Department of Literacy Education SWOT Analysis Report Context During the October 2007 Literacy Education department meeting,

faculty members participated in a SWOT activity that led to both individual and whole-group recommendations for the department's strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats. Following this activity, members of the Development Committee analyzed the data in order to identify any patterns, themes, and trends. During the November 2007 department meeting, faculty members were asked to verify the results of this analysis and revise as necessary. What follows are an overall summary of the analysis, individual summaries for each of the four categories, and our proposed solutions to the problems posed to the department, college, and university by the weaknesses and threats. Overall Summary of SWOT Analysis The central recurring theme throughout all four categories of the SWOT analysis seems to be internal faculty/staffing issues. For example, many of the strengths and opportunities suggested seem to rely on faculty, and most of the weaknesses and threats seem to be related to restrictions caused by faculty issues (workload, support staff, etc.). These factors also stem from the fact that the programs offered by the department are in great demand, in part as a result of federal legislation (NCLB), and in part by changes in demographics (an increasing population of English language learners in NIUs service region). Strengths Two main patterns emerged from the Strengths category: quality of faculty and services and resources offered. Points raised about the quality of the faculty included a

positive standing in the field, the tendency for the faculty to stay current and productive, and faculty connections to the field and professional organizations. Points raised about the services and resources offered included philosophy issues like the life-span orientation of the department as well as physical resources like the Literacy Clinic and the Childrens Literature Teaching Collection. Weaknesses Three main patterns emerged from this category: faculty workload issues, adjunct issues, and support/resources. For the most part, faculty workload issues tended to focus on the amount of work expected, but also included issues such as mentorship for new faculty. Concerns about adjuncts ranged from cohesiveness to proportion of adjuncts to full-time faculty. Support/resources included funding for graduate assistants and technology-related concerns. Opportunities Three main patterns emerged from this category: interest-based opportunities, serendipitous opportunities, and fundable opportunities. The major pattern in this category seemed to be opportunities based on faculty interest, and included hybrid courses and collaborations. Serendipitous opportunities included the current state of the field, the region (as a source for students), and new leadership in the college. Finally, fundable opportunities included the possibility of a multidisciplinary research center and grants. Threats Threats tended to lend themselves to either internal or external concerns (though several could involve both). Examples of internal threats included the perceived myth of

shared governance, the high workload demands placed on faculty, and hiring problems. External threats were focused more on external agencies (NCATE, governmental bodies, professional organizations, etc.). Solutions In order to maintainand further develop and expand uponour department's strengths, and to avoid the above weaknesses and threats from further impeding our goals, one solution stands above all else: additional faculty are needed. The well-being and success of our department and the College of Education as a whole requires that we are a fully staffed, productive unit. Given our current faculty shortage, which causes perpetual teaching and service overloads, our collective scholarship, research, and overall productivity are reduced far beyond our expectationsand standards. We propose the following solutions: In order to continue to recruit and hire highly qualified faculty as colleagues, we need to provide better incentives in the form of competitive start-up packages (to include $7,000-8,000 in start-up money and increased travel funding). Such packages must also include a lesser course load and protection from service overloads for at least the first year. In order to maintain the high quality of scholars we already have in our department, it is also necessary to implement a reasonable teaching workload. The following as essentials toward this goal: o Differentiated teaching assignments, including a 2/2 teaching load for faculty who are actively engaged in partnerships and/or research and/or significant externally funded grant-based activity.

o Qualified teaching assistants who can assist with research and teach classes o Competitive salaries for all graduate assistants In order to assist with the professional development of our adjunct colleagues, additional stipends are needed for adjuncts who are interested in increased expectations associated with teaching (including accreditation and LiveText training, assessment, and implementation) In order to maintain a practical and reasonable service load for faculty members, a staff position needs to be created to serve as graduate adviser and adjunct support. This person would be responsible for general advisement of graduate students, maintenance of data generated (e.g. dispositions), support for adjunct faculty members, and other administrative duties. In order to ensure that faculty secretarial needs are supported, an additional secretarial support position needs to be recovered. This position should be designated for faculty needs only. In order to support faculty members while teaching at remote sites, a dedicated off-campus college-wide LiveText position needs to be created. This position should be designated for online course support as well as technology training (including LiveText and Blackboard) at each regional site. In order to provide our off-campus students equal resources as our Dekalb students, portable technology kits are needed for off-campus teaching assignments. These kits should include laptops, software, and LCD projectors; additionally Internet access is essential at all off-campus sites.