CEE New Millennium Colloquium
March 20-21, 2000
Wong Auditorium, Tang Center, MIT Building E51
On Faculty Reward Systems
JAMES T.P. YAO and JOSE M. ROESSET
Texas A&M University
ABSTRACT: The faculty reward systems are extremely important in the
education of future engineers. In a typical faculty reward system for many
research universities, teaching is not considered as important as research
activities. In this paper, the current faculty reward systems are critically
reviewed with suggestions made for further improvements. Although there
are encouraging signs, it is our belief that we must be able to measure
the quality (instead of quantity) of teaching, research, and service so
that a faculty member can be rewarded accordingly.
1. INTRODUCTION
As we approach the new millennium, we face a number of important questions related to the future of civil engineering as a profession and the education of future civil engineers. These questions are concerned with the role of civil engineers in the future society, the contents and duration of civil engineering curricula, and their relation to professional registration.
Civil engineering, once a proud and successful profession, is undergoing a continuous and inexorable fragmentation. The need to provide and maintain an adequate infrastructure implies an important and promising future for civil engineers and should have served as an integrative force to bring back together a profession that was becoming too broad and disjointed. Yet the trend toward splitting the profession seems to continue. Students are being pushed into specialty areas at earlier and earlier stages. There is pressure at the same time to establish separate degree programs in environmental, transportation, geotechnical and structural engineering. Even the ASCE has formed independent institutes for structural engineering, geotechnical engineering, etc. Dismembering the civil engineering profession into a number of new ones is a subject worthy of much more discussion. The authors believe that it is in the best interest of students to keep the undergraduate degree broad-based in the general practice of civil engineering. Roesset and Yao (1988) emphasized the fact that principles of engineering mechanics can be applied to solve problems in many disciplines. These principles and their applications should be taught to all undergraduate engineering students.
The large number of conferences, sessions at conferences, workshops and papers dealing with engineering education indicates a perception that everything is not well with the present system. Bright students will continue to become successful engineers irrespective of the quality of their education. The concern here is how to keep these bright students interested while we provide education for above-average students.
According to Pennoni (1998), "The engineers of the next millennium must possess a bachelor's degree, masters degree in an area of specialty, experience, licensing, leadership qualities and be bi- or multi-lingual. He or she must be capable of working in a team environment, be a good communicator and possess excellent people skills." Natke (1997) among others has advocated the systems approach in civil engineering education and practice. Bordogna (1998) calls the future civil engineer "the master integrator" because he/she must understand civil infrastructure as a system. In addition to possessing up-to-date technical knowledge, civil engineers must thus know "how to do things right" as well as "the right things to do." Civil engineers must be able to work in teams, communicate well, work from a systems approach, and within the context of ethical, political, international, environmental, and economical considerations. Thus, civil engineers are required to have a broad-based undergraduate education. We believe that a post-baccalaureate professional education is needed before entering practice, but the question of the duration of the undergraduate curriculum and whether the resulting degree should be considered a professional degree or linked to some graduate work must be resolved first. The ASCE Board of Direction has decided to endorse a post-baccalaureate professional degree for civil engineering practice (ASCE, 1998).
Both the changing role of the civil engineer in society and developments in the area of information technology are going to require changes in the contents of the curricula and the way we teach. A comprehensive redesign of the curriculum starting from scratch, as Jester (1989) and Parker et al. (1990) suggested, is rarely done (MIT being one of the few exceptions through the years). Curriculum changes are mostly accomplished in a piecemeal and incremental manner. More serious changes are often based on the adaptation of what is done at other universities in an attempt to emulate them. Whether these changes were indeed the best ones is seldom carefully considered. Many universities do not seem to realize that it is very difficult to be recognized as a leader by simply following the example of others.
Another important topic that deserves serious consideration is the involvement of professional engineers to increase the exposure of the students to engineering projects in the process of a university education. Professional engineers participate already in many academic activities. Most universities have practitioners teaching design courses as adjunct professors. Practitioners can also be used effectively as advisors or mentors of students in collaboration with the academic advisor. This may also lead to rewarding careers for the students upon their graduation. ASCE created a Practitioner-in-Residence program whereby an experienced professional engineer spends a week at a university interacting with students and faculty (Poirot and Yao, 1991). The best solution is to have successful professional engineers who are willing to take early retirement from industry and become regular faculty members. There are a number of excellent examples (e.g., the late Walter P. Moore, Jr. at Texas A&M University).
Faculty members are responsible for successful implementation of major curriculum changes and other educational initiatives. This success of new educational initiatives depends strongly on our ability to motivate and reward faculty members. In spite of substantial pressures and demands at all research universities, many young faculty members continue to devote a significant amount of time in teaching and advising. Others, unfortunately, yield to the pressure to emphasize fund raising for research and paper production. This paper concentrates on faculty reward systems and possible ways to increase the recognition of teaching within the so-called research universities. While many state institutions receive only 25 to 30% of their annual budgets from the state, parents of students and state legislatures demand top priorities of these state universities on teaching. It is therefore timely to critically review and discuss the faculty reward systems. Suggestions are also made to further improve the evaluation of faculty work so that appropriate rewards can be made to deserving faculty members.
2. FACULTY NEEDS AND RESPONSIBILITIES
The main functions of a university include teaching, research, and service. Ideally faculty members should perform work in all three functions in various proportions. The present evaluation and reward system at many universities does not seem to encourage faculty dedicating time and effort to teaching at the undergraduate level, and it tends to over-emphasize research. In a litigation-prone society like ours, it has become difficult to judge the quality of work on a subjective basis. Thus, the evaluation is based on quantities as an easy way out for administrators. Research accomplishments are frequently measured in terms such as volume of funding and number of publications. Few, if any, faculty members have their papers read and evaluated by their peers beyond cursory letters of recommendation. The quality is implied solely by the fact that the papers were published in refereed journals. Faculty members who generate large amounts of funding can employ many full-time researchers who will write a large number of papers with the name of the supervisor included as a co-author. Supervising a large number of researchers is in itself an important administrative job, which should be properly recognized. Conducting or supervising a substantial volume of research will inevitably lead to membership in a number of technical, research, and administrative committees, and thus provide an opportunity for important service activities. Thus, generating large amounts of research funds guarantees high grades in at least two of the three evaluation categories. Within a research university, those who have most research funding will naturally be the stars. Can we reasonably expect, under these conditions, a bright young faculty member to be willing to spend a large fraction of his/her time teaching undergraduates?
It should be noticed that use of the number of publications as a measure of the quality of a faculty member's work is becoming less meaningful due to the proliferation of journals. Is the amount of significant research discoveries each year sufficient to fill all these journals? Or are we merely facilitating publication of essentially the same article with minimal variations in different journals? With many more papers published in more journals today, fewer people read each paper and, thus, the significance of refereed papers is diminishing each year (e.g., Rogers and Fiering, 1986). The number of co-authors per paper is also continuously increasing. Use of the citation index as an indicator of the quality or impact of a paper is also flawed and becoming less meaningful. Many authors make reference only to their own papers or those of their friends. On the other hand, papers that contain significant results for practice might not be cited frequently because the professional engineers who use these results seldom write journal papers where they could reference them.
The basic question here is how to change the faculty reward system in order to place the emphasis on the quality and significance of the research results as given in each published paper. The question becomes even more critical for teaching since we do not have at present meaningful measures of teaching performance other than student evaluations in many institutions.
The George Washington University in Washington, DC, published at least two comprehensive studies on faculty loads. Yuker (1984) and Meyer (1998) included 217 and 207 references, respectively. Meyer (1998) said: "The reward structure, which has effectively molded faculty behavior to follow the rewards of research, will require revision. Changing the faculty reward structure requires substantial administrative support and leadership, as well as faculty involvement, as rewards are realigned to more nearly reflect the emerging institutional mission." The lack of appreciation for teaching in the present reward system used by research universities has led to a number of papers and initiatives. Leonards and Yao (1985) explored a new way of evaluating teaching including scholarship and classroom performance. Boyer (1990) expanded the definition of scholarship to include that of creativity (basic research), integration (apply successful methods in one discipline to solve problems in another), application (solve practical problems), and teaching (write journal articles and/or textbooks). To implement Boyer's ideas, the ASCE Department Heads' Council (Chaired by Vince Drnevich) established a task force that drafted a report available on the Internet (see Al-Khafaji, 1998). It is understood that this report will be summarized for this Colloquium. Therefore, it is not discussed further herein. Among the eight recommendations in Chapter IX entitled "Change Faculty Reward Systems," the Boyer Commission (1998) on Educating Undergraduates in the Research University included:
"Departmental leaders should be faculty members with a demonstrated commitment to undergraduate teaching and learning as well as to traditionally defined research."
"The correlation between good undergraduate teaching and good research must be recognized in promotion and tenure decisions."
"A 'culture of teaching' within departments should be cultivated to heighten the prestige of teaching and emphasize the linkages between teaching and research."
"Rewards for teaching excellence, for participation in interdisciplinary programs, and for outstanding mentorship need to be in the form of permanent salary increases rather than one-time awards."
Bean (1998) advocated for each faculty member to re-create the faculty's role. He said: "It is time that we take responsibility for our own work, define our role broadly, and contribute to the society that supports us." Wulf (1998) noted that "Engineering faculty are, for the most part, judged by criteria similar to the science faculty and the practice of engineering is not one of those criteria. The faculty reward system recognizes teaching, research, and service to the profession, but it does not give the same status to delivering a marketable product or process, or designing an enduring piece of the nation's infrastructure."
Even with dramatic changes in the present university culture, the problem remains that many new faculty members have no exposure to the practice of engineering. To remedy this situation, it would be necessary to promote the opportunity for faculty to spend some time in industry or to involve more practitioners in the educational process. Since a semester or a year of residence in an engineering firm is not generally considered as an asset in the promotion/tenure process, it is inappropriate to have junior and pre-tenure faculty taking advantage of opportunities of this kind. Unless major changes are made in faculty reward systems, the option of placing faculty members in industry to acquire practical experience is not a realistic one.
3. SUGGESTIONS FOR MEASUREMENT OF QUALITY OF FACULTY WORK
The most important attributes of a teacher include a solid knowledge and clear understanding of the material to be taught, dedication and commitment to teaching, genuine caring for the students, and good communication skills. Individuals who possess the above-mentioned characteristics are likely to become successful and respected teachers but may not be successful in making advancement in their academic career if the quantity of their research activities is insufficient. In an internal memorandum to achieve departmental goals, Yao (1984) concluded that most faculty members in a department should devote their times to a combination of teaching, research, and service duties. Yet, quantity-wise, these faculty members cannot compete within most present evaluation systems with someone who concentrates on research activities alone. Therefore, it is necessary to obtain fair and objective measures of quality in all these activities.
To improve faculty reward systems, we must be able to measure the quality of faculty work: teaching, research, and service. Leonards and Yao (1985) suggested using fuzzy sets and expert systems to measure the quality of teaching, research, and service. Quality of the faculty work can be described in verbal terms such as very effective teacher, good researcher, and excellent service volunteer. Fuzzy sets (Zadeh, 1965; Wong et al. 1999; Yen and Langari, 1999) may be used to interpret and combine such results into a meaningful statement in measuring the quality of faculty work. Expert systems (e.g., Yao and Fu, 1985) may also be used to describe opinions of experts in if-then statements. At present, these techniques are being considered and developed by us in a long-range program. Meanwhile, several attempts are being made to improve measuring and rewarding faculty work (e.g., Al-Kafaji et al., 1998; Roesset and Yao, 2000).
4. CONCLUDING REMARKS
The authors are concerned with the continuous discussion of the problems and deficiencies of engineering education, the writing of numerous reports and recommendations and the limited actions that follow. Some of these issues have been discussed for decades, ever since we both were students. There has been little positive change during these past several decades. Based on his many years of university teaching and administrative experience, Calhoun (1998) believes that " the impetus for change will have to come from pressures outside the engineering education community, primarily from the university community as a whole. The underlying question becomes What is the role of engineering education within the University? engineering education should consist of two items, for two different purposes the undergraduate degree, unaccredited, for general technological careers, and the accredited graduate-level degree for professional preparation purposes. "
To be able to reward academic activities it is necessary to develop meaningful metrics to evaluate faculty performance. In the case of educational activities one must consider not only classroom teaching but also research supervision, advising and mentoring. The danger of using meaningless numerical quantities is serious. A recent study by experts of teaching assessment suggested, for instance, (1) the number of papers published in education related journals, (2) membership in ASEE and similar organizations, and (3) participation in ABET accreditation committees as measures of teaching effectiveness. Texas A&M University has recently established faculty committees to look at means to reward teaching. The Civil Engineering Department is representing the College of Engineering with a committee composed of two junior faculty members and a senior one plus the Department Head. The committee has started to define the qualities, skills and needs of a good teacher and to find ways to assist faculty members in the development of these skills. The next step will be to establish procedures to recognize these qualities, encourage them and reward teaching efforts appropriately.
Almost all universities have orientation programs for new faculty. This orientation frequently covers only administrative and bureaucratic matters. In other cases, the orientation includes valuable exposure to new teaching techniques and multimedia facilities that can be valuable tools for the faculty. There are also universities such as Texas A&M University, which have (1) centers of teaching excellence to offer teaching workshops to the faculty, and (2) programs to further improve faculty reward systems. These excellent initiatives should be maintained and expanded. There should be also a continuous opportunity for faculty to learn new pedagogical techniques and other professional developments as part of their regular duties. Most universities have some form of sabbatical programs to allow faculty to refresh their research interests and expertise. There are not many equivalent leaves for improving either the faculty members' teaching techniques or their understanding of practical applications. These leaves could constitute an important element in a more balanced educational program.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Although neither of us can participate in person in this important colloquium due to prior commitments, we are grateful to Professor Rafael Bras who allowed us to present our thoughts in writing to participants for their consideration. The authors wish to thank the Lohman Professorship in Engineering Education and the Wofford Cain '13 Senior Chair of Engineering in Offshore Technology at Texas A&M University for their financial support in preparing this paper. Dr. Paul N. Roschke, our Division Head, read the manuscript carefully and suggested a number of revisions to improve it. The authors would welcome your additional comments and suggestions. Please suggest possible improvements in faculty reward systems and other issues in engineering education to the authors (our E-mail addresses: jtpyao@tamu.edu and jroesset@tamu.edu).
Appendix I. References
Al-Khafaji, A. W., et al., (1998), "The Scholarship Landscape in Civil Engineering: A Bridge Between Rhetoric and Reality," Report of Task Force on Redefining Scholarly Work, American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), 1801 Alexander Bell Drive, Reston, VA, 20191-4400, http://www.asce.org/peta/ed/redefschol.html.
ASCE (1998), "Board Supports Professional Degree for Civil Engineers," ASCE NEWS, Vol. 23, No. 5, May 1998, pp. 1-2.
Bean, J. P., (1998), "Alternative Models of Professional Roles: New Languages to Reimagine Faculty Work," Journal of Higher Education, Vol. 69, No. 5, September/October 1998, pp. 496-512.
Bordogna, J., (1998), "Tomorrow's Civil Systems Engineer The Master Integrator," Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice, Vol. 124, No. 2, April 1998, pp.48-50.
Boyer Commission (1998), Reinventing Undergraduate Education: A Blueprint for America's Research Universities, http://notes.sunysb.edu/pres/boyer.nsf/webform
Boyer, E. L., (1990), Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professoriate, The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, Princeton, NJ.
Calhoun, J. C., (1998), private communication.
Jester, G. E., (1989), "Curriculum for Future Civil Engineers: Practitioner's Viewpoint," Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 115, No. 4, pp. 357-362.
Leonards, G. A., and Yao, J. T. P., (1985), "On Teaching Evaluation," Proceedings on Challenges for Civil Engineering Educators and Practitioners, ASCE, 1985, pp. 370-376.
Meyer, K. A., (1998), Faculty Workload Studies Perspectives, Needs, and Future Directions, ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report, Volume 26, No. 1, 1998, The George Washington University, Washington, DC.
Natke, H. G., (1997), private communication.
Parker, C. E., Jester, G. E., Desai, C. S., and Yao, J. T. P., (1990), "Reexamination of CE Curriculum for the 21st Century," Education and Continuing Development for the Civil Engineer, ASCE, April 1990, pp. 684-694.
Pennoni, C. R., (1998), "Managing Your Career in an Era of Change," Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice, ASCE, Vol. 124, No. 4, July 1998.
Poirot, J. W., and Yao, J. T. P., (1991), Practitioner-in-Residence: An ASCE Pilot Program and the CH2M Hill Texas A&M Experience, Report to ASCE EDAC/PAC Joint Task Committee on Educator/Practitioner Interface.
Roesset, J. M., and Yao, J. T. P., (1988), "Civil Engineering Needs in the 21st Century," Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 114, No. 3, July 1988, pp. 248-255.
Roesset, J. M., and Yao, J. T. P., (2000), "Roles of Civil Engineering Faculty," Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice, ASCE, Vol. 126, No. 1, January 2000, pp. 8-15.
Rogers, P. P., and Fiering, M. B., (1986), "Use of Systems Analysis in Water Management," Water Resources Research, Vol. 22, No. 9, August 1986, pp. 146S-158S.
Wong, F. S., Chou, K. C., and Yao, J. T. P., (1999), "Civil Engineering Including Earthquake Engineering," Chapter 6, Practical Applications of Fuzzy Technologies, Edited by H.-J. Zimmerman, Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 207-245.
Wulf, W. A., (1998), "The Urgency of Engineering Education Reform," The Bent, Fall 1998, pp. 21-23.
Yao, J. T. P., (1984), "On Promotion and Tenure," Internal Memorandum, School of Civil Engineering, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, 19 October 1984, 6 pages.
Yao, J. T. P., and Fu, K. S., (1985), "Civil Engineering Applications of Expert Systems," presented at the 4th International Symposium on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, ASME, Dallas, TX, 17-22 February 1985.
Yen, J., and Langari, R., (1999), Fuzzy Logic, Prentice-Hall, Inc., Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Yuker, H. E., (1984), Faculty Workload: Research, Theory, and Interpretation, ASHE-ERIC Research Report 10, 1984, The George Washington University, Washington, DC.
Zadeh, L. A., (1965), "Fuzzy Sets," Information and Control,
Vol. 8, pp. 338-353