Study
Data Collection Template
Delaware Study Benchmarks are
Produced for All Participating
Institutions

By Carnegie Institutional Type

By Highest Degree Offered

By Relative Emphasis on Undergraduate
versus Graduate Instruction
The Delaware Study
benchmarks detailed teaching
load data…



By faculty category (tenured/tenure track, other
regular faculty; supplemental faculty; graduate
teaching assistants)
By level of instruction (lower division
undergraduate; upper division undergraduate;
graduate)
By student credit hours and organized class
sections taught
Benchmark Data for Measuring
Teaching Loads

Undergraduate Student Credit Hours Taught per
FTE Faculty

Graduate Student Credit Hours Taught per FTE
Faculty

Total Student Credit Hours Taught per FTE Faculty

Total Organized Class Sections Taught per FTE
Faculty

FTE Students Taught per FTE Faculty
Benchmark Data for Measuring
Fiscal Variables



Direct Instructional Expense per Student Credit Hour
Taught
Direct Instructional Expense per FTE Student Taught
Separately Budgeted Research and Service
Expenditures per FTE Tenured and Tenure Track
Faculty
In Addition to the Standard
Delaware Study Benchmarks…


You may request up to 5 peer analyses, each
comprised of at least 10 participating institutions.
Each peer analysis contains the same
benchmarks as in the full Delaware Study
analysis.
You receive access to the Delaware Study’s
secure website, and to the basic data set from
which the national benchmarks were generated.
You may massage these data to generate further
analyses.
Let’s look at a
practical example of
using the Delaware
Study data…
The Provost chooses to focus on
tenured/tenure track faculty when
examining data from the Delaware Study




Direct instructional costs are 85% to 90% on
average driven by faculty salaries.
Tenured and tenure track faculty are “fixed costs.”
They are essentially with us until retirement.
Tenured and tenure track faculty are the most
visible of faculty categories.
What is the return on investment?


We provide the Provost with data from
multiple years of the Delaware Study, looking
at the University indicators as a percentage of
the national benchmark for research
universities.
The Provost receives a single sheet for each
academic department, with graphs reflecting
numerous indicators.
Sample Benchmarking
Science Department
Undergraduate S tudent Credit Hours
Taught per FTE T/TT Faculty
Total S tudent Credit Hours Taught per FTE
T/TT Faculty
300
250
200
UD
150
Nat'l
100
50
0
1994
1996
1997
1998
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
Total Class S ections Taught per
FTE T/TT Faculty
Nat'l
1996
1997
1998
1996
1997
1998
1999
Total S tudent Credit Hours Taught per FTE
Faculty (All Categories)
UD
1994
Nat'l
1994
1999
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
UD
1999
260
250
240
230
220
210
200
190
180
UD
Nat'l
1994
Direct Instructional Expenditures per
S tudent Credit Hour
1996
1997
1998
1999
S eparately Budgeted Research and S ervice
Expenditures per FTE T/TT Faculty
$250
$120,000
$200
$100,000
$150
UD
$100
Nat'l
$80,000
UD
$60,000
Nat'l
$40,000
$50
$20,000
$0
$0
1994
1996
1997
1998
1999
FY95 FY97
FY98 FY99 FY00
Using Delaware Study Data
at the Institutional Level


From its inception, the Delaware Study has had
as its primary function that of being a
management tool for provosts, deans, and
department chairs to assess the relative position
of their academic departments and programs visà-vis those at appropriate comparator
institutions.
The Delaware Study is not intended to be used
as a tool to reward or penalize programs, but
rather to focus on strategies for program
improvement.
The NCES Study



Examined data from three Delaware Study data collection
cycles – 1998, 2000, and 2001 – for 25 disciplines typically
found at four year colleges and universities.
The initial hypothesis was that Carnegie institutional
classification would be a significant cost driver, i.e., research
universities would teach fewer credit hours at higher cost than
doctoral universities, which in turn would teach less and at
higher cost than either comprehensive or baccalaureate
institutions.
Hierarchical linear modeling was used to analyze the variance
in instructional cost across the institutions that participated in
each of the three data collection cycles.
Delaware Study of Instructional
Costs and Productivity
Direct Expense per Student Credit Hour Taught:
Institution Type Within Discipline
Academic Year 2001
400
379
342
350
Dollars
300
250
316
264
233
242
Research
202
200
181
171
140
150
Doctoral
116 112
132
Comprehensive
147
131
138
124
106 100
100
50
0
0
Chemistry
English
Foreign
Languages
Mechanical
Engineering
Sociology
Baccalaureate
Delaware Study of Instructional
Costs and Productivity
Direct Expense per Student Credit Hour Taught:
Discipline Within Institution Type
Academ ic Year 2001
400
379
342
350
Dollars
300
316
264
233
250
Chemistry
242
English
202
200
150
181
171
140
124
For. Lang.
147
140 131
106
112
138
132
100
Sociology
100
50
0
0
Research
Doctoral
Comprehensive
Mech. Eng.
Baccalaureate
Cost per Student Credit Hour
Taught in Selected Disciplines
Table 1: Direct Instructional Cost per Student Credit Hour Taught: Delaware Study Benchmarks
for Research Universities
2000
2001
2002
%
Cost/SCH Cost/SCH
%
Increase
Cost/SCH
2001 to 2003
%
3 Yr Wgtd
Increase
%
Average
From
Increase
Cost/SCH
2000
2003
Increase
Cost/SCH
Communications
164
164
0.0
157
-4.3
161
2.5
160
-2.3
Computer Science
203
204
0.5
242
18.6
293
21.1
261
28.7
Engineering
415
417
0.5
438
5.0
453
3.4
442
6.5
Foreign Languages
169
171
1.2
175
2.3
176
0.6
175
3.5
English
138
140
1.4
133
-5.0
141
6.0
138
0.1
Philosophy
134
132
-1.5
132
0.0
128
-3.0
130
-3.0
Chemistry
255
264
3.5
263
-0.4
245
-6.8
254
-0.3
Economics
145
154
6.2
144
-6.5
144
0.0
146
0.5
Geography
155
164
5.8
169
3.0
165
-2.4
166
7.2
History
142
149
4.9
141
-5.4
148
5.0
146
2.7
Political Science
168
164
-2.4
160
-2.4
161
0.6
161
-4.1
Sociology
130
124
-4.6
123
-0.8
120
-2.4
122
-6.4
Business Administration
175
199
13.7
208
4.5
209
0.5
207
18.3
Financial Management
184
187
1.6
201
7.5
215
7.0
206
11.8
Avg for 24 Disciplines
107
110
1.3
112
0.7
115
1.3
113
5.3
Cost per Student Credit Hour
Taught in Selected Disciplines
Table 2: Direct Instructional Cost per Student Credit Hour Taught: Delaware Study Benchmarks
for Doctoral Universities
2000
2001
2002
%
Cost/SCH Cost/SCH
2003
%
Increase
Cost/SCH
Increase
Cost/SCH
2001 to 2003
%
3 Yr Wgtd
Increase
%
Average
from
Increase
Cost/SCH
2000
Communications
143
130
-9.1
138
6.2
141
2.2
138
-3.4
Computer Science
165
142
-13.9
171
20.4
190
11.1
176
6.5
Engineering
375
356
-5.1
390
9.6
392
0.5
385
2.8
Foreign Languages
127
131
3.1
146
11.5
147
0.7
144
13.4
English
118
116
-1.7
118
1.7
121
2.5
119
1.0
Philosophy
129
120
-7.0
126
5.0
118
-6.3
121
-6.2
Chemistry
229
233
1.7
227
-2.6
219
-3.5
224
-2.2
Economics
139
144
3.6
145
0.7
147
1.4
146
4.9
Geography
137
125
-8.8
130
4.0
117
-10.0
123
-10.5
History
125
124
-0.8
131
5.6
121
-7.6
125
-0.1
Political Science
151
152
0.7
146
-3.9
134
-8.2
141
-6.6
Sociology
105
106
1.0
120
13.2
113
-5.8
114
8.7
Financial Management
174
174
0.0
175
0.6
170
-2.9
172
-1.0
Avg for 24 Disciplines
88
86
-1.5
90
3.0
89
-1.1
89
0.3
Delaware Study of Instructional
Costs and Productivity
 The volume of teaching activity, as measured by student credit
hours taught, is a major expense factor. As one might expect, given
a relatively constant faculty size, expense decreases as the volume
of teaching increases.
 Department size, as measured in terms of total number of faculty,
is consistently associated with expense. The larger the department,
the higher the cost.
 The proportion of a departmental faculty holding tenure is
associated with expense. Since tenured faculty are “fixed costs,”
not surprisingly the higher the proportion of tenured faculty, the
higher the cost.
Delaware Study of Instructional
Costs and Productivity


A surprising finding was that, while the presence of graduate level
instruction is associated with higher expense, the measured effect
of this variable on the magnitude of cost is smaller than teaching
volume, department size, and tenure rate.
It is frequently assumed that disciplines such as engineering and the
physical sciences are expensive, in part, owing to the equipmentintensive nature of those disciplines. While measurable, the extent
to which expense is associated with personnel cost, as opposed to
equipment cost, has less impact on the magnitude of expense than
teaching volume, department size, and tenure rate.
Major Findings from the
NCES Study


Across almost all disciplines, the volume of
teaching activity, measured in student credit
hours taught, is always associated with direct
instructional expense. Cost decreases as the
volume of teaching increases.
Department size, measured in terms of total
number of faculty, and total number of tenured
and tenure track faculty, is consistently
associated with cost across the disciplines. The
larger the faculty size, the higher the cost.
Major Findings from the
NCES Study


The proportion of total faculty who are tenured
or who are on tenure track is associated with
cost. The higher that proportion, the higher
the cost.
Among variables that measure faculty teaching
workload, the mean number of student credit
hours taught per FTE faculty is the most
common cost factor across the disciplines. The
larger the average number of student credit
hours taught, the lower the cost.
We invite you to visit the Delaware Study website:
http://www.udel.edu/IR/cost
As useful and comprehensive as
quantitative instructional ratios and
benchmarks are…..



They do not address the non-classroom
dimensions of faculty activity in an institution and
its academic programs.
It is possible that quantitative productivity and
cost indicators for a given program/discipline may
differ significantly from other institutional, peer,
and national benchmarks for wholly justifiable
reasons of quality that can be reflected in what
faculty do outside of the classroom.
This cannot be determined unless measurable
indicators of quality are collected.
Expanding the Delaware Study



Those working with the Delaware Study over the
years are highly sensitive to the possibility of
misinterpretation of benchmark data.
It is quite conceivable that a department may have
teaching loads well below national benchmarks, and
instructional costs well above, and pride itself on
those measures for purely qualitative reasons.
To be sure, what faculty do outside of the classroom
– instructional support, scholarship, and service substantively contributes to the quality of an
academic program, but may also significantly impact
how much faculty teach, and at what expense.
Expanding the Delaware Study


The University of Delaware, which received a major
FIPSE grant in 1996-99 to underwrite the teaching
load/cost portion of the Delaware Study, received a
second FIPSE grant to expand data collection to
include measures of out-of-classroom faulty activity.
The core activity in the current FIPSE grant, as was
the case with the earlier grant, is the use of an
Advisory Committee to develop data definitions, data
collection instruments, and calculation conventions.
The Committee is comprised of faculty, institutional
researchers, and other experts in measuring what
faculty do.
Is Faculty Work Understood?
National Center for Education Statistics indicate that
full-time faculty at four-year institutions report they
spend approximately one-half of their time on teaching
activities, which includes approximately 10 hours per
week in the classroom (Zimbler, 2001).
The term “work load” is often thought to refer to the
time faculty spend in the classroom. However, work
load relates to faculty work and the numerous
associated activities and responsibilities in and out of
the classroom (Braskamp & Ory, 1994).
Consider….
NSOPF survey results indicate:
 (1999) full-time instructional faculty report they spend
approximately 53% of their time on teaching activities
including 10 hours per week in the classroom (NCES;
Zimbler, 2001).
 (2004) full-time instructional faculty report they spend
58% of their time on teaching activities, including
approximately 9 hours per week in the classroom
(NCES; Cataldi, Bradburn, Fahimi, Zimbler, 2005).
These data suggest while faculty may be spending more
time on teaching activities, they spend slightly less
time in the classroom.
But, the public sees….
“It’s 10 a.m. Do you know where your
professors are?”
(Wilson, Chronicle of Higher Education, 2001)


A Boston University professor of Spanish was quoted saying, “I
don’t get paid for hanging around my office. I get pay increases
for preparing for classes and because I publish books and articles
and reviews” (p. 10).
“It’s not unusual for professors in English, history, modern
languages, political science, and philosophy, for example, to come
to campus only two or three days a week. The rest of the time
professors spend writing at home or conducting research in
libraries, archives, and museums – both local and afar. That’s true
not only for B.U. professors, but for those at research universities
across the country” (p.11).
Who Else Is Interested in
Faculty Workload?
Those who fund higher education:
– State legislatures
– Federal government
– Students and parents


Higher education trustees and
administrators
Faculty themselves
Faculty Activity Study - Purpose

Help alleviate misunderstandings of
faculty activity by providing
information to discuss what faculty
actually do, how much they do, and
the associated products.
Faculty Activity Study - Goal

Demonstrate faculty outputs that are a result of faculty spending
time outside the classroom on non-instructional activities.
– Teaching (i.e., redesigning course curriculum, advising
students, or conducting research with students)
– Scholarship (i.e., refereed and non-refereed publications,
editorial positions, juried shows and commissioned
performances, or grant activity)
– Service (i.e., institutional service, faculty extension and
outreach activities, or professional service).

The overall goal is to provide evidence regarding program
productivity, as well as the means to encourage more effective
management in higher education.
The Delaware Faculty Activity Study


Helps to articulate the different expectations for
what faculty are expected to do outside of the
classroom, based on institutional mission.
Helps to quantify what faculty actually do outside
of the classroom as a management tool for
assessing the extent to which an institution is
fulfilling its mission.
Faculty Activity Study
Data Collection Template
Faculty Activity Study
Participants

2002 Faculty Activity Study
Total of 57 institutions
– 23 comprehensive
institutions (40%)
– 20 baccalaureate
institutions (35%)
– 7 doctoral universities
(12%)
– 7 research universities
(12%)
– 29 private institutions
(51%)
– 28 public institutions
(49%)

2003 Faculty Activity Study
Total of 47 institutions
– 27 comprehensive
institutions (57%)
– 7 baccalaureate
institutions (15%)
– 7 doctoral universities
(15%)
– 6 research universities
(13%)
– 33 public institutions
(70%)
– 14 private institutions
(30%)
Faculty Activity Study - Results
 Refined means were not calculated for the
variables owing to the relatively small
number of participating institutions within
each Carnegie institution type, and the
large variance in data responses.
 The large variance for the majority of the
variables within each Carnegie
classification makes the median a better
statistic to describe the central tendency
for the sample.
Activities Related to Teaching
Department X: Activities Related to Teaching
2003 Median Analysis
12.00
12.00
10.00
10.00
Baccalaureate
8.00
Comprehensive
Doctoral
6.00
Research
4.00
2.00
Per Total Respondents
Per Total Respondents
Department X: Activities Related to Teaching
2002 Median Analysis
Baccalaureate
8.00
Comprehensive
Doctoral
6.00
Research
4.00
2.00
0.00
0.00
Redesign
Curriculum
Ugrad
Research
Grad
Research
Activity
Ugrad
Advisees
Grad
Advisees
Redesign
Curriculum
Ugrad
Research
Grad
Research
Activity
Ugrad
Advisees
Grad
Advisees
Activities Related to Scholarship
Department X: Activities Related to Scholarship
2003 Median Analysis
4.50
4.50
4.00
4.00
3.50
Baccalaureate
3.00
2.50
Comprehensive
2.00
Doctoral
1.50
Research
1.00
Per Total Respondents
Per Total Respondents
Department X: Activities Related to Scholarship
2002 Median Analysis
3.50
3.00
Baccalaureate
2.50
Comprehensive
2.00
Doctoral
1.50
Research
1.00
0.50
0.50
0.00
0.00
Juried
Show s,
Exhibitions
Refer Pubs Nonref Pubs
Activity
Ext Grant
Proposals
External
Grants
Aw arded
Juried
Show s,
Exhibitions
Refer Pubs Nonref Pubs
Activity
Ext Grant
Proposals
External
Grants
Aw arded
Activities Related to Service
Department X: Activities Related to Service
2003 Median Analysis
6.00
6.00
5.00
5.00
4.00
Baccalaureate
Comprehensiv
e
Doctoral
3.00
2.00
Research
1.00
Per Total Respondents
Per Total Respondents
Department X: Activities Related to Service
2002 Median Analysis
4.00
Baccalaureate
Comprehensiv
e
Doctoral
3.00
2.00
Research
1.00
0.00
Leadership in
Prof Assoc
Prof Service
Ext/Outreach
Activity
Inst Service
0.00
Leadership in
Prof Assoc
Prof Service
Ext/Outreach
Activity
Inst Service
Utilizing the
Faculty Activity Study





Provides contextual information and supplies a
backdrop for examining DE Study’s teaching loads
and associated costs.
Institutions experiencing state mandates have
combined state-mandated elements with the
Faculty Activity Study variables to develop one
instrument.
Institutions have integrated Faculty Activity Study
variables into their annual review process.
Data facilitates informed decision-making
processes.
Data helpful in answering requests from state
agencies, as well as other external constituents.
We invite you to visit the Faculty Activity Study website:
http://www.udel.edu/IR/fipse
Summarizing the Findings
 Certain factors are associated with the magnitude of direct instructional
cost. These include volume of student credit hours taught, department
size in terms of full time equivalent faculty, and tenure rate. However,
before manipulating these factors in any draconian fashion to contain
costs, it must be underscored that faculty engage in activities other
than teaching that have significant value to students, the institution,
and the larger society.
 Faculty are typically involved in out-of-classroom activities such as
curriculum re-design, academic advising, thesis/dissertation
supervision, academic scholarship, and service to the
profession/institution/community.
 Emphasis on various types of out-of-classroom faculty activity generally
reflect institutional choices related to mission and to the balance
between and among teaching, research, and service.
Closing Thoughts



It is also incumbent upon institutions to manage
their resources, including faculty teaching loads.
Benchmarking tools such as the Delaware Study of
Instructional Costs and Productivity assist provosts
and department chairs in assessing their resources
in comparison with peer departments and other
departments to which they aspire.
Colleges and universities must be proactive in
describing how and why they deploy human and
fiscal resources in the manner in which they do.
Questions and
Discussion
Useful Resources



Middaugh, M.F. (2001). Understanding faculty productivity:
Standards and benchmarks for colleges and universities. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Middaugh, M.F., Graham, R., & Shahid, A. (2003). A study of
higher education instructional expenditures: The Delaware
Study of Instructional Costs and Productivity. (NCES
Publication No. 2003-161). U.S. Department of Education.
Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences.
Middaugh, M.F., & Isaacs, H.K. (2005). Benchmarking
departmental activity via a consortial approach: The Delaware
Study. In J.E. Groccia & J.E. Miller (Eds.), On Becoming a
Productive University: Strategies for Reducing Costs and
Increasing Quality in Higher Education (pp. 70-83). Bolton,

MA: Anker Publishing Company, Inc.
Middaugh, M.F. (2005). Understanding higher education costs.
Planning for Higher Education, 33(3), 5-18.
Thank you!
http://www.udel.edu/IR
http://www.udel.edu/IR/cost
http://www.udel.edu/IR/fipse
Please feel free to contact me:
Heather A. Kelly, [email protected]