At our University, much effort and sup- port is expended to provide released time for research and other activities. The institution seems to be pre- occupied with the task of reducing teaching loads, re- ducing the number of students per instructor, improving teaching "efficiency," and in general, accommodating the faculty who demand less and less teaching responsi- bilities.

The essence of this proposal is to support released time for undergraduate teaching, that is, release from non-teaching activities that are less important and less critical than teaching in meeting our institutional goals. There are many instructional faculty who already have underway excellent programs for improvement in under- graduate instruction. By releasing their time from non-teaching duties, they could devote their major efforts toward undergraduate instruction without losing out on promotiou arid teuure benefits. The status of those pursuing this cause is to be iusured by setting up a system of faculty ranks parallel and complementary to the ongoing professorial ranks and deanships.

After all, improvement of undergraduate instruction will be guaranteed only by directly supporting those interested in and capable of doing it. The most direct way of obtaining this support is to recognize it as an integral part of their duties. The ranks arid salaries to match this work are proposed here.

Released Time for Teaching

Background

provocative

An examination of the faculty work load reports re- veals a variety of activities other than teaching. These other activities include research, committee work, counselling, administration, etc. The institution gets, in return for a faculty salary, professional services in the activities in proportion to the emphasis or priority attached by the institution to these activities. In order to "climb the ladder," one is usually expected to con- tribute through priority activities and if he does a good job he reaches the top. Then he may be called upon to move into an even higher priority job such as adminis- tration. A super-professor becomes a dean or a direc- tor, or even a president, and the institution loses his services as a teacher, researcher, committeeman, etc. Most important he no longer takes an active part in teaching or in helping directly with teaching.

In recent years the faculty has been conditioned to view undergraduate teaching as a chore for the under- lings and teaching is consequently relegated to a minor role. An example of thisis the fact that it is almost im- possible to "climb the ladder" via teaching alone, yet one may make the grade through a variety of non- teaching activities.

As to the quality of undergraduate instruction by a

faculty not primarily devoted to research and/or other non-teaching activities, there is only subjective support for the idea that the vigorous pursuit of research and other non-teaching activities makes for excellent under- graduate teaching. Objectively, one must account for the fact that 46y0 of the nations doctorates this past year went to students who graduated from 4-year col- leges whose enrollment was less than 20y0 of the total enrollment, and this performance has persisted for many years. At our university, 42y0 of last year's doctorates went to students who graduated from 4-year colleges. There is no quantitative evidence to support the suppo- sition that a faculty who emphasizes research and other non-teaching activities excels in undergraduate instruc- tion. I11 fact, a perusal of the list of national contribu- tors to recent advances in improvemerits in under- graduate curricular materials in the sciences shows a preponderance of people primarily devoted to teaching matters and not particularly excelling in research. It is readily admissable that there are exceptional re- searchers who are excellent teachers, but at the same time there are excellent researchers who are incapable of teaching. The argument here is that teaching, per se, can be and often is pursued intellectually just as in- tensively as is research and other activities. I t is largely a matter of motivation on the part of the faculty and leadership on the part of the administration.

A university, fundamentally, preserves, interprets, and extends human knowledge. In this day, it is un- realistic to expect a particular faculty member to excell in all three areas. A university can, through its com- bined facilities, best achieve its fundamental mission through a diversity of assignments rather than expect- ing each faculty to excel1 in all three. This is the basis for making this proposal.

Plan of Proposal

It is proposed that funds, on a continuing basis if possible, be allocated to salaries of high quality teachers in order to release their time for teaching. This may include a number of professors who have moved into administrative work a t the department level, but it would also include those at the dean's level who have been capable teachers and who would be interested in continuing this activity provided it were sufficiently rewardiug in salary, prestige, and respectability. It would also apply to those in the professional ranks who remain there because of their primary interest in teach- ing.

The proposal provides for an extensiou of the pro- fessional ranks above the full professor level (Academic Professorship) in order to attract and hold those capa- ble teachers who ordinarily move out of teaching. The proposal also provides for release time for faculty a t all

Volume 48, Number 7, July 1971 / 435

other levels who wish to be released from non-teaching responsibilities in order to more effectively contribute their serivceb directly to teaching matters.

The new Academic Professor rank would be unique, not to be confused with Distinguished Professor, Super Professor, Emeritus, etc. The new rank would be equivalent to the Dean rank in annual salary but above the Dean rank in academic and teaching matters. The Academic Professor's chief concern would be in actual teaching and the development of teaching improvements in his area of specialization. He would not administrate in any way, but would take precedence over a dean in policy matters that involve teaching. The Academic Professors would be directly responsible to the President of the University.

For lower ranks, this proposal provides for support of released time for teaching in this way: A typical professor (or assistant and associate professor) teaches, researches, committees, counsels, etc. Those faculty a t all of these levels would be invited to apply for release time for undergraduate teaching, and those non-teach- ing duties he chooses to reject will be picked up by others who wish less teaching duties and/or by a type of academic assistant in the form of clerical help, admiu- istrative assistants, business managers, researchers, papergmders, plumbers, and other forms of service persom~el. Many of the committ,ces on campus can be adequately manned by non-teaching personnel. For instance, why should professiondly trained scientists, engineers, philosophers, and humanists be manning the committees on campus traffic, student housing, safety, nthletics, welfare, building planning, etc., etc. In our day and age, there are specially trained people who can plan n new physics building far better than any physi- cist or who can manage traffic f ~ r better than a sociology professor. R'Iany of such assignments are ludicrous.

A reassignment of these various activities to especi:clly qualified experts could release the professors for more teaching. This would lend to the develop- ment of a cadre of staff who, like our business m:cnagers, t:ckc care of the noli-academic :iffairs that must be handled. Those at regular profession:d rank on re- lensed time for teaching would be responsible to their department chairman, and their promotion :~nd tenure vould be based wholly on their contributions in teaching andlor other assigned professional duties. That is, once they have elected re1e:wed time for teaching, they nre no longer responsible for those duties from which they have been released.

Appointments to released time for teaching are to be made by the I'resident but nominations for these ap- pointments may be made by persons at all levels on the campus, including students. The nomination should be initiated by the department chairman, but it or- dimwily would arise spontaneously from the faculty member himself. Qualifications for the rank of Aca- demic Professor \vould include several years of contitm- ing undergraduate instruction nt the professor rank, notable success iu improvements of instruction and with the poteuti:cl of making significant further im- provements, established reputation as nn undergraduate educator, and communications and publications as evidence of creetive work in this type of professional work. Proportionate qualifications would be required for released teaching time a t the lower ranlcs.

A proposal for released time for teaching, somewhat like the proposals currently required for released time for research or other activities would be initiated by the applicant. This proposal should spell out the appli- cant's background in teaching, his current and projected plans for improving his teaching in his area of specializa- tion, and plans for communicating his progress to his colleagues and to the educational community at large. In many respects, this proposal would he quite parallel to the content of a typical research proposal.

Evaluation Procedures

Because of the "revolutionary" nature of this pro- posed project, the evaluation of its effectiveness cannot be adequately made by means of the conventional methods of evaluation. For instance, the typical annual review of faculty on the basis of the number of research publications would be entirely inappropriate. Unless a department has a workable method of evaluat- ing teaching effectiveness, or is willing to design such a method, the evaluatiou of a faculty member's contribu- tion to improve undergraduate instruction should be made by a group a t the institutional level specially designated by the Dean of Faculty for this purpose. I n other words, the typical democratic methods of staff evaluation at the departmental level would require considerable modification. I t is conceivable that, if a sufficient number of Academic Professors were estab- lished, some of them could serve as evaluator's of teach- ing effectiveness. Hopefully, however, these persons would not be involved in more than policy matters in order that their time released for teaching is, in fact, protected.

Evaluative devices would be initiated specially for this proposed project. By and large, the students have identified the major issue-poor instruction. Students may not be fully aware of why instruction is poor or good but they are the primary client of the institution and should be directly consulted. Both current and former students' evaluations of instruction would be included. Periodic reviews in the form of simple questionnaires or other written reports would be re- quired.

Based upon the student evaluations, an institutional evaluation of a faculty's teaching would be made. If be fails to show reasonable progress in improving under- graduate teaching, he will be removed from his released time for teaching status. A faculty member would continue on the released time for teaching status as long as he receives favorable evaluation by students and the institution. He may opt to retire from this status a t any time, but as long as be is on this status, he agrees to submit to these evaluation procedures.

Operational Procedures

The machinery needed to get this project underway must be simple, forthright, and require a minimum of time and effort on the part of the teaching staff. There are already too many distractions from teaching, and it would be detrimental to the philosophy of supporting released time for teaching if a new hierarchy of com- mittees, councils, and commissions were established to administer this program.

The overall supervision of this project would be the

436 / Journal of Chemicol Education

responsibility of the Dean of the Faculty. Essentially, 20ng:'$"i,",2,";tf;] g&$ ,",';p'g;,",?; c:z he would be the4'Czar" who organizes the nomination, ,nt month status $ 40,000 selection, and assignment of released time for teaching

To support non-teaching duties of 50 faculty who he set up no elect for released time for teaching @ $3,000 supple- advisory panels but obtain any assistance needed from ment, based on assum tion that of faculty tme ad hoc or informal contacts with the faculty. That is, is involved in non-teacging duties 150,000

the responsibility for the execution of this project would Related costs to assist in the administration of this lie with a sinele administrator and not be relerrated to pmFam 20,000

the ananymi& of democratic control by the faculty. Salaly assessments at 10%

Budget

I n supporting this proposal, the budget outlined below is suggested as an indication of the level of cost in support of the released time for undergraduate teaching program. Detaik are left for further study.

W. H. Slabaugh Oregon State University

Corvallis, 97331

Volume 48, Number 7, July 1971 / 437