2004survey

The American Association of University Professors,

Truman State University Chapter

Presents

The AAUP “State of the University” Survey

Fall 2004

THE AAUP 2004 “STATE OF THE UNIVERSITY” REPORT: Brief Summary

The AAUP 2004 State of the University Survey was completed by 127 faculty
across all divisions. This represents 33.96% of all full- and part-time faculty
and 49.10% of tenured faculty. This response rate is the lowest experienced in
the six years we have administered the survey. It was the first time the survey
has been electronically administered and it was the first time so many other
requests for faculty to respond to survey instruments occurred virtually
simultaneously. Either or both events potentially impacted the response rate.*
Significantly more males than females and significantly more tenured than
non-tenured faculty completed the survey. Thank you to all who took the time to
participate (in a period in which we were highly inundated with survey
requests).

Independent analysis of all items appears below, first across the campus and
then by degree granting divisions, but a brief summary of the results may aid
understanding of the multiple tables that follow. In short, the state of the
University, at least as measured by the items on the survey, is not as positive
as we might like it to be. All percentages given, unless stated otherwise,
reflect those who agreed with the issue to at least some extent.

UNIVERSITY-WIDE RESPONSES

Of the 16 procedure, policy, or outcome assessment issues to which faculty
responded only FIVE received support from more than 50% of the participants.
These included agreement that: the LSP has fulfilled our goals and expectations
(51.97%); the administration is trustworthy, meaningful, and transparent in its
actions (53.50%); the Study Abroad program operates effectively (54.10%);
physical facility resources are adequate (58.27%); and campus technology
adequately meets our needs (66.93%), the last issue being the only one agreed on
by more than 59% of the faculty.

Even though the figures for the above five issues are positive, the implicit
implication of these results is that a very large minority of the faculty
(roughly 42% to 48%) responding to four of the measures listed above did NOT
explicitly agree with these policies, procedures, or outcomes. In addition, NINE
items showed less than 47% of the faculty responding to the survey agreed
with the current procedures, policies, or outcomes identified. Only 46.46%
agreed Truman carefully and reflectively considers programs and policies, and
barely 40% (40.16) thought the current divisional structure best serves our
mission. More disturbing, four of the eight items in this category received
agreement from roughly only a third of the faculty responding. The proposed use
of part-time faculty was not supported (34.15%), nor did faculty feel they
receive adequate time and support for scholarship (32.54%). The lowest numbers
regarding policies, procedures, or outcomes (other than assessment items, which
will be discussed separately) reflected faculty’s position on two highly
important issues, morale (30.71%) and salary equity (23.81%).

For many years Truman has invested tremendous amounts of money and human
resources in our assessment program. This year the “State of the University”
survey assessed our assessment program with three items. The first item was
positively framed (as were all but two items on the survey) and measured
agreement that Truman’s assessment program informs our understanding and
practice regarding teaching, advisement, and student learning. Sadly, only
36.51% of faculty participants agreed these outcomes occurred. The two
assessment items not positively framed strongly suggested: 1) changes were
needed to enhance the validity of the measures assessed (64.57% agreed), and 2)
we needed to reevaluate and remove ineffectual measures (80.95% agreed–the
highest agreement with any item on the survey). Put another way, only 35.43% of
participants were satisfied with the validity of the measures we collect and
only a slim 19.05% of faculty consider our assessment program to be useful as it
presently exists. Collectively these three items speak loudly for changes in
assessment as we currently undertake it at Truman.

The remaining two items are noteworthy, but for different reasons. One
assessed faculty’s opinion on the Faculty Senate restructure, a process put in
place only three months before the survey was administered last Fall. Almost 48%
of the participants agreed it provides a more effective voice for faculty.
Notably, only 18.25% disagreed. Those who were ambivalent on this topic (34.13%)
represented the largest group of its kind on any of the survey items, perhaps
suggesting a need to further observe the new process before making a decision
about its efficacy.

From the above summary, it is fairly clear that morale is quite low, the
faculty responding feel they are underpaid and overworked, and there are many
aspects of the University work and teaching environment with which they are
dissatisfied. Nevertheless, when asked about their commitment to Truman, 80.16%
agreed it was very strong. Some of the open-ended comments help to expand on and
clarify this finding.

DIVISIONAL ANALYSES

The data were also statistically analyzed by division using separate one-way
Analyses of Variance. Unfortunately, because of low numbers of faculty
responding in those divisions, Education, Military Science, Business and
Accountancy, and the Library could not be included in the statistical analyses.

On four items there were significant differences between two or more divisions
(the value of our assessment program, the promotion of a reflective culture,
physical facility resources, and the divisional structure); one more item showed
a marginal difference (view of the administration). More significantly, for the
large majority of the issues no differences appeared between the divisions; that
is, they mostly agreed on the target issues.

ADDENDA

Also included in the package are the open-ended comments for 2004 and a table
offering a 6-year comparison across the items assessed commonly and separately
during those testing times.

It is the hope of your Truman chapter of the American Association of
University Professors that you will find the information contained herein to be
informative and useful. Thanks once again to all faculty who participated in
this endeavor.

1. The administration operates in a trustworthy and meaningful manner that
promotes transparency in its policies and procedures.*

* M=5.2 sd=2.7; 53.5% agreed with the statement to some extent

2. The Liberal Studies Program has done an excellent job of fulfilling the
goals and expectations associated with its implementation.*

* M=5.2 sd=2.5; 51.97% agreed with the statement to some extent

3. Truman’s assessment program contributes productively to our understanding
of student learning and student practices, and it substantively informs
teaching, advisement, and administrative practices and policies.*

* M=4.5 sd=2.5; 36.51% agreed with the statement to some extent

4. Truman State University has successfully promoted a reflective culture in
which current and future plans result from careful consideration of the impact
and effectiveness of past programs and policies.*

* M=4.9 sd=2.4; 46.46% agreed with the statement to some extent
(6-9 scored)

5. Physical facility resources (e.g., space, supplies, etc.) are adequate for
my teaching and scholarly needs.*

* M=5.4 sd=2.6; 58.27% agreed with the statement to some extent

6. The current divisional structure best meets the needs of students and
faculty and facilitates the mission of the University.*

* M=4.8 sd=2.7; 40.16% agreed with the statement to some extent

7. Technology on campus is adequate for my teaching, service, and scholarship
needs.*

* M=6.0 sd=2.4; 66.93% agreed with the statement to some extent

8. Adequate time, support, and resources are available for my scholarship
needs and requirements.*

* M=3.9 sd=2.6; 32.54% agreed with the statement to some extent

9. Salaries and benefits at Truman are commensurate with comparable
institutions and reflective of the teaching, service, and scholarship loads
undertaken by faculty.*

* M=3.6 sd=2.3; 23.81% agreed with the statement to some extent

10. The University’s newly proposed use of part-time and non-regular faculty
positions is appropriate.*

* M=4.4 sd=2.7; 34.15% agreed with the statement to some extent

11. Morale among faculty at Truman is currently very high.*

* M=4.2 sd=2.5; 30.71% agreed with the statement to some extent

12. My personal commitment to Truman and to the programs undertaken here is
very strong.*

* M=6.9 sd=2.3; 80.16% agreed with the statement to some extent

13. The newly restructured Faculty Senate provides a more effective and
distinct voice for faculty.*

* M=6.9 sd=2.3; 47.62% agreed with the statement to some extent;
34.13% were ambiva-

lent, the largest such group for any item, perhaps reflecting the recent
implementation of the restructure.

14. To enhance the validity of our assessment measures, a
University-wide incentive policy should be instituted that effectively motivates
students to participate fully and appropriately in the assessment program.*

* M=6.0 sd=2.3; 64.57% agreed with the statement to some extent

15. To enhance the utility of our assessment program, current
assessment instruments should be reevaluated and if necessary, discontinued or
replaced by more useful, informative measures.*

* M=7.3 sd=1.7; 80.95% agreed with the statement to some extent

16. The Study Abroad office effectively mentors our students’ international
experiences by facilitating information exchange, travel arrangements,
coordination with host institutions, transfer of course credit, etc.*

* M=5.3 sd=2.5; 54.10% agreed with the statement to some extent

* p <.043 for both items

ANALYSIS BY DIVISION

Gender X Division Frequencies

Item Analyses X Division

1. The administration operates in a trustworthy and meaningful manner that
promotes transparency in its policies and procedures.^

^F(5,100) = 1.954: p < .092.
*Significantly different: p<.05.

^F(5,100) = 1.835: p <
.113.

^F(5,100) = 2.44: p < .04.
*Significantly different: p<.05.

^F(5,100) = 2.99: p < .015.
*Significantly different: p<.05.

^F(5,100) = 2.804: p < .021. *a, b
significantly different: p<.05.

^F(5,100) = 2.63: p < .028.
*Significantly different: p<.05.

^F(5,100) = 1.07: p <
.382.

^F(5,100) = 1.66: p <
.975.

^F(5,100) = .400: p <
.848.

^F(5,96) = .786: p < .562.

^F(5,100) = .817: p <
.541.

^F(5,99) = 2.19: p < .062.

^F(5,99) = 1.68: p <
.146.

^F(5,100) = .964: p <
.444.

15. To enhance the utility of our assessment program, current assessment
instruments should be reevaluated and if necessary, discontinued or replaced by
more useful, informative measures.^

^F(5,99) = .917: p <
.473.

16. The Study Abroad office effectively mentors our students’ international
experiences by facilitating information exchange, travel arrangements,
coordination with host institutions, transfer of course credit, etc^