Faculty Workload Task Force
Recommendations
The Faculty Workload Task Force was commissioned during the 2006-2007
academic year and met for the first time in April, 2007. Relevant information from
other institutions and the colleges at Abilene Christian University was gathered over
the summer and early fall of 2007 and is included with this report. Task Force
members are:
Joe Bell
MaLesa Breeding
Colleen Durrington (Chair)
Rick Lytle
Jim Nichols
Glenn Pemberton
Scott Perkins
Jack Reese
Ian Shepherd
Tracy Shilcutt
Jeanine Varner
Tom Winter (Resource Person)
A university with aspirations such as those described in Abilene Christian
University’s 21st Century vision is apt to foster a frenetically paced work
environment that rewards those whose work habits tend to be unhealthy, both
spiritually and physically. We encourage the administration and faculty to keep in
mind the need to live a balanced life, to observe sabbath, and to trust in God rather
than self for success. The committee commends the Human Resources department
for addressing these heart matters through "Still Point" retreats for faculty and staff,
and we encourage other groups, such as the Adams Center, to consider similar
programs. We also encourage all administrators to promote these values by
modeling a balanced life of work, faith, and family.
The Task Force was charged to examine faculty workloads throughout Abilene
Christian University with the goal of recommending ways to improve the quality of
life for faculty. We appreciate the concern for faculty demonstrated by the
administration in appointing the Task Force.
The Task Force agrees that faculty at ACU have heavy loads and are to be
commended for the balance they have been able to achieve in finding time for
scholarship and service while most are teaching 12 hours each semester. We
recommend that the university work toward nine-hour teaching loads for tenure-track
and tenured faculty who are engaged in scholarly activity; however, we realize that
this can only be accomplished over time. We recommend beginning by reducing
loads for at least 10% of faculty who are currently teaching a standard 12-hour load
and who have a proven track record of scholarly/creative activity. The percentage of
2
faculty involved should increase on an annual basis as leaders on campus
encourage more faculty to increase scholarly productivity. Faculty members to
receive reduced loads would be recommended annually by department chairs and
approved by the deans of the colleges.
The Task Force is aware that class size and the number of preparations a faculty
member has will impact workload. We recommend that chairs and deans closely
monitor these two factors and adjust loads as needed.
In addition, the Task Force looked at other specific ways workloads can be adjusted
to improve the quality of life of ACU faculty. We recommend that the university
consider the following areas.
I. Loads for Non-Tenure-Track Faculty
Essentially, non-tenure-track faculty fall into two categories: Group 1, those who are
working toward tenure track; and Group 2, those who are not working toward tenure
track. Assignment to one of these two groups should be on a case-by-case, usually
at hiring. The expectations and load requirements for these two groups should be as
follows:
Group 1
 Load requirements similar to tenure track faculty
Group 2








No scholarship requirements in terms of productivity
Required to maintain current knowledge and practices in their discipline
Teaching load no more than 15 credit hours per long semester
Summer teaching voluntary and compensated additionally
Not eligible to serve on Tier 1 committees
May serve on departmental committees where needed
Held to standards of collegiality that other faculty members share
Office hours assigned equivalent to those of full-time faculty
II. Guided Studies, Conference Courses, and Overloads
Guided studies at ACU are designed to facilitate study and research by outstanding
undergraduate and graduate students; they are not intended as substitutes for
courses which are offered as part of degree programs. Faculty members are not
required to oversee guided studies, and they are not compensated for overseeing
guided studies. Effective guided studies do require faculty time for oversight,
however, and thus should be reserved for the purposes stated above. A syllabus for
each guided study must be submitted for approval by the department chair and the
dean.
3
Conference courses at ACU are courses which are listed in the catalog but which
occasionally are offered in a guided study format. Faculty members are not required
to oversee conference courses, and they are not compensated for overseeing
conference courses. Effective conference courses do require faculty time for
oversight, however, and should be offered only in rare circumstances. A syllabus for
each conference course must be submitted for approval by the department chair and
the dean.
There are times when, due to faculty renewal leaves, unexpected enrollment
increases, or similar circumstances, faculty members may be asked by a chair to
teach an overload. No faculty member should be required to teach an overload. If a
faculty member chooses to accept an overload, the faculty member will be
compensated additionally. Department chairs and deans should take care that
overloads not become a regular practice for any faculty member.
No faculty member should teach more than one guided study, one conference
course, or one overload course in the same semester during the regular academic
year (fall or spring terms).
III. Internship and Practica
Internships are important parts of the curricula in each of the colleges at ACU.
Faculty members may be required to oversee internships, but the time commitments
for such oversight vary widely from department to department. Oversight of
internships does not necessarily carry the expectation of compensation for faculty
members. If, however, a department chair can document that internship oversight
approaches the amount of time commitment for the faculty member as a regular
course does, then he or she may petition the dean’s office for load credit or extra
compensation for the faculty member.
Note: We believe that the terms “internship” and “practicum” need to have general
definitions and expectations campus-wide. We do not, however, believe that
defining those terms is a task which the Faculty Workload Task Force should
undertake. We recommend, instead, that the associate deans in the colleges work
together to develop a set of university-wide definitions and expectations for
internships and practica and present those to the Provost’s Cabinet for discussion
and final approval.
IV. Office Hours
Due to technological and cultural changes, faculty commonly spend three hours a
week or more interacting with students via email and other digital media. Therefore,
we recommend that required full-time faculty scheduled/posted office hours be
reduced from ten to seven per week. We further recommend that within those seven
4
hours, and in collaboration with department chairs, the faculty member may choose
to schedule non-traditional, posted office hours through “virtual office hours”
(scheduled availability through Blackboard chats, instant messaging, etc.), hours in
the Library Commons, or other creative options that serve student needs, schedules,
and communication styles.
Department chairs, in collaboration with the dean, should have the latitude to work
on an individual basis with faculty in exceptional circumstances (on a semester-bysemester basis) to reduce office hours further.
V. Tiered Committees
The Faculty Workload Task Force recommends that the Faculty Senate request the
chair of each standing committee over the next two years to log the number of hours
of work the committee required of members. Based upon those numbers, the
Senate will designate each committee as a Tier I, II, or III committee, with Tier I
committees requiring the most time.
When ad hoc committees are appointed by the Senate, Provost, or others, each
committee should be designated by the appointing body or individual as a Tier I, II,
or III committee based upon an estimate of the number of hours of work the
committee will require.
Faculty members will use the designations to decide whether or not to agree to
serve on given committees and will also use the designations to describe service
when applying for tenure and promotion.
A listing of all committees should be available online and updated annually or by
semester as needed.
VI. Faculty Credit Load for Courses in Which Credit Hours Differ From Contact
Hours
The Task Force does not believe that one-size-fits-all is a good approach in
managing lab, studio, and similar courses. We do, however, believe that the
following approaches could be helpful.
Allow department chairs, with deans’ approval, to determine for each course whether
the course is a Level I, Level II, or Level III in regard to faculty involvement and
presence in the lab/studio/teaching area.

Level III – The faculty member is really not involved in the lab/studio,
teaching area, except occasionally. The faculty member’s involvement is
5


primarily oversight/administration. Load credit, in this case, would equal
the number of credit hours which students receive for the course.
Level II – The faculty member is in the lab/studio/teaching area from 50%
to 100% of the time, with graduate students or lab instructors handling part
of the instruction. Load credit, in this case, would typically be 150% of the
credit hours which students receive for the course.
Level I – The faculty member is in the lab/studio/teaching area at all hours
the lab meets and is actively involved in the teaching process. If the chair
deems the workload and class size to be such that additional faculty load
credit is merited, the chair may recommend that load credit be increased,
not to exceed the clock hours for which the lab is scheduled each week.
Chairs and deans would review the appropriateness of this approach at least every
two years.
This approach would apply during the summer terms as well as the fall and spring
terms.
VII.
Students Involved in Research
All faculty members regularly involved in leading and collaborating with students in
research which produces tangible outcome products to the students’ benefit may
receive a one course load reduction for such involvement. Consideration will be
given to such factors as the length and nature of the project and the number of
students involved. This credit will be reviewed annually with the department chair
and dean and “earned” in advance (i.e., a project with students in 2008-2009 with
appropriate outcome products would lead to a load reduction in 2009-2010). This
reduction of up to one three-hour course would be calculated against the universitywide standard teaching load (currently 12 hours each long semester).
VIII.
Team-Taught Courses
Because team teaching is a key part of the new core curriculum, because the
complexities of team teaching will not be fully known until the core curriculum is
designed, and because the core curriculum implementation task force has only now
begun its work, recommendations about faculty work load related to the core
curriculum should be made by the core curriculum task force.
With that said, the work load task force recommends the following broad principle:
faculty in team-taught courses (fully connected, with all faculty always in the class)
engage in at least as much work as they do for courses they teach individually.
Therefore, the bias in calculating course loads should reflect actual work expected
by faculty. For example, if two faculty members team-teach a three-hour course,
each should receive credit for teaching those three hours. The extra work which is
6
essential to good team teaching should not be borne by faculty. If the course
continues in a permanent cycle, there should be periodic review (every third cycle)
with the faculty members, the department chair(s) and the dean(s).