The institution has processes and resources for assuring that

instructors are current in their disciplines and adept in their teaching roles; it supports their professional development.

As mentioned above, all faculty credentials are reviewed at the time of hire. The currency of disciplinary expertise and teaching is subsequently an aspect of performance review and professional development. Faculty engagement in scholarship and professional development is part of the annual performance review.

Antioch University faculty members are adept in their teaching roles. In fact, the primacy of teaching, or as it is named at Antioch, “engagement in student learning,” cannot be over-estimated. As noted in the Core Faculty Contracts, Development Plans, and Evaluation Policy (5.305), engagement in student learning is measured by evidence of both the quality and quantity of engagement with students including course-based and non-course- based learning, advising, supervising, chairing, and participating in theses and dissertation committees and the like. All

Antioch core faculty are expected to meet or exceed expectations in engagement in student learning.

Results of the 2011 Adult Student Priorities survey data show that Antioch students feel that our faculty meet student expectations as well. In fact, our students perceive Antioch faculty to be adept in their teaching and advising – at satisfaction ratings higher than the national average. Antioch students have indicated that quality teaching is extremely important to them, by rating the four survey items listed below between 6.57 and 6.86 on a 7-point scale. They have

also indicated high satisfaction with the quality of instruction, the knowledge of the subject matter that is demonstrated by their faculty, the quality of the instruction by part- time faculty, and the timeliness of faculty feedback, with scores between 5.63 and 6.36. What this means is that our students rank these items as very important and with high satisfaction levels. When compared to adult students nationwide who rank these items as equally important, students elsewhere express far more dissatisfaction with their experience (Table 5.8).

Antioch University National Adult Students

Item Import Satis / SD Gap Import Satis / SD Gap Mean _Difference

35. The quality of instruction I receive in my program is

excellent. 6.85 6.02 / 1.25 0.83 6.68 5.77 / 1.35 0.91

0.25***

42. Nearly all faculty are

knowledgeable in their field. 6.86 6.36 / 1.03 0.50 6.68 6.05 / 1.17 0.63 0.31*** 37. Part-time faculty are

competent as classroom

instructors. 6.67 5.82 / 1.41 0.85 6.45 5.68 / 1.38 0.77

0.14**

26. Faculty provide timely

feedback about my progress. 6.57 5.63 / 1.41 0.94 6.48 5.51 / 1.46 0.97 0.12*

2011 Adult Student Priorities Survey

Table 5.8: AU Students More Satisfied Than Peers With Instruction and Faculty

Antioch University core faculty are supported in their professional development through a variety of initiatives and processes, and important, although not sufficient, strides have occurred in the past several years. One of the driving forces behind establishing new core faculty contracts with nine months of scheduled time per year was to provide a three-month period for faculty to focus on their professional development or scholarship. Most significantly, the new core faculty contracts now provide faculty with the opportunity to request six-month academic leaves every five years for the purpose of developing their scholarship and/or addressing unmet professional development needs.

At the time of writing this Self-Study Report, the implementation of this policy is still in transition. Campuses have been given the flexibility to implement the policy over a series of years, since there are serious implications for staffing and funding with these new contracts. Continued University oversight and adjustment is required to assure that the policy is implemented to the fullest extent possible, evaluated, and revised as needed.

As mentioned previously, the UAC has established a five-year policy review schedule to assure currency and appropriateness of all University academic and student policies. In 2013-14, the UAC is scheduled to review all faculty employment policies (Series 5.300). As part of that work, the Council of Chief Academic Officers (CCAO)

will take the initial lead in evaluating the implementation and effectiveness of the core faculty contract policy. The CCAO will present its recommendations to the UAC and following deliberation and attainment of consensus, any revisions will be proposed to the Chancellor for approval.

Other initiatives to support faculty professional development take the form of University-sponsored events, including an annual AU Faculty Conference, the newly established Institute on Faculty Work and Leadership, and special speakers and workshops such as those brought in during the work of the Commission on Academic Voice. The annual AU Faculty Conference brings together faculty and academic administrators from across the University to hold academic conversations in Town Hall sessions, present their research, and attend keynote addresses on relevant topics. The agendas and reports from recent AU Faculty Conference demonstrate the array of activities and are available in Virtual Exhibition Hall Electronic Resource Room. In 2010-12, the University sponsored the Commission on Academic Voice in University Governance, as has been mentioned previously in the Report. However, relative to the criterion, it is important to note that the commission hosted a series of seminars on University governance, led by scholars in the field of higher education governance. These presentations were set up as webinars available to faculty at all campuses. The speakers series included: October 2010, Dr.

Cathy Trower, Harvard Research Associate; December 2010, Dr. Bill Tierney, USC, nationally recognized scholar on faculty governance; January 2011, Dr. Linda McMillan on the new academic compact; in February 2011, Harvard’s Dr. Bob Kegan conducted a day-long session on immunities to change for commissioners. Over 50 faculty and academic administrators participated in this thought-provoking series.

Another University-sponsored faculty professional development opportunity in recent years was held in November 2011. The Institute on Faculty Work and Leadership brings core faculty and Chief Academic Officers together to discuss key topics related to innovative approaches to faculty performance review and professional development. This two-day session,

attended by almost two dozen faculty and academic administrators from all campuses, was facilitated by two nationally recognized scholars in the field of faculty performance review, Drs. Ann Austin and Marilla Svinicki. Another aspect of providing resources for instruction relates to the University’s Academic Technology department, which provides professional development opportunities for faculty in one-on-one and group training sessions as well as through online self-directed and multi-media support. In addition, the University offers an online teaching practicum for faculty, in which they learn how to teach online while experiencing what it is like to be an online learner. As the Academic Technology Training

Figure 5.9: AU Full-time Faculty Satisfied with Library Resources and Information

History Report demonstrates, more than two dozen faculty have participated thus far in the online course development program, and we expect many more to do so. As the institution moves forward with the increased focus on distance delivery programs, we will use the experience and evaluation of these online teaching workshops to develop additional opportunities for faculty to participate in this professional development work.

Overall, and on average since AY 2009-10, the University has dedicated more than $150,000 per year on these and other faculty professional development activities. In addition, each campus and University-wide program supports faculty professional development activities, as the document Campus-based Faculty Development Opportunities demonstrates.

Another very significant aspect of University- sponsored faculty professional development

comes from the efforts of the core library faculty members who support faculty development by providing resources for course development and scholarly research. According to the 2011 Self-Study Faculty Surveys, faculty are very satisfied with the support they receive from the Antioch University Library System in this regard (Figures 5.9, 5.10). A total of 95% of full-time faculty members agreed that the “library provides them with sufficient guidance in the use of information resources” (51.9% strongly agreed, 34.3% agreed, and 9.3% somewhat agreed); and, 87% of part-time faculty members agreed (32.4% strongly agreed, 40.5% agreed, and 14.4% somewhat agreed). Faculty indicated in significant numbers (96% of full-time faculty) that they have access to library resources whenever and however they wish (50.5% strongly agreed, 34.9% agreed, and 10.1% somewhat agreed); and, 89% of the part-time faculty agreed (35.7% strongly agreed, 43.8% agreed, and 9.8% somewhat agreed).

As this section has demonstrated, Antioch University sponsors a variety of professional development initiatives for faculty, and campuses provide a range of professional development funds to individual faculty to support scholarship, research, and creative works. In addition, University academic support areas, such as academic technology and the library system, develop services and programs to enhance faculty teaching, scholarship, and service.

2011 Full-time Faculty Survey 2011 Part-time Faculty Survey

The Library Provides Sufficient Guidance in the Use of Information Resources Strongly Agree 51.9% Agree 34.3%

Library Resources Are Available Whenever and However I Want

Strongly Agree 50.5% Agree 34.9% Somewhat

Agree 9.3% Somewhat Agree 10.1%