The Quality Challenge: The Case for More Faculty
April 30, 2010
Ken Snowdon, President, Snowdon & Associates Inc., Harrowsmith, Ontario
A few weeks ago (April 16th) I argued that it is the quality of our graduates that will set Canada apart in the 21st century and therefore a need to pay attention to the quality of the learning experience as we pursue increased access and participation goals. The key characteristics of a quality learning experience are well understood. Years of research have boiled down to a few sets of key interactions. “What matters is the nature of the experiences students have after matriculation (admission): the courses they take, the instructional methods their teachers use, the interactions they have with their peers and faculty members outside the classroom, the variety of people and ideas they encounter, and the extent of their active involvement in the academic and social systems of their institution.“1 The emphasis on the important role of faculty, and interaction with faculty, is clear.
Over the past decade or so some progress has been made in developing ways to measure various aspects of the preceding interactions. One of the more robust measurement systems, the National Survey on Student Engagement (NSSE), is now used by many institutions in Canada and the United States. NSSE attempts to measure levels of student engagement in five areas: level of academic challenge, active and collaborative learning, student-faculty interaction, the opportunity for enriching educational experiences, and the campus environment. The NSSE engagement measures indicate that, on average, Canadian universities score below their U.S. peers and in some areas – student-faculty interaction – the difference is especially notable.
In Ontario, the Task Force on Competitiveness, Productivity and Economic Progress2 reviewed the NSSE results in the context of other comparative work and found that Ontario’s student to faculty ratio was almost 40% worse than public universities in the United States. The Task Force also noted that, relative to the leading 200 universities in the world, “Ontario’s universities score terribly on the staff to student component.”3
The fact is major increases in student enrolment have not been accompanied by similar increases in the number of faculty. From 19944 to 2007 full-time enrolment in Canada increased by about 40%, the number of full-time faculty increased by an estimated 12%, and the student to faculty ratio increased by almost one-quarter (24%). The impact on campuses across the country is reflected in measures such as the NSSE results. It varies by province of course depending on enrolment increases and the priority afforded investments in higher education. In general, however, the situation has deteriorated further in the past two years in light of continuing increases in enrolment.
A number of factors contribute to making the story even more telling. Since 1994 Tri-council research activity (funding) increased by 77% in real terms and graduate enrolment increased by almost 65%. Those two components, increased research activity and increased graduate enrolment, require considerable amounts of faculty time – thus cutting into ‘interaction’ time with undergraduates. At the same time, the federal and provincial governments continue to push universities to serve as the catalysts of economic and social development by encouraging faculty to jump on board the ‘innovation agendas’ – transforming research into commercial products and building partnerships to fuel the new knowledge economy; laudable objectives… but all requiring more faculty time.
On average, faculty members are responsible for more undergraduate students, an increased number of graduate students, and significant increases in research activity. While it is clear the student to faculty ratio has worsened it is equally clear such a simple measure understates the magnitude of the change in faculty activity levels. Weighting graduate enrolment by a factor of 3, for example, (to at least begin acknowledging the increased resource demands associated with increased numbers of graduate students) drives the overall increase in the student to faculty ratio towards a 30% increase over the period.
Universities have coped with the preceding increases in activity by employing considerably more part-time faculty, reducing the breadth and depth of course offerings, reducing course requirements, and increasing class size – all ‘coping’ tactics that tend to impact the quality of the learning experience. Yes, there are exceptions, and yes the use of part-time faculty does not necessarily translate into reduced quality and reduced ‘engagement’ in every case. But it is difficult to dismiss the reality of increased student to faculty ratios and to deny the negative impact on the learning environment.
Student /faculty interaction is one of the key characteristics of a quality learning experience. If the student to faculty ratio is considerably worse, on average, in Canada then in comparator institutions in other jurisdictions then it follows that one critical component in improving the quality of the learning experience would be to do something about the student to faculty ratio – either decrease the number of students or increase the number of faculty. Simple. To get back to the similar student to faculty ratios of 1994 (the weighted ratio) requires roughly the equivalent of 225,000 fewer students or 11,500 more faculty members. Simple.
Ah, but of course nothing is quite so simple. Reducing the number of students ‘flies in the face’ of all the progress that has been made to increase opportunities and increase participation rates; further increases are heralded as a cornerstone of our economic and social development policies. Purse strings are tight so increasing the number of faculty is deemed to be difficult. Moreover, even if student numbers were reduced the lost fee income would still have to be provided either through higher fees from the remaining students or increased grants.
So what’s to be done? It took a number of years to end up where we are and it will take some time to make real progress towards improvement. Some improvement in quality may result from better teaching methods focused on engagement activities and the more effective use of technology. But let’s be very clear - quality improvement starts with increased numbers of faculty.
Snowdon and Associates Inc. provides consulting services to the higher education sector aimed at optimizing institutional resources by improving governance, strategic planning, resource allocation and organizational effectiveness.
1Pascarella, E.T., and Terenzini, P.T., 2005, How College Affects Students, Vol.2, p.645.
2
Task Force on Competitiveness, Productivity and Economic Progress, Navigating through the recovery, Eighth Annual Report, November 2009 p.46
3
Ibid., p.45
4
Just prior to major cut-backs in federal transfer payments to the provinces.
|
