The following material arises from the University of Oregon's productivity planning process and is made available here in the hope of engaging the whole university community in that process. This material contains the conclusions of one of the nine productivity working groups; it does NOT represent official university policy.

We solicit your responses and suggestions. Please direct them to the chair of the working group or to Charles Wright, Department of Mathematics.

Productivity Committee Report of Subcommittee on Professional and Graduate Education Submitted 11/19/93 by Michael Posner Membership: Mike Brooke, (student member) Rogena Degge, Art Education Judith Eisen, Biology Robert Horner, Special Education Esther Jacobsen-Tepfer, Art History Robert Kyr, Music John Orbell, Political Science (winter) Warner Peticolas, Chemistry James Reinmuth, Business Steadman Upham, Graduate School Charles Wright, Mathematics Michael Posner, Chair

Our committee met three times, Nov. 5, 12 and 17th. The report below is a summary of our suggestions. The material presented here represents a general consensus although no votes were taken.

The general feeling of the committee was that graduate and professional faculty could be helpful in productivity, but that this must be done with full respect for the diversity of the missions of the various units and for the importance of our collective mission as a research university. We should do nothing to reduce and everything possible to enhance quality while trying to increase productivity. While we have tried to give quantitative indicators below, we recognize that quality must not be sacrificed to obtain high numbers.

Graduate level work 1. The number of graduate students at the University has fallen by approximately 1,000 since 1991. We believe our productivity would be increased by increased graduate admissions. We propose that by 1996 an additional 300 MA/MS students be admitted to the University (a 20 percent increase). To accomplish this task, we propose that each department with an MA/MS program attempt to increase admissions 20 percent or more. That departments or programs of five (5) or more faculty (including interdisciplinary programs) who do not have MA/MS programs create them. Formal proposals for new master's degrees should be submitted for review and approval to the Graduate Council by Winter term, 1995. To help in this increase, we propose that a select number of qualified undergraduate students be admitted to master's programs after their sophomore or junior years. These students would complete the MA/MS in a 3-2 configuration, earning both baccalaureate and master's degrees in five years.

The nature of these MA/MS programs may be somewhat different than existing programs; we urge departments to think creatively about the kinds of programs they can offer. We also propose the creation of MA/MS programs involving more than one department. For example, we can envision an environmental studies MA/MS that might include coursework in Biology, Chemistry, Geology and Law. A student in such a program would have an advisor in a home department, but have a committee composed of advisors from several departments. In contrast to graduate programs that already exist in these departments, students in the newly created MA/MS program could focus on coursework, library research, and writing of a critical essay, rather than on laboratory research.

2. Several administrative steps are needed to accomplish these goals. Most importantly, expedited approval of new MA/MS programs at the System-level is required. The Chancellor's Office should be petitioned to relax the policies now in place that require external review of new graduate programs.

To create flexibility in faculty time, the required number of inside faculty representatives on doctoral committees shall be reduced from three (3) to two (2). This item is subject to the approval of the Graduate Council. The role of the advisor (or chair) and that of the outside (or Graduate School) representative remain unchanged.

Mechanisms need to be established for advising undergraduate students about the new 3-2 programs. Direct admission of undergraduate and transfer students to 3- 2 tracks should occur.

3. The allocation of GTF positions to departments needs to be reexamined. Particular emphasis should be given in this review both to the level of undergraduate enrollment and to the strengths and needs of the graduate program.

Efforts to increase productivity at the University must be underwritten by the GTF budget. At the present time, the annual University GTF budget is approximately $5.2 million. These funds are allocated centrally to the schools and colleges which then contribute another $2.0 to $3.0 million of TBA funds to augment the central GTF dollars. One result of this practice is that the central GTF budget only supports about two-thirds of the recurring GTF needs in the academic units each year. Consequently, the schools and colleges are forced to fund the difference in the departments with TBA dollars. Some college/school TBA funds are recurring, but much TBA funding is variable from year to year (dependent on the pattern of faculty leaves) and is subject to competing claims (e.g. funding for adjuncts, instructors, visiting professors, etc.) within the schools and colleges. The central GTF budget needs to be increased by at least $2.0 million annually so that stable, recurring GTF funding can be provided to the schools and colleges. The University needs to commit new revenue from undergraduate student tuition and fees to this purpose (that is, new tuition dollars from enrollment increases above 16,500 students).

4. We should encourage those seeking outside support on grants and contracts to provide support for our graduate program by providing line items for stipends to graduate students wherever possible.

Contribution to Undergraduate Education It was felt that we could increase productivity by using our large research enterprise to aid in the creation of learning communities of undergraduates in projects related to ongoing research and service programs. Much of this is already being done through individual research, undergraduate theses and practica. The following steps are designed to formalize what is already being done and increase it. Members of the general community have a conception of University research that is basically incorrect. According to this view, teaching is what is likely to help their children obtain or maintain economic advantage and research is what takes faculty away from performing this socially useful function. However, we all know that much research plays a central role in education, not merely at the graduate level but often at the undergraduate level. Not only do the content of classes depend upon it, but within an active research community, students at all levels have a chance to learn skills of thought and communication, meet relevant people, obtain valuable letters of support and test their ideas and abilities. This revised view of University research fits well with the plan for learning communities and for more individualized training. We propose a number of concrete steps that would aid the development of increased productivity for this sector of the University.

• 1. To ensure fairness every faculty member at the University should be associated with some undergraduate major program so that no faculty can fail to be involved in this effort. In the long run, accurate reporting of the contribution of each faculty member to undergraduate education will also mean pressure toward fairness, not necessarily equality, in the amount of contribution.
•  2. We suggest that we remove some impediments toward project work at all levels of the program. For example, encourage departments to use 100 (e.g. 190-199); 200 (290-299) and 300 (390-399) course numbers for project level work in addition to the 400 (400-409) numbers. Encourage departments to use names for individual projects that broaden the number of appropriate students. For example, individual research instead of departmental honors thesis, giving honors level work for high levels of accomplishment but opening opportunities for more students. To increase ease of administration we suggest that the supervision of a project require only a single faculty member rather than a committee.
•  3. We suggest a manual for all faculty that would help to define individual projects and to outline their importance to the students. The manual should also address ethical issues in supporting this work. The manual should suggest concrete steps that each person can take to increase the productivity of the University, while developing a better learning environment to help retain students.
• 4. Accurate records should kept for each faculty member of the number of students in individual work of all sorts: practicum, research, reading and conference, senior thesis (collectively called individual project work). These then should be part of faculty yearly reports.
•  5. Encourage the use of student supervisors. All Ph.D. students could be required to supervise at least one undergraduate individual project. This could be made a teaching experience requirement for the degree. Faculty who supervise these graduate students should obtain appropriate credit for this supervision. This would greatly increase the opportunities for undergraduates, give Ph.D. students a different kind of training in teaching and greatly increase overall project oriented activity. In addition, MA/MS students should be encouraged to support lower division undergraduate projects. Advanced undergraduates might aid, under supervision, with the development of lower division projects. Again supervisors of this work would receive appropriate credit provided they help to maintain its quality.
•  6. Each department should have a plan to collect information on current project work, develop specific plans to increase their involvement in this form of education and consider the level of involvement that might be appropriate credit for their major. It would be appropriate for departments to have rotating faculty members serve as coordinators of project work for a given period of time. However, it might not be a good idea to relieve individual faculty from the responsibility for this form of work.
•  7. Specific timetables for full reporting of project level work by each unit and plans for the appropriate level should be developed. These might include specific targets for the percentage of majors doing senior research, targets for the number of students at each level carrying out individualized projects, etc. The University may then use some of these figures as a quantitative assay (e.g. percentage of research senior projects) of its progress in connection with extra charges for attendance for resident students.
• 8. In order to boost the number of undergraduates who would participate in project work at some level we propose that undergraduate students be encouraged to develop an appropriate portfolio. Oregon students will be familiar with this approach because it will be part of their high school evaluation. The portfolios may contain some of the following:
•  student written documents such as journals or diaries but also including examples of major projects completed; statements of completion of internship or practica including letters from faculty and/or other sponsors; resumes, documentation of learning experiences etc.
•  Non Degree activities The use of Ed Net, Internet and other forms of presentation over distances could be further developed in cooperation with the continuation center. Their use may represent a substantial opportunity for increasing the training provided by the university beyond the campus.
•  As one example, opportunities exist within Oregon for short- course programming related to modern management techniques, the management of technology, and understanding international cultures. Beyond Oregon, substantial opportunity exists in the evolving economies of southeast Asia, in particular Singapore, Hong Kong, Thailand, and Guangdong Province of China, for programs that can help local people learn how to become effective in starting and managing a business.
• In all instances, evolving capabilities offered by multi- media technology could provide the key to delivering educational programs to student groups off our main Eugene campus. Information on the experience of the business school is available from Dean Reinmuth.

Although we recognize that no single number is the full measure of productivity it seems that student credit hours and dollars will be important tools to assess increases in productivity. If we do consider dollars as one measure we can get some rough estimate of the contribution that teaching even one large class can make. Tuition supports approximately 45 hours of instruction per year, thus one course represents approximately 10% of tuition payments. We estimate that one four credit freshman level course of 200 students, half of whom are nonresidents, results in roughly $90,000 of tuition revenue. Supervision of an undergraduate student in projects for one year (total 12 credit hours per student) results in about $1200 in tuition revenue. Large learning communities with faculty, postdocs and graduate students might easily absorb 10 or more undergraduates in productive projects yielding excellent learning at low effort and providing considerable dollars in tuition.

We encourage the careful introduction of new ideas regarding productivity to the faculty to promote their cooperation. This could be done by presentations to department faculty meetings with emphasis on their participation in the design of any new programs as well as by written documentation on the proposals including a variety of examples.

[Submitted by: Charley Wright
Wed, 1 Dec 93 13:59:23 PST] [Copyright 1993, University of Oregon]