Upload
vuongdien
View
216
Download
3
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF BEST PRACTICES IN COMMUNITY
COLLEGE COURSES TAUGHT BY PART-TIME FACULTY
A dissertation submitted
by Marcy Thompson
toBenedictine University
in partial fulfillmentof the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Educationin
Higher Education and Organizational Change
This dissertation has been accepted for the faculty of Benedictine University
____________________________ Philip Garber, Ph.D.____________ ___________Dissertation Committee Director Date
____________________________ Eileen Kolich, Ph.D.____________ ___________Dissertation Committee Chair Date
____________________________ Luzelma Canales, Ph.D.__________ ___________Dissertation Committee Reader Date
____________________________ Sunil Chand, Ph.D._____________ ___________Program Director, Faculty Date
____________________________ Ethel Ragland, Ed.D., M.N., R.N. ___________College of Education and Health Services Date
Copyright by Marcy Thompson, 2015All rights reserved.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I have deep gratitude for my family, friends, and colleagues who
supported and encouraged me along my journey.
I thank my director, Dr. Philip Garber, for his guidance and
mentorship. I am truly grateful to have had the opportunity to work with
you and appreciate the knowledge and expertise you provided in helping
me accomplish my goal. Also, I extend special thanks to Dr. Sunil Chand
and Dr. Luzelma Canales for your support and guidance throughout this
process.
I thank my colleagues and friends who provided support and
encouragement over the past three years, particularly Sharon Wilson
who listened to my ideas during our many car pools and provided me
constructive feedback and support for my research.
I hold profound appreciation for my family who provided me with encouragement
and strength throughout my journey. Dad, thank you for our weekly pep talks. Your
support and encouragement gave me motivation to work harder and stay focused. Mom,
thank you for listening and helping with my research. Your patience and guidance is
something I depend on and once again, you were there for me when I needed it most.
Last, but not least, Keith, Natalie, and Madelyn, thank you for always believing in me
and gifting me with hugs, kisses, and snuggling whenever I needed it. You all have
sacrificed so much of your time away from me and I cannot begin to express my
ii
appreciation for having you in my life. Your patience and understanding made this
achievement possible—I love you.
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS................................................................................................ii
LIST OF TABLES............................................................................................................vii
LIST OF FIGURES..........................................................................................................viii
ABSTRACT........................................................................................................................x
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION.................................................................................1
Background of the Study.....................................................................................................1
Part-time Faculty in Community Colleges..........................................................................2
What Community Colleges Need to Focus On....................................................................6
Purpose of the Study and Questions....................................................................................7
Researcher Perspective........................................................................................................8
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW....................................................................10
Best Practices in Community Colleges..............................................................................10
Student Use of Best Practices............................................................................................11
Midwestern Community College Student Use..................................................................15
Employment of Best Practices...........................................................................................17
Faculty Perceptions of Student-Faculty Interactions.........................................................20
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY..........................................................................24
Conceptual Frameworks....................................................................................................24
Research Design................................................................................................................25
Choice of Participants........................................................................................................26
Analyses.............................................................................................................................27
Restatement of the Purpose of the Study and Questions...................................................28
iv
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS..........................................................................................30
Procedures..........................................................................................................................30
Demographic Data and Characteristics.............................................................................33
Research Questions............................................................................................................34
Faculty-Reported Employment of Best Practices..............................................................35
Teaching-Related Practices in Class..........................................................................35
Teaching-Related Practices Out of Class...................................................................38
Time Spent on Teaching-Related Activities...............................................................40
Time Spent on Other Professional Activities.............................................................43
Faculty-Reported Employment of High-Impact Practices and Student-Reported Use
as Independent Variables...................................................................................................47
Faculty Perceptions Versus Student Use....................................................................48
How Often Faculty Refer and Student-Reported Use................................................52
How Often Faculty Incorporate and Student-Reported Use.......................................55
Faculty-Reported Employment of High-Impact Practices and Student-Reported Use
as Matched-Variables........................................................................................................59
CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION.....................................................................................63
Statement of the Problem...................................................................................................63
Summary............................................................................................................................64
Recommendations for Community Colleges.....................................................................71
New Faculty Orientation............................................................................................71
Professional Development..........................................................................................72
Limitations.........................................................................................................................73
v
Recommendations for Future Research.............................................................................74
Conclusion.........................................................................................................................75
REFERENCES..................................................................................................................76
APPENDIX A: Definition of Terms.................................................................................84
APPENDIX B: Letter to Participants................................................................................86
APPENDIX C: Faculty Engagement Survey—2014........................................................88
APPENDIX D: Faculty-Reported Employment and Student-Reported Use
as Independent Variables...................................................................................................93
VITA..................................................................................................................................99
vi
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1. Cohort Means Report, Student-Faculty Interaction Benchmark: 2014 CCSSE...........13
2. 2012 Midwestern Community College Results............................................................16
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1: Comparison of 2004 and 2015 faculty-reported data...................................................21
2: Comparison of 2004 and 2015 student-reported data...................................................22
3: Years of college/university teaching experience..........................................................34
4. Teaching-related practices in-class: Part-time faculty..................................................37
5. Teaching-related practices in-class: Full-time faculty..................................................37
6. Teaching-related practices out-of-class: Part-time faculty...........................................40
7. Teaching-related practices out-of-class: Full-time faculty...........................................40
8. Time spent on teaching-related activities: Part-time faculty........................................42
9. Time spent on teaching-related activities: Full-time faculty........................................42
10. Time spent on other professional activities: Part-time faculty....................................45
11. Time spent on other professional activities: Full-time faculty....................................45
12. Part-time faculty perceptions of student use versus students' reported use.................50
13. Part-time faculty-reported use: Course success and retention.....................................51
14. Student-reported use: Course success and retention....................................................51
15. Part-time faculty referral versus student-reported use.................................................54
16. Part-time faculty-reported referral of support services: Course success
and retention................................................................................................................54
17. Student-reported use of support services: Course success and retention....................54
18. Part-time faculty incorporate versus student-reported use..........................................57
19. Part-time faculty-reported incorporate of support services: Course success and
retention.............................................................................................................................57
20. Student-reported use of support services: Course success and retention....................58
21. Matched variables: Part-time faculty perception versus student-reported use............60
22. Matched variables: Part-time faculty referral versus student-reported use.................61
23. Matched variables: Part-time faculty incorporate versus student-reported use...........62
ix
ABSTRACT
Community colleges are faced with the challenge of meeting the college completion
agenda espoused by the Department of Education, Lumina, Achieving the Dream, and
other education entities. Given the focus of the national agenda on completion and given
the nature of the community college culture to often utilize part-time faculty, successful
teaching practices need to be identified, proven effective, and practiced by both full- and
part-time faculty. The challenge, however, is especially difficult for community colleges
because the majority of their teaching faculty are part-time employees who are less
attuned than their full-time counterparts to the culture of their institutions. They are
responsible for providing quality instruction, integrating active and collaborative learning
in the classroom, and assisting students to achieve the course outcomes; yet, many are not
familiar with the resources and services provided to students within the institution. It is
crucial that community colleges identify best practices that part-time faculty can utilize in
and out of the classroom. Part-time faculty members have the potential to make the
biggest impact on student success because they make up the majority of faculty teaching
students in community colleges today. The findings of this quantitative study illustrate
how best practices employed in and out of the classroom successfully impact course
completion and retention in a community college.
x
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
Background of the Study
When planning the national agenda for higher education, institutions have much
to consider. American higher education—through federal government, states, and
individual institutions—is challenged to strive for excellence in order to gain back its
reputation as being a leader in education. In 2006, Secretary of Education Margaret
Spellings, charged representatives from public and private sectors to examine issues of
access, affordability, quality, and accountability in higher education. The report
concluded that colleges and universities must become more transparent and respond more
rapidly to changing circumstances to deal effectively with the challenges faced in higher
education (U.S. Department of Education, 2006)
In 2008, the College Board’s Commission on Access, Admissions, and Success in
Higher Education issued an agenda for increasing the proportion of Americans with
college credentials, specifically identifying “a goal to increase the proportion of 25- to
34-year-olds who hold an associate degree or higher to 55 percent by the year of 2025 in
order to make America the leader in education attainment in the world” (Hughes, 2013, p.
2). Subsequently, in 2009, the Lumina Foundation (2013) released its first strategic plan
with a goal of by 2025, 60% of Americans will obtain a postsecondary degree or
credential. These reports shifted the focus of higher education from student access to
student completion of a credential.
1
With the emphasis on completion, educational leaders recognized that institutions
must change their teaching and learning approaches, especially as student populations
become increasingly diverse in postsecondary education (Kuh, 2009). In order to address
this challenge, higher education institutions need to involve their faculty in understanding
the vision of the college, communicate effectively, and create a culture of evidence and
accountability. The challenge, however, is especially difficult for community colleges
because the majority of their teaching faculty are part-time employees who are less
attuned than their full-time counterparts to the vision and culture of their institutions
(Public Agenda, 2010, p. 17).
Part-time Faculty in Community Colleges
Before we can begin to understand how to effectively encourage part-time faculty
to employ best practices with students, it is important to understand this faculty group.
According to the National Survey of Part-time/Adjunct Faculty conducted by the
American Federation of Teachers in 2010, part-time faculty are not full-time permanent
employees, but rather, employed on limited-term contracts and are hired to teach either
one course or several courses (Amercian Federation of Teachers, 2010). In community
colleges, part-time faculty members represent nearly 70% of the instructional workforce.
Many part-time faculty members work multiple jobs that may include teaching or another
career. According to the American Federation of Teachers survey of part-time faculty,
just one in three (34%) faculty has only one job, while two in three (66%) work two or
more jobs. The use of part-time faculty in community colleges started to increase in the
1970s and 1980s (Kezar & Sam, 2010) and then became more recognized in the 1990s as
2
the employee group began to increase in order to meet the demands of higher education
institutions.
The emergence of part-time faculty in community colleges resulted from efforts
to address the need for providing students access to education. Community colleges rely
on part-time faculty as enrollment increases as well as to provide expertise in career and
technical fields (Marklein, 2008). They also depend on part-time faculty to provide
affordable educational opportunities for students. However, as the priorities have
transitioned from access to completion, community colleges are now challenged to
identify new policies on student learning outcomes, which until this point, had not been
important (Rossol-Allison & Alleman Beyers, 2011). Therefore, community colleges
need to understand how faculty status, full or part time, impacts retention and completion
of students.
There is an expectation that part-time faculty be held accountable to the same
performance outcomes as their full-time faculty counterparts. However, colleges have
neglected to integrate part-time faculty into the organizational structure to ensure
knowledge and understanding of faculty best practices used with students in and out of
the classroom. Many times, part-time faculty members have not received an orientation
to the college, have limited access to professional development opportunities, or have
been excluded from department faculty meetings (Kezar, Longanecker, & Maxey, 2013).
Part-time faculty are responsible for providing quality instruction, integrating active and
collaborative learning in the classroom, and assisting students to achieve the course
outcomes; yet, many are not familiar with the resources and services provided to students
within the institution.
3
A recent study conducted by Public Agenda, a Founding Partner to Achieving the
Dream, identified the lack of part-time faculty integration as one obstacle for community
colleges. The report stated “many colleges have yet to develop effective infrastructure
and practices for communicating with adjunct faculty and integrating them into important
institutional efforts” (Achieving the Dream, 2011, p. 6). An even greater concern is,
“part-time faculty are usually not sufficiently knowledgeable with reference to available
institutional services when referrals are warranted” (Schibik & Harrington, 2004, p. 2).
As previously discussed, community colleges are faced with the challenge of
meeting the college completion agenda espoused by the Department of Education,
Lumina, Achieving the Dream, and other educational entities. However, previous
research (Jacoby 2006; Jaeger & Eagan, 2009, 2011; Schibik & Harrington, 2004;
Umbach, 2007) has suggested that part-time faculty negatively impact student success,
learning, and completion efforts. For instance, the American Association of University
Professors (AAUP) (n.d.) suggested that excessive use of so-called “contingent” faculty
has costs, implying that part-time faculty damages student learning. The AAUP also
suggested that “heavy reliance on contingent faculty hurts students because they are
typically paid only for the hours they spend in the classroom, and they are often hired on
the spur of the moment with little evaluation” (para. 9). Community colleges hire and
pay part-time faculty by the course they teach and typically do not provide additional
incentives for them to interact outside of the classroom (Jacoby, 2006). Not only are they
not compensated for anything but the course, but often part-time faculty have limited or
no time for advising, office hours, or engagement with students outside of the class
4
(Kezar, 2011). Additional research suggests that because part-time faculty positions are
categorized as contingent faculty,
[they] are not designed to provide a quality teaching experience and have limited or no time for advising, office hours, engagement outside of the class, or even the ability to talk with students after class due to the tight scheduling of courses. (Kezar, 2011, para. 2)
When part-time faculty are not provided access to college services or have limited
awareness of these services, the interactions of faculty and students are impacted and
there are fewer opportunities for students to connect with those faculty in meaningful
ways (Jaeger & Eagan, 2010).
The lack of interaction outside of the classroom is evident in the 2009 Community
College Faculty Survey of Engagement (CCFSSE) results which reported that part-time
faculty members interact in college activities outside of the classroom less than their full-
time counterparts. In response to this report, Dr. Kay McClenney, director of the Center
for Community College Student Engagement (CCCSE), stated, “the report is not blaming
part-time faculty for their lack of engagement with students, acknowledging that they are
simply working within the framework that is given them” (Moltz, 2009, para. 9).
When compared to their full-time faculty counterparts, the perception is that part-
time faculty may be less skilled and trained in instruction as well as less committed to
their institutions; yet, when considering their personal roles as faculty, they view
themselves as skilled instructors, dedicated educators, and caring mentors (Washington,
2011). Although part-time faculty are paid for only the courses they teach, many do
contribute to service work outside of class because they are committed to their jobs (June,
2012). The American Federation of Teacher’s (2010) survey supported part-time
faculty’s opinion that they are committed to their role in higher education and reported
5
“57 percent of those surveyed say they are in their jobs primarily because they like
teaching, not primarily for the money” (p. 4). The latter was also supported in the 2002
faculty report developed by Illinois Board of Higher Education, which stated that “non-
tenure-track faculty are well qualified and committed to their work” (State of Illinois
Board of Higher Education, 2002, p. 21).
What Community Colleges Need to Focus On
Given the focus of the national agenda on completion and given the nature of the
community college culture to often utilize part-time faculty, successful teaching practices
need to be identified, proven effective, and practiced by both full- and part-time faculty.
Community colleges, for the most part, recognize a need to redesign their practices so
that students will be more successful (McClenney & Greene, 2005). A significant part of
this redesign is figuring out how to encourage more interaction between faculty and their
students. Through Achieving the Dream and related projects, colleges now understand
that “one of the most important predictors of student success is students’ relationship
with faculty” (Kezar, 2011, para. 1). The CCCSE, which administers the Community
College Survey of Student Engagement (CCSSE), noted in the section on student-faculty
interaction that the more interaction students have with their instructors, the more likely
they are to persist toward achievement of their educational goals (Community College
Survey of Student Engagement [CCSSE], 2015,“Student-Faculty Interaction,” para. 1).
Existing studies have focused primarily on student exposure to part-time faculty
rather than on the practices employed in the classroom (Jacoby 2006; Jaeger & Eagan,
2009, 2011; Schibik & Harrington, 2004; Umbach, 2007). Very little research has
been conducted on the topic of faculty employment of best practices
6
and how these practices relate to student performance. Few studies “have
focused on the relationship between student exposure to part-time faculty members and
student outcomes at community colleges” (Jaegar & Eagan, 2009, p. 171).
The primary focus of this study was to explore the impact of best practices on
student success in courses taught by part-time faculty. It is crucial that community
colleges identify best practices that part-time faculty can utilize in and out of the
classroom. Part-time faculty members have the potential to make the biggest impact on
student success because they make up the majority of faculty teaching students in
community colleges today.
Community colleges cannot afford to neglect implementing practices that support
the college completion agenda. Community colleges today must increase completion
rates within the constraints of available resources (Alfred, Shults, & Seybert, 2007).
Hence the question: how do students perform in classes taught by
part-time faculty who employ best practices? This study examined
whether or not part-time faculty who employed best practices in and
out of the classroom had higher success than those faculty who did not
employ these best practices.
Purpose of the Study and Questions
This study explored whether or not part-time faculty who employed best practices
in and out of the classroom positively influence student performance at a Midwestern
Community College, a two-year institution that enrolled approximately 18,000 students
per academic year.
This study addressed the following research questions:
7
Is there a relationship between faculty-reported employment of best practices
in community college courses taught by part-time faculty and successful
completion?
Is there a relationship between faculty-reported employment of best practices
and student-reported use of these practices in community college courses
taught by part-time faculty and successful completion?
Is there a relationship between faculty-reported employment of best practices
and student-reported use of these practices in community college courses
taught by part-time faculty and retention in subsequent terms?
Researcher Perspective
My interest in this topic began in 1999 when, unlike many of my peer part-time
faculty members, I was fortunate to work full-time as an administrator at the community
colleges in which I taught part-time. As a full-time employee, I was knowledgeable of
resources and services that the college provided to students in order to sustain success,
including tutoring, retention alert and supplemental instruction, as well as knowing where
to refer students if they had questions. Because of this knowledge, I was able to provide
my students with useful information beyond the content of the class to support them in
their educational experience at the college. However, what I failed to realize, until I
became responsible for orienting part-time faculty, was that I was in the minority. Many
part-time faculty members were not familiar with the services and programs available to
students and they were not provided with key college information and resources to help
students be successful.
8
In my current position, I am responsible for coordinating part-time faculty
orientation for new faculty members. Although the information provides faculty with a
foundational understanding of college resources and support services, all new part-time
faculty members are not required to attend orientation. Therefore, many are left on their
own accord to obtain information regarding the college. As a result, I began to wonder if
students are more successful in classes where part-time faculty members are familiar with
support services and incorporate these in their classrooms. Finally, it has become
apparent through my years of having been responsible for part-time faculty orientation
that the limitation of time does not allow for the training of effective teaching practices.
Consequently, part-time faculty members are responsible for orienting themselves to
these practices.
In order to gain a better understanding of student use of best practices at
Midwestern Community College, the CCSSE survey was administered in 2009, 2012,
and 2014. As typically done in large-scale national CCSSE administrations, course
sections from the College were specifically selected by the CCCSE in order to maximize
representative data. The results of the student-reported use of best practices are shown in
subsequent chapters of this study.
9
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
This literature review explores faculty use of best practices in and out of the
classroom which may successfully impact student success. This review is divided into
five sections: (a) Best Practices in Community Colleges, (b) Student Use of Best
Practices, (c) Midwestern Community College Student Use, (d) Employment of Best
Practices, and (e) Faculty Perceptions of Student-Faculty Interactions
Best Practices in Community Colleges
Best practices in community colleges may be defined in many different ways.
The intent of the practices is similar in that the practices are designed to support student
success in and out of the classroom. In this regard, Chickering and Gamson (1987)
referenced
seven principles based on research on good teaching and learning in colleges and universities including: encouraging contacts between students and faculty, developing reciprocity and cooperation among students, using active learning techniques, giving prompt feedback, emphasizing time on task, communicating high expectation, and respecting diverse talents and ways of learning. (p. 2)
In 2008, the American Association of Colleges and Universities (AACU)
published high-impact practices; however, at the time of the report, the practices were by
no means new (Finley & McNair, 2013). The practices included: (a) first-year seminars
and experiences, (b) common intellectual experiences, (c) learning communities, (d)
writing-intensive courses, (e) collaborative assignments and projects, (f) undergraduate
research, (g) diversity/global learning, (h) service learning, (i) community-based learning,
10
(j) internships, and (k) capstone courses and projects (American Association of Colleges
and Universities, 2008)
The American Association of College and Universities also published additional
educational practices to influence students’ growth on three personal and social
responsibility outcomes; these include: (a) diversity and perspective-taking experiences;
(b) service learning and volunteering; and (c) other engaged learning experiences such as
discussing course content with students outside of class, active and collaborative
learning, and integration of ideas, information, and experience (O'Neill, 2012, p. 8).
In 2012, CCSSE published a document, A Matter of Degrees: Promising
Practices for Community College Student Success, that highlighted high-impact practices
that support community college students’ needs from their first interactions with the
college through the successful completion of their first academic term and beyond. These
promising practices are divided into three groups: planning for success, initiating success,
and sustaining success. More specifically, these groups are detailed in the following
way:
Planning for Success includes Assessment and Placement, Orientation, Academic Goal Setting and Planning, Registration before Classes Begin;
Initiating Success includes Accelerated or Fast-Track Developmental Education, First-Year Experience, Student Success Course, Learning Community; and
Sustaining Success includes Class Attendance, Alert and Intervention, Experiential Learning beyond the Classroom, Tutoring, and Supplemental Instruction (Center for Community College Student Engagement [CCCSE], 2012, p. 8).
Student Use of Best Practices
The Community College Survey of Student Engagement (CCSSE) is a student
survey specifically designed to assess the extent to which students use or engage in
11
various activities on campus. One of the areas of the survey, administered to community
college students, specifically assesses students’ perceptions of faculty best practices (e.g.,
giving prompt feedback) and instructional practices (e.g., team activities) that research
has shown to be beneficial for student success, learning, and retention and measures their
use of these practices. Through a series of Likert-scale items, the CCSSE assesses
students’ perceptions of the nature and quality of student-faculty interactions in and out
of the classroom. Items measuring student-faculty interaction include:
used e-mail to communicate with an instructor,
discussed grades or assignments with an instructor,
talked about career plans with an instructor or advisor,
discussed ideas from your readings or classes with instructors outside of class,
received prompt feedback (written or oral) from instructors on your
performance, and
worked with instructors on activities other than coursework. (CCSSE, 2015,
“Student-Faculty Interaction,” para. 1)
According to the 2014 CCSSE National Survey, as indicated in Table 1, students
reported an average mean of 2.27 on 4-point scales on five core questions regarding
student-faculty interaction.
12
Table 1
Cohort Means Report, Student-Faculty Interaction Benchmark: 2014 CCSSE
All StudentsItem N Mean
4. In your experiences at this college during the current school year, about how often have you done each of the following?
1 = Never, 2 = Sometimes, 3 = Often, 4 = Very Oftenk. Used email to communicate with an instructor 434,641 2.90l. Discussed grades or assignments with an instructor 435,144 2.62m. Talked about career plans with an instructor or advisor 434,223 2.13n. Discussed ideas from your readings or classes with instructors outside of class
433,598 1.79
o. Received prompt feedback (written or oral) from instructors on your performance
434,340 2.73
q. Worked with instructors on activities other than coursework 430,952 1.47
Note. 2014 cohort data.
In addition to the cohort means results collected from the 2014 survey, CCSSE listed key
findings that specifically addressed the student-faculty interaction indicator:
Over half (63%) of students have used e-mail to communicate with an
instructor often or very often, compared with only 8% of students that have
never done so.
Half (51%) have discussed grades or assignments with an instructor often or
very often, compared with only 9% of students that have never done so.
Over a quarter (29%) have talked about their career plans with an instructor or
advisor often or very often, but 28% have never done so.
Over half (56%) have discussed an idea from their readings or classes with an
instructor outside of class at least sometimes, but 45% have never done so.
The majority of students report receiving prompt feedback from instructors on
their performance, with only 8% reporting they have never received it.
13
Over two-thirds (69%) have never worked with instructors on activities other
than coursework. (CCSSE, 2015, “Student-Faculty Interaction,” para. 2)
Although the data listed in Table 1 does not reflect employment status of faculty (full- or
part-time), the results as well as the key findings support the need to explore which of the
best practices are most predictive of student success. In addition to the student-faculty
interactions detailed in Table 1, there are other examples which support the idea that
students who use best practices are more successful (Chickering & Gamson, 1987; Kim,
Newton, Downey, & Benton, 2010; McClenney & Greene, 2005; Wolf-Wendel, Ward, &
Kinzie, 2009). Chaffey College, for example, implemented student and faculty success
centers with the intent of providing comprehensive support services in a risk-free
environment. The college reported that students who regularly accessed the centers
performed better and as a result, had higher rates of retention, persistence, and success
(Cooper, et al., 2014). Community College of Baltimore County implemented an
accelerated learning program, co-enrolling students into an upper level developmental
writing course and an English 101 course taught by the same faculty member. The
college reported that “74% of the students successfully completed English 101 compared
with 33% of students in the traditional developmental writing course. Moreover, 33% of
the students passed English 102, as compared with 10% of students in the traditional
developmental course” (American Association of Community Colleges, 2014, p. 19).
These examples provide evidence that students who use best practices are more
successful. However, the 2014 report by the CCSSE organization titled Contingent
Commitments stated that many times students’ experiences are contingent on the faculty
who teach them and if the faculty member is part-time, best practices are less likely to
14
occur in the classroom (CCCSE, 2014b). The report urges community college leaders to
identify expectations of their part-time faculty in order to increase student success,
particularly, to gain a “better understanding of the strengths, challenges, teaching
practices, concerns, and aspirations of college faculty who work part time” (p. 24).
CCSSE continues to emphasize that one of the primary areas needing to be
addressed in community colleges is the importance of creating a strong connection with
students (CCCSE, 2009b) which is less evident when there is an increased percentage of
part-time faculty hired than full-time faculty. Because hiring more full-time faculty is not
a viable option for most community colleges, the identification of best practices for part-
time faculty to employ in and out of the classroom is crucial to understand. This study
focused on addressing this need.
Midwestern Community College Student Use
In order to gain a better understanding of student use of best practices at
Midwestern Community College, the CCSSE survey was administered in 2009 and 2012.
The student sample size resulted in a total of 600 students from approximately 129 course
sections. Table 2 provides the data comparing Midwestern Community College to the
national data which utilizes a three-year cohort of participating colleges.
15
Table 2
2012 Midwestern Community College Results
2012 College
2012 Cohort
Item Percent Percent4. In your experiences at this college during the current school year, about how often have you done each of the following?
1 = Never, 2 = Sometimes, 3 = Often, 4 = Very Oftenk. Used email to communicate with an instructor Never 7.1 8.5
Sometimes 33.9 30.8Often 34.0 31.5Very Often 25.0 29.2
l. Discussed grades or assignments with an instructor Never 8.9 8.6Sometimes 43.3 41.8Often 30.8 31.5Very Often 17.1 18.0
m. Talked about career plans with an instructor or advisor Never 28.0 28.4Sometimes 46.6 44.2Often 17.9 18.7Very Often 7.5 8.8
n. Discussed ideas from your readings or classes with instructors outside of class
Never 46.7 45.3Sometimes 32.9 37.5Often 14.2 12.3Very Often 6.2 5.0
o. Received prompt feedback (written or oral) from instructors on your performance
Never 7.5 7.6Sometimes 31.9 34.3Often 39.2 39.0Very Often 21.5 19.1
q. Worked with instructors on activities other than coursework
Never 66.8 69.1Sometimes 20.0 21.1Often 10.1 7.1Very Often 3.1 2.7
Cohort percent refers to the percentages obtained by the national CCSSE cohort for each respective survey year. The cohort contains only large colleges above 8,000 FTE in an academic year.
Note. Institutional reports: 2012 CCSSE cohort, 2012.
As noted in Table 2, Midwestern Community College data are fairly typical when
compared to the national cohort data. For example, students report having discussions of
grades or assignments with instructors “often” at Midwestern Community College at a
rate that is on par with the national average (30.8 % at MCC vs. 31.5% in the national
cohort). Similarly, Midwestern Community College students report similar percentages
16
to the national average on the variable that measures having “sometimes” worked with
instructors on activities other than coursework (20.0% at MCC vs. 21.1% in the national
cohort). Thus, Midwestern Community College was a reasonable venue for this study.
Any differences found at Midwestern Community College are not markedly different
from changes at the national level over time.
Employment of Best Practices
In 2010, Public Agenda conducted focus groups at two-year and four-year
institutions to identify ways to encourage more integration of best practices in and out of
the classroom. The report concluded that faculty “can and must be engaged more
effectively in the productivity agenda for lasting gains to be made” (Public Agenda,
2010, p. 2). The report continued to identify other strategies that included faculty in the
conversations regarding student success productivity. Efforts involved engaging younger
faculty more frequently because they tend to be more open to the idea that the
responsibility for student success is just as much their responsibility as it is the
institution’s; encouraging faculty to participate outside of their departments on
committees that include curriculum, advisory, and accreditation in order to generate
awareness of productivity agendas; and finally, focusing on those faculty who are willing
to look outside of the box and explore nontraditional teaching strategies. (Public Agenda,
2010).
One model that relies on faculty experience and expertise as well as expands the
teaching role by integrating best practices in the classroom is the Academy for College
Excellence (ACE) program. ACE supports colleges with a “fundamentally different
approach to promoting achievement found so critical—specifically support through
17
curriculum and instruction that holistically addresses students’ needs rather than as a
discrete set of services” (Cooper, et al., 2014, p. 151). The California Community
College System incorporates practices by utilizing the ACE model which holds that
“affective dimensions mean that teachers have more active engagement with and
knowledge of their students” (Asera, 2011, p. 4). The California college system found:
faculty regularly referenced use of interactive teaching in their course and program implementation. Whether it was students interacting with the instructor, with one another or with the hands-on applications of the coursework itself, faculty noted that interactive teaching played a prominent role in how they delivered curriculum. Use of an authentic context facilitated strong student engagement, often calling for teamwork, peer to peer review, real-world data collection and problem-solving, experiences with employers or community organizations, authentic assessments and reflective essays. While interactive teaching is an overall aspect of quality instruction, working with contextualized curriculum provided instructors with a multiplicity of opportunities to construct complex and engaging interactive activities. (Baker, Hope, & Karandjeff, 2009, p.17)
Rhoades (2012) prepared a paper for the National Commission on Higher
Education Attainment focusing on ways to increase faculty-student interactions in order
to meet the national agenda of increasing college completion rates. Rhoades suggested
that students need to be provided more opportunities to “experience continuity and
community in their relationships with faculty and professionals” (p. 7) employed at the
college. Recognizing that in order for students to be successful, faculty and professional
staff need to “coordinate and intersect in ways that serves educational quality and student
attainment” (p. 7). According to Rhoades (2012),
educational quality and student attainment derive not only from good instruction but also from various forms of engagement with and mentoring by faculty outside the classroom, in labs, in service learning, in informal exchanges, and in structured co-curricular settings such as learning communities. (p. 18)
18
As community colleges begin to identify best practices that support student
completion and retention, it is important they employ faculty practices that have proven
to be successful both in and out of the classroom. Further research supports the notion
that best practices include a high level of student involvement, including purposeful
student-faculty contact and active and collaborative learning in the classroom as well as
participating in first year seminars, academic success centers, tutoring, career advising,
and counseling (Wolf-Wendel et.al, 2009; Kim, et al., 2010). These few examples of
faculty best practices align directly with the promising practices recommended by the
CCSSE organization, emphasizing the importance of student-faculty interaction in and
out of the classroom.
Although these practices have proven to be successful, Umbach (2007) explored
the impact of undergraduate education based on the level of interaction that students have
with contingent faculty. Umbach’s research indicated that part-time faculty have less
interaction with students as well as spend less time preparing for classes than their full-
time counterparts. Furthermore, there is a concern that because many students who are
enrolled in community colleges are considered at-risk students, their needs may require a
higher level of student-faculty interaction in order to be successful. An additional
concern is that if these students are enrolled in classes taught by part-time faculty who
historically have few, if any, formal ties to the institution (e.g., no office hours, no
contact with students outside of the classroom, no consultation with those teaching
remedial courses), the success of these students may be impacted (Schibik & Harrington,
2004). The challenge, as noted previously, is how to ensure part-time faculty are
employing best practices considering their lack of engagement and understanding of
19
college infrastructure, especially when they are rarely engaged in any role other than
teaching (CCSSE, 2014b).
Professional development is an opportunity that promotes faculty employment of
best practices in the classroom. Community colleges are encouraged to offer the same
instructional support and development opportunities to part-time faculty that are available
to full-time faculty (Moltz, 2009). Effective professional development ensures that
faculty members consistently learn techniques and information to improve their job skills.
In education, professional development often takes the form of attending workshops or
seminars. However, in order to develop part-time faculty to support student success, the
curriculum must reflect the skills and knowledge necessary to understand, embrace, and
support the institution’s student success agenda and provide orientation and mentoring on
teaching and advising (Brown, King, & Stanley, 2011). Part-time faculty, however, may
never have an opportunity to participate in these types of professional development
experiences because of the limited number of hours they are on campus.
Faculty Perceptions of Student-Faculty Interactions
The CCSSE reports only student perspectives of student-faculty interaction;
however, the Community College Faculty Survey of Engagement (CCFSSE), a
companion survey to the Community College Student Survey, is designed to report faculty
perspectives. The CCFSSE invites faculty at participating colleges to provide their
perspectives on student participation as well as measure the employment of other best
practices. It collects information from faculty about their perceptions on students'
educational experiences, their teaching practices, and the ways they spend their
professional time in and out of the classroom. In 2011, with support from the Bill and
20
Melinda Gates Foundation and the Lumina Foundation, the survey was redesigned to
measure best educational practices in community colleges. “The CCFSSE responses
enable participating institutions to note areas of strength, identify challenges for further
consideration, and target areas of focus for faculty development” (CCSSE, 2005, p. 20).
Since its first administration in 2005, the survey respondents have increased from 3,561
faculty members from 39 colleges to 32,647 faculty members from 262 colleges, as
reported in the 2014 cohort (CCSSE, 2014, “Faculty Survey CCFSSE Reports,” para. 4).
A comparison of three questions measuring student-faculty interaction variables
from the two survey analyses appear in Figure 1 and Figure 2.
Talk about Career Plans Discuss Readings Outside of Class
Receive Prompt Feedback0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
38%
29%
93%
62%
39%
91%
2005 Faculty 2014 Faculty
% of Faculty-Reported Perception of Student Use
% o
f Res
pons
es O
ften
or V
ery
Ofte
n
Figure 1. Comparison of 2004 and 2015 faculty-reported data.
21
Talk about Career Plans Discuss Readings Outside of Class
Receive Prompt Feedback0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
22%15%
55%
44%
22%
70%
2005 Students 2014 Students
% of Student-Reported Use
% R
espo
nses
Ofte
n or
Ver
y O
ften
Figure 2: Comparison of 2004 and 2015 student-reported data.
“Overall, faculty members perceive higher levels of student engagement than
student report” (CCSSE, 2005, p. 20). This phenomenon is consistent for both the 2005
and 2014 analyses shown in Figure 1 and Figure 2. The proportion of faculty who
reported “often” or “very often” increased for all questions with the exception of “How
often do students receive prompt feedback?” These analyses provide indications that the
activities contributing to the student-faculty interaction benchmark have, for the most
part, increased over this nine year period. This fact makes exploration of whether or not
these best practices impact student success all the more important.
CCSSE and CCFSSE data are useful to community colleges for identifying gaps
in student use and participation. In order to obtain subsequent analyses, CCSSE
recommended that the “benchmark score can be used in conjunction with traditional
institutional data, such as grades and demographic data, to understand the factors that
really matter in student success” (CCCSE, 2009a, p. 4). In 2014, the Center released
another report, A Matter of Degrees: Practices to Pathways, that aligned both the CCSSE
22
survey as well as the Survey of Entering Student Engagement (SENSE) with student
outcomes to measure predictions of student success. The analyses indicated “positive
relationships between high-impact practices and three student outcomes.” These
outcomes are:
completion of at least one developmental education course with a grade of C
or better,
completion of at least one gatekeeper course with a C or better, and
persistence (fall-to-spring and fall-to-fall) (CCCSE, 2014a, p. 5).
One example reported students participating in an orientation were 1.51 times more likely
to successfully complete a developmental math course and 1.61 times more likely to
successfully complete a developmental English course (p. 9). Although this study
aligned the CCSSE survey to student outcome data, there has yet to be a similar report
which aligns CCFSSE data to student outcomes.
23
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
This chapter reviews the conceptual frameworks and purpose statement that were
used in this study. An explanation of the explanatory research design method, site
selection, and participant selection are also described in this chapter. Finally, the
research questions and analyses are also reviewed in this chapter.
Conceptual Frameworks
As suggested by CCSSE, personal interactions between students and faculty
strengthen students’ connections to the college and help them focus on their academic
progress in order to be more successful (CCSSE, 2015, “Student-Faculty Interaction,”
para. 1). These interactions align to the self-efficacy theory, for example, which supports
the notion that individuals’ beliefs in their own capacities are critical to successfully
carrying out given tasks and have consequences for motivation and achievement.
“Efficacy expectations determine how much effort people will expend and how long they
will persist in the face of obstacles and aversive experiences” (Bandura, 1977, p. 194).
Furthermore, students can be “given appropriate skills and adequate incentives, however,
efficacy expectations are a major determinant of people’s choice of activities, how much
effort they will expend, and of how long they will sustain effort in dealing with stressful
situations” (p. 194). In other words, students who have a positive classroom experience
and who are supported by their faculty member may be more motivated and, therefore,
more successful.
Another theory supporting the idea that personal interactions strengthen students
academically is the self-determination theory which proposes that for one to be motivated
to function at an optimal level, a set of psychological needs must be supported. Deci
25
(2009) asserted that “the effectiveness of a structured change process will require people
to internalize the value and behavioral regulations that are its key components (p. 245).
This means that administrators and teachers must internalize the structures that constitute
the reform and then implement them in working with students.”
Each theory emphasizes the role that interpersonal relationships play in resolving
complex or critical concerns with respect to current and prospective education. These
theories support the fact that positive relationships with significant others are
cornerstones of young people’s capacity to function effectively in social, affective, and
academic domains (Martin & Dowson, 2009). When these interactions are present,
faculty members become role models, mentors, and guides for students and encourage
continuous, lifelong learning (CCSSE, 2015, “Student-Faculty Interaction,” para. 1).
Therefore, research suggests that it may be necessary for community colleges to identify
what best practices are most effective and leverage those practices throughout the
college, especially with part-time faculty who may not be as connected as full-time
faculty to the culture and fabric of the institution where they teach.
Research Design
A quantitative, explanatory research design method was used for this study. “In
quantitative research, the investigator identifies a research problem based on the trends in
the field or the need to explain why something occurs” (Creswell, 2012, p. 13). To
investigate the correlation of student-reported use and faculty-reported employment of
best practices on student outcomes, a student sample was gathered from student
respondents to the CCSSE survey that was administered at Midwestern Community
College in spring 2009, 2012, and 2014. Additionally, a modified CCFSSE survey that
26
specifically measured faculty perceptions of student-faculty interaction was administered
to those faculty members whose students responded to the CCSSE. A modified CCFSSE
survey was developed by identifying specific questions that measured faculty perceptions
of student-faculty interaction as well as their own employment of best practices in and
out of the classroom (e.g., returning e-mails, etc.) which may contribute to student
success. Questions were selected based on reports generated by CCSSE as well as
whether or not the questions aligned to the student-faculty interaction benchmark,
promising practices, and professional development. Both the student CCSSE and the
faculty CCFSSE surveys contain similarly phrased items so, where possible, analyses
compared each set of items on one survey to its counterpart sets of items on the other
survey.
Choice of Participants
The study sample included students enrolled in 243 course sections in which the
CCSSE survey was administered during the spring semesters in 2009, 2012, and 2014 at
Midwestern Community College. As is typically done in large-scale national CCSSE
administrations, these course sections were specifically selected by the CCSSE
organization in order to maximize representative data (e.g., equitable distributions of
first-year and second-year students, equitable distributions by discipline, etc.). The
modified version of the CCFSSE survey was administered to all faculty members
teaching those same course sections in which the CCSSE survey was administered in the
spring term in 2009, 2012, and 2014. Of the courses sampled, 54% were taught by part-
time faculty versus 46% by full-time faculty, and 62% of the courses were from transfer
disciplines (e.g., English, math, etc.), 30% in career and technical disciplines (e.g.,
27
welding, culinary arts, etc.), and the remaining 8% were either in Adult Basic Education
or developmental education.
Student performance data was collected from statistical information provided by
Midwestern Community College that included successful completion of a course and
retention to a subsequent term. For the purposes of this study, successful completion of a
course was defined as earning a grade of C or better in the current semester, and retention
was defined as the rate in which students enrolled in the next subsequent term without
graduating or transferring to another institution. Faculty data was also collected; this
included the number of years employed, number of years teaching, faculty employment
status of full time or part time at the time of the CCFSSE administration, and academic
disciplines such as university transfer and career-technical disciplines.
In order to protect the confidentiality of the faculty and students in this study who
were identified through the course sections, each faculty and student was assigned a code
number. Each code number was linked to the student enrollee data obtained from the
college statistical information. The merging of survey data to college enrollment data
was conducted by the Institutional Research Office of Midwestern Community College to
ensure confidentiality of the faculty and student information. The data collected in this
study were kept in a locked location and under no circumstances did the participants’
names or other potential identifying characteristics appear in any reports of results.
Analyses
Three sets of analyses were conducted. The first set explored the impact of
faculty employment of best practices (i.e., faculty ratings on employment of best
practices) on student success (i.e., course success). The second set explored the impact of
28
faculty-reported employment of best practices and student-reported use of these practices
(e.g., students’ ratings on student-faculty interaction survey items) on student success
(e.g., course completion and retention). Finally, the third set explored the interaction of
faculty employment of best practices and student use of these practices on student
success. For all three analyses, because I wanted to test the relationship of student use to
a particular faculty member, student data was yoked to faculty data by the class in which
the CCSSE was administered. The quantitative data collected was analyzed using the
Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS®).
Restatement of the Purpose of the Study and Questions
The purpose of this study was to explore whether or not part-time faculty who
employ best practices in and out of the classroom influenced student performance at a
community college. In particular, this study sought to address the following research
questions:
Question 1: Is there a relationship between faculty-reported employment of best
practices in community college courses taught by part-time faculty
and successful completion?
Question 2: Is there a relationship between faculty-reported employment of best
practices and student-reported use of these practices in community
college courses taught by part-time faculty and successful
completion?
Question 3: Is there a relationship between faculty-reported employment of best
practices and student-reported use of these practices in community
29
college courses taught by part-time faculty and retention in
subsequent terms?
In order to answer the first research question, the analyses measured faculty-
reported employment of best practices in and out of the classroom using the modified
CCFSSE survey. In order to answer the second and third research questions, two sets of
analyses were used to measure faculty-reported employment of best practices and
student-reported use of these practices. The first set of analyses of student-reported use
of faculty best practices looked at the responses separately by measuring particular items
on the CCSSE and CCFSSE related to course success and retention independently. The
second set of analyses measured the interrelationship between faculty-reported
employment of best practices and student-reported use as a single, combined variable and
its impact on course success and retention was examined. Averages across survey items
were calculated in order to aggregate across similar survey items.
30
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS
The purpose of this study was to explore whether or not part-
time faculty who employed best practices in and out of the classroom
successfully influenced student performance at Midwestern Community
College, a two-year institution that enrolled approximately 18,000
students per academic year. The study sample included students who
were enrolled in course sections in which the CCSSE survey was
administered during the spring 2009, 2012, and 2014 semesters as
well as the faculty who taught those same sections. The faculty were
administered an abbreviated version of the CCFSSE survey. Results
from the CCSSE and CCFSSE surveys were used to assess faculty
employment of best practices in and out of the classroom. These data
were then compared with student records from the College’s student
records database to determine the extent to which best practices
influenced student course completion and retention. This chapter
encompasses two parts. The first part provides a detailed description
of the study’s procedures. The second part provides an analysis of the
results to address the research questions and literature review.
Procedures
A paper/pencil survey instrument was developed using selected questions from
the CCFSSE survey to measure faculty employment of best practices in and out of the
30
classroom. One hundred and nine questions were used on the modified CCFSSE
instrument. Ninety-nine questions measured faculty employment of activities that
31
aligned to the student-faculty interaction benchmark and CCFSSE’s promising practices
divided among four contexts: (a) teaching-related practices in the classroom, (b)
teaching-related practices outside of the classroom, (c) time spent on teaching-related
activities, and (d) time spent on other professional activities. Ten additional items
measured demographic and experiential characteristics of the faculty. An Item Use
Agreement was submitted to CCFSSE to request the use of the survey items and
approved.
As is typically done in large-scale national CCSSE administrations, 243 course
sections from the College were specifically selected by the CCCSE in order to maximize
representative data (e.g., equitable distributions of first-year and second-year students,
equitable distributions by discipline, etc.). The original data set used in this study
consisted of these 243 course sections from the spring 2009, 2012, and 2014 semesters at
Midwestern Community College. Nineteen faculty names were removed from the list
due to faculty retirements, resignations, or death. The final sample included 221 course
sections taught by 171 faculty members and included 2,716 student grades. Of the
courses sampled, 54% were taught by part-time faculty versus 46% by full-time faculty;
62% of the courses were from transfer disciplines (e.g., English, math, etc.), 30% from
career and technical disciplines (e.g., welding, culinary arts, etc.), and the remaining 8%
were either in Adult Basic Education or developmental education.
For the CCSSFE, an initial e-mail was sent to the 171 faculty informing them that
they would be receiving a paper/pencil survey either in their work mailbox or at their
home. Of the 171 faculty members, 20 were no longer employed at the institution so the
survey was mailed to their home addresses.
31
Data were collected through the survey instrument over the course of three weeks.
Once the survey closed, raw data were input into SPSS® statistical software for analysis.
There were 53 responses to the survey contributed by 29 full-time faculty members and
24 part-time faculty members for an overall response rate of 31% (53/171). According to
the 2014 CCFSSE Cohort Overview, the Midwestern Community College response data
are comparable to the 2014 national cohort data. For example, 45% of the responses
were from part-time faculty versus 48% in the 2014 CCFSSE cohort and 55% of the
responses were from full-time faculty versus 52% in the 2014 CCFSSE cohort (CCFSSE
Reports, 2014, para. 5). Faculty employment status as either full- or part-time was
defined based on the instructor’s level of employment at the time the CCSSE survey was
administered in their classrooms. For example, one faculty member who was employed
in 2015 as a full time instructor was employed as a part-time instructor at the time of the
study and, therefore, was coded as part-time status. Full-time staff employees who also
taught part time for the College were coded as part-time.
Student data collected to measure student success and retention was gathered by
the Institutional Research Office of Midwestern Community College. The data included
student grades from the 221 identified course sections were used to measure successful
completion of a course and student enrollment in the subsequent fall term was used to
measure retention. For the purposes of this study, course success was defined according
to the grade students received, on a scale of 0–100%, at the end of the course in which the
CCSSE was administered. In the analyses that follow, course success is reported at the
section level, averaging all success rates supplied by students in a particular class.
Success rates ranged from 35% to 100% (M = 75%, SD = 0.18). Retention was defined
32
as the rate in which students enrolled in the next subsequent term, without graduating or
transferring to another institution, upon successful completion of the course in which the
CCSSE was administered. Like the course success rate, the retention rate was averaged
across all students in a class section. Rates ranged from 0% to 83% (M = 69%, SD =
0.22). The final sample included 56 course sections which had 981 student records with
an average of 16 students enrolled in each section. The number of course sections was
higher than the number of faculty responding to the survey (N = 56 vs. N = 53) due to
faculty members who taught more than one section. The minimum class size was three
and the maximum class size was 31.
In order to protect the identities of faculty who were linked to their course
sections, each faculty member was assigned a code number. Each code number was
linked to student enrollees obtained from the college statistical information. The merge
of CCSSFE faculty data to student completion and retention records was conducted by
the Institutional Research Office to ensure confidentiality of the faculty and student
information. Once merged, all identifying information was removed and replaced with
randomly generated identification numbers. Once the merge was completed, all data was
cleaned and sorted and an analysis was conducted with only the faculty code number.
Demographic Data and Characteristics
Of the 53 faculty respondents, 55% were full time (N = 29) and 45%
were part time (N = 24). Seventy-one percent of the respondents (N =
38) taught university transfer courses compared to 26% who taught
career-technical courses (N = 14). The gender of the respondents was
distributed similarly at 51% male and 49% female. The years of teaching
experience in any college/university varied among the respondents with
33
17% (N = 9) having 30 or more years of experience; 51% (N = 27) having
10 to 29 years; 23% having 5 to 9 years; and 9% having less than 5 years
(N = 5).
17%
51%
23%
9%
30 years or more10 to 29 years5 to 9 years1 to 4 years
Figure 3. Years of college/university teaching experience.
In a preliminary set of analyses, none of the previously mentioned
demographic or experiential characteristics were significantly correlated
with either course success or retention, thus they were ruled out as
covariates. Their relative proportions in the sample were comparable to
relative proportions in the College overall as well as nationally, thus
ensuring that the sample was fairly representative. For example, 48% of
the 2014 CCFSSE cohort respondents work part time as compared to 45%
of the Midwestern Community College respondents (CCSSE, 2014,
“Faculty Survey CCFSSE Reports,” para. 5).
Research Questions
Three primary research questions were addressed through this study.
34
Question 1: Is there a relationship between faculty-reported employment of best
practices in community college courses taught by part-time faculty
and successful completion?
Question 2: Is there a relationship between faculty-reported employment of best
practices and student-reported use of these practices in community
college courses taught by part-time faculty and successful
completion?
Question 3: Is there a relationship between faculty-reported employment of best
practices and student-reported use of these practices in community
college courses taught by part-time faculty and retention in
subsequent terms?
Faculty-Reported Employment of Best Practices
For the purposes of this study, faculty employment of best practices was
measured in several ways from the CCSSFE survey questions and included: (a) teaching-
related practices in the classroom, (b) teaching-related practices outside of classroom, (c)
time spent outside of class on teaching-related activities, and (d) time spent outside of
class on other professional activities. Each of these attributes was analyzed separately as
it related to course success.
Teaching-Related Practices In Class
Multiple CSSFE questions assessed in-class practices demonstrated by faculty.
Each was measured in a binary manner with 1 = does this practice versus 0 = does not do
this practice. Faculty who responded with a 1, employ the practice and if they responded
with a 0, they do not employ this practice. The survey item assessing whether faculty
35
administer an in-class assessment consisted of five separate sub-items, four of which
pertained to different types of assessments (e.g., a written assessment, an oral assessment,
an online assessment, a computerized assessment) and one in which faculty could
indicate using none of these assessments. For this item, employed was defined as having
any of the four assessment practices, and not employed was defined as having none.
Each indicator was classified as employed or not employed as follows:
Faculty who administer an in-class assessment at beginning of term (1–4
practices = employed; 0 practices = not employed)
Faculty who have an attendance policy (yes = employed; no = not employed)
Faculty who assign group learning experiences in class (1 or more =
employed; 0 = not employed)
Faculty who require students to be involved in an internship (yes = employed;
no = not employed)
Faculty who require students to be involved in service learning (yes =
employed; no = not employed)
Faculty who require students to be involved in supplemental instruction (yes =
employed; optional = not employed)
Frequency counts for each of the sub-items were computed and appear below the bars for
each survey item depicted in Figure 4 and Figure 5. Data from full-time faculty, although
not a central focus of this study, are presented for each comparison to part-time faculty
data and thus these data provide a means to contextualize the results obtained from part-
time faculty.
36
In-class
Ass
essm
ent
(Y
es n=18 N
o n=7)
Attendance Polic
y
(Yes n
=22 No n=3)
Group Le
arning
(
Yes n=20 N
o n=5)
Intern
ship
(
Yes n=6 N
o n=19)
Service
Learn
ing Comm
unity
(
Yes n=3 N
o n=22)
Supplementa
l Instr
uction
(
Yes n=4 N
o n=21)0%
20%40%60%80%
100%79% 79% 76% 76% 78%
91%74% 67%
78% 78% 77% 75%
Part-time Faculty Course Success
Employed Did Not Employ
*
Figure 4. Teaching-related practices in class: Part-time faculty. * p < .05.
In-class
Ass
essm
ent
(Y
es n=22 N
o n=9)
Attendance Polic
y
(Yes n
=29 No n=2)
Group Le
arning
(
Yes n=31 N
o n=0)
intern
ship
(
Yes n=8 N
o n=23)
Service
Learn
ing Comm
unity
(
Yes n=5 N
o n=26)
Supplementa
l Instr
uction
(
Yes n=4 N
o n=27)0%
20%40%60%80%
100%72% 71% 73% 76% 72% 72%
9%
91%
0%
72% 73% 73%
Full-time Faculty Course Success
Employed Did Not Employ
Figure 5. Teaching-related practices in class: Full-time faculty.
With respect to part-time teaching-related practices in the classroom, particular in-class
activities seem to correlate with higher course success rates. In-class activities that
resulted in higher course success included: having an in-class assessment (79% vs. 74%),
having an attendance policy (79% vs. 67%), using service learning (78% vs. 77%), and
using supplemental instruction (91% vs. 75%). While the relationships between having
37
an in-class assessment or an attendance policy and course success were not statistically
significant, the relationship between supplemental instruction and course success was
statistically significant. Part-time faculty who employed supplemental instruction (N = 4)
had students with statistically higher success than faculty who did not employ
supplemental instruction (N = 21, t = 2.138, p < .05). This comparison and all
comparisons in this study were also analyzed non-parametrically using
Mann-Whitney tests and statistically results were no different from
those obtained using parametric T-testing. Results are presented
using parametric T-testing throughout the results narrative. Finally, in-
class practices which did not seem to affect course success included: using group learning
(76% vs. 78%) and using internships (76% vs. 78%).
By way of comparison, full-time faculty who employed in-class activities that
resulted in higher course success included: having an in-class assessment (72% vs. 9%),
using group learning (73% vs. 0%), and using internships (76% vs. 72%).
Teaching-Related Practices Out of Class
A second method for defining employment of best practices was to examine
faculty involvement in teaching-related out-of-class practices, and again, multiple
CCSSFE questions were considered. As before, respondents gave binary responses of
either 1 or 0, where 1= does this practice and a 0 = does not do this practice. The survey
item assessing whether faculty employed teaching-related out-of-class practices consisted
of five separate questions to which respondents rated their participation using seven
degrees of involvement: (a) planning/designing, (b) coordination/supervising, (c)
teaching/facilitating, (d) advising/referring students into the experience, (e) training
38
faculty, (f) training or mentoring student tutors, or (g) no involvement). For this item,
employed was defined as participating in any of the six practices, indicating some degree
of involvement, and not employed was defined as indicating no involvement. Each
indicator was classified as employed or not employed as follows:
Faculty who are involved in structured first-year experiences (1–6 practices =
employed, 0 practices = not employed)
Faculty who are involved in an organized “learning community” (1–6
practices = employed, 0 practices = not employed)
Faculty who are involved in college orientation (1–6 practices = employed, 0
practices = not employed)
Faculty who are involved in a student success course (1–6 practices =
employed, 0 practices = not employed)
Faculty who are involved in an accelerated course (1–6 practices = employed,
0 practices = not employed)
Frequency counts are displayed in Figure 6 and Figure 7 and results are shown in
separate figures for part-time and then full-time faculty.
39
First Y
ear Exp
.
(Yes n
=11 No n=14)
Learn
ing Comm
unity
(Y
es n=10 N
o n=15)
Orienta
tion
(Y
es n=6 N
o n=19)
Student S
uccess
Course
(Yes n
=11 No n=14)
Accelera
tion
(Yes n
=7 No n=18)68%
70%72%74%76%78%80%82%
77%
73%
80%
73%75%
78%80%
77%
81%78%
Part-Time Faculty Course Success
Employed Did Not Employ
Figure 6. Teaching-related out-of-class practices: Part-time faculty.
First Y
ear Exp
.
(Y
es n=13 N
o n=18)
Learn
ing Comm
unity
(
Yes n=10 N
o n=21)
Orienta
tion
(Y
es n=6 N
o n=25)
Student S
uccess
Course
(Y
es n=9 N
o n=22)
Accelera
tion
(Yes n
=9 No n=22)
0%
20%40%60%
80% 75% 72% 77%62%
72%71% 73% 72% 77% 73%
Full-Time Faculty Course Success
Employed Did Not Employ
Figure 7. Teaching-related out-of-class practices: Full-time faculty.
With respect to part-time teaching-related out-of-class practices, the only practice that
resulted in higher course success included involvement in orientation (80% vs. 77%).
Out-of-class practices which had little effect, or an inverse effect, on course success
included: involvement in a first year experience program (77% vs. 78%), a learning
community (73% vs. 80%), and a student success course (73% vs. 81%) or acceleration
course (75% vs. 78%). However, none of these comparisons was statistically significant.
40
For full-time faculty, the results were similar in that those who indicated they were
involved in a first year experience (75% vs. 71%) and involved in orientation (77% vs.
72%) had slightly higher course success, whereas out-of-class practices which had little
impact on course success included: a learning community (72% vs. 73%), and a student
success course (62% vs. 77%) or acceleration course (72% v. 73%).
Time Spent on Teaching-Related Activities
A third method for defining employment of best practices was to examine faculty
time spent in teaching-related activities, and again, multiple CCSSFE questions were
considered. As before, respondents gave responses of either 1 or 0, where 1= does this
practice and a 0 = does not do this practice, and each survey items assessed the amount
of time per week the faculty employed various activities. Respondents provided
responses in 7 scales: 1 to 4 hours, 5 to 8 hours, 9 to 12 hours, 13 to 16 hours, 17 to 20
hours, 21 to 30 hours, 31+ hours, or no hours per week. For this item, employed was
defined as spending 5 or more hours a week, and not employed was defined as spending 4
hours or less. Each indicator was classified as employed or not employed as follows:
Teaching students in class (5 or more hours = employed, 4 or less hours = not
employed)
Grading papers (5 or more hours = employed, 4 or less hours = not employed)
Giving feedback to students (5 or more hours = employed, 4 or less hours =
not employed)
Preparing for class (5 or more hours = employed, 4 or less hours = not
employed)
41
Reflecting on ways to improve teaching (5 or more hours = employed, 4 or
less hours = not employed)
Frequency counts are displayed in Figure 8 and Figure 9, and results are shown in
separate figures for part-time and full-time faculty.
Teach (Yes n=22 No
n=3)
Grade (Yes n=13 No
n=12)
Feedback (Yes n=8 No
n=17)
Prep (Yes n=13 No
n=12)
Reflect (Yes n=6 No n=19)
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%
100%
77% 75% 78% 80%86%
78% 80% 77% 75% 75%
Part-Time Faculty Course Success
Employed Did Not Employ
Part-time Faculty-Reported Practices
% o
f Cou
rse
Succ
ess
*
Figure 8. Time spent on teaching-related activities: Part-time faculty. * p = .059.
Teach (Yes n=26 No
n=5)
Grade (Yes n=22 No
n=9)
Feedback (Yes n=14 No
n=17)
Prep (Yes n=19 No
n=12)
Reflect (Yes n=9 No n=22)
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%
100%
73% 70%78%
73% 75%70%
79%
68%73% 72%
Full-Time Faculty Course Success
Employed Did Not Employ
Full-time Faculty-Reported Practices
% o
f Cou
rse
Succ
ess
Figure 9. Time spent on teaching-related activities: Full-time faculty.
42
With respect to teaching-related activities, particular activities seemed to correlate with
higher course success rates for part-time faculty. Class activities that resulted in higher
course success included: giving other forms of written and oral feedback to students
(78% vs. 77%), preparing for class (80% vs. 75%), and reflecting and working on ways
to improve teaching (86% vs. 75%). Even though the time spent giving feedback to
students or preparing for class did not statistically predict course success, the relationship
between reflecting and working on ways to improve teaching and course success did
approach significance. Part-time faculty who spend more time reflecting or working on
ways to improve teaching (N = 6) had students with higher success rates than faculty who
spent less time on this activity (N = 19, t = 2.092, p = 059). Finally, class activities which
did not seem to affect course success included: teaching students in class (77% vs. 78%)
and grading papers (75% vs. 80%). For full-time faculty, the class activities that resulted
in higher course success included: teaching students in class (73% vs. 70%), giving
feedback to students (78% vs. 68%), and reflecting and working on ways to improve
teaching (75% vs. 72%). Class activities which did not seem to affect course success
included grading papers (70% vs. 79%) and preparing for class (73% vs. 73%).
Time Spent on Other Professional Activities
A fourth method for defining employment of best practices was to examine
faculty participation in other professional activities, and again, multiple CCSSFE
questions were considered. Eight separate CCSSFE professional activity items were
considered and respondents indicated the number of hours per week spent on them: 1 to 4
hours, 5 to 8 hours, 9 to 12 hours, 13 to 16 hours, 17 to 20 hours, 21 to 30 hours, 31+
hours, or none. For these activities, employed was defined as spending 5 or more hours a
43
week on each, and not employed was defined as spending less than 4 hours on each.
Each indicator was classified as employed or not employed as follows::
Research and scholarly activities (5 or more hours = employed, 4 or less hours
= not employed)
Working with honors projects (5 or more hours = employed, 4 or less hours =
not employed)
Advising students (5 or more hours = employed, 4 or less hours = not
employed)
Supervising internships (5 or more hours = employed, 4 or less hours = not
employed)
Working with students on activities other than coursework (5 or more hours =
employed, 4 or less hours = not employed)
Interactions with students outside of class (5 or more hours = employed, 4 or
less hours = not employed)
Conducting service activities (5 or more hours = employed, 4 or less hours =
not employed)
An eighth practice related to professional development was also included in this
analysis. For this item, seven separate CCSSFE items related to professional
development included: teaching-learning and pedagogy; increasing student success;
assessment of student learning; faculty orientation program; distance learning,
technology, diversity, globalization, cultural infusion; other professional development.
Faculty provided responses of either 1 or 0, where 1 = has participated and 0 = has not
participated in the various professional activities. For this item, employed was defined as
44
participating in 4 or more activities, and not employed was defined as participating in less
than 3 activities.
Frequency counts are display in Figure 10 and Figure 11, and results are shown in
separate figures for part-time and full-time faculty.
Research (Yes n=8 No
n=17)
Honor's (Yes n=2 No
n=23)
Advise (Yes n=4 No
n=24)
Supervise (Yes n=1 No
n=12)
Other Than Coursew
ork (Yes n=1 N
o n=24)
Out of Class (Yes n=2 N
o n=23)
Conduct Service Activities (Yes n=2 N
o n=23)
Professional Development
(Yes n=11 No n=14)
0%20%40%60%80%
100% 88%68%
100%80% 86% 84%
65%81%73% 78% 77% 75% 77% 77% 79% 75%
Part-time Faculty Course Success
Employed Did Not Employ
*
Figure 10. Time spent on other professional activities: Part-time faculty. * p < .05.Research (Yes n=10 N
o n=21)
Honor's (Yes n=1 No n=30)
Advise (Yes n=8 No
n=23)
Supervise (Yes n=2 No
n=29)
Other Than Coursew
ork (Yes n=3 N
o n=28)
Out of Class (Yes n=7 N
o n=23)
Conduct Service Activities (Yes n=2 N
o n=29)
Professional Development
(Yes n=11 No n=20)
0%20%40%60%80%
100%75% 73%
83% 86%67% 71%
62%74%72% 73% 69% 72% 73% 73% 74% 72%
Full-time Faculty Course Success
Employed Did Not Employ
Figure 11. Time spent on other professional activities: Full-time faculty.
45
With respect to hours part-time faculty spent on professional development activities
outside of class, particular activities seem to correlate with higher course success rates.
Activities that resulted in higher course success included: research and scholarly
activities (88% vs. 73%), advising students (100% vs. 77%), supervising internships or
other field experiences (80% vs. 75%), working with students on activities other than
course work (86% vs. 77%), other interactions with students outside of class (84% vs.
77%), and professional development (81% vs. 75%). Of these, the relationship between
research and scholarly activities and course success was statistically significant. Part-
time faculty who spend more time with research and scholarly activities (N = 8) had
students with statistically higher success than faculty who spend less time (N = 17, t =
2.781, p < .05). Finally, professional activities outside of class which did not seem to
affect course success included: conducting service activities (65% vs. 79%) and working
with honor’s projects (68% vs. 78%). Surprisingly, faculty who spent more hours
working with honor’s projects (N = 2) had students with statistically lower success than
faculty who spent less time (N = 23, t = 3.141, p > .05). This finding could be due to the
fact that honors students may be more motivated intrinsically, to the point that faculty
employment of best practices may have little effect on adding to the success of these
students. For full-time faculty, activities that resulted in higher course success included:
research and scholarly activities (75% vs. 72%), advising students (83% vs. 69%),
supervising internships or other field experiences (86% vs. 72%), and professional
development (74% vs. 72%). Professional activities which did not seem to affect course
success included: working with honor’s projects (73% vs. 73%), working with students
46
on activities other than course work (67% vs. 73%), other interactions with students
outside of class (71% vs. 73%), and conducting service activities (62% vs. 74%).
Faculty-Reported Employment of High-Impact Practices and Student-Reported Use as Independent Variables
In order to answer the second and third research questions regarding the
relationship between faculty-reported employment of best practices and student-reported
use of these practices, respondents were surveyed on several sets of questions related to
how often they do various activities (“How often do you do the following activities?”);
how often they refer students to various services (“How often do you refer students to the
following services?”); and how often they incorporate various services into their courses
(“How often do you incorporate services in your courses?”). Unlike the previous
analyses which surveyed only faculty respondents, each of the items in the remainder of
this chapter was asked of both faculty and their students. That is, each set of questions
(i.e. use, refer, and incorporate) on the CCFSSE has parallel and a similar set of questions
on the CCSSE; thus comparisons can be made between faculty and their students on an
item-for-item basis. For each set of items asked of faculty, students were asked to
respond through a series of Likert scale items to assess students’ perceptions of the nature
and quality of student-faculty interactions in and out of the classroom and how often the
students use each activity. Comparisons are made between faculty perceptions of student
use, faculty referrals and faculty incorporations of various activities, and student
perceptions of how often students actually use them.
Activities asked of faculty (CCFSSE) and students (CCSSE) on the first set of
questions (“How often do you do/use the following?”) included: use of e-mail, discuss
grades, talk of career plans, discuss readings with faculty/students outside of class,
47
receive prompt feedback, and work on activities other than coursework. Activities asked
of faculty and students on the second set (“How often do you refer students?”) included:
academic advising/planning; career counseling, job placement assistance, peer or other
tutoring, skill labs (writing, math, etc.), child care, financial aid advising, computer lab,
student organizations, transfer credit assistance, and services to students with disabilities.
Finally, activities asked of faculty and students on the third set (“How often do you
incorporate?”) included: academic advising/planning, career counseling, job placement
assistance, peer or other tutoring, skill labs (writing, math, etc.), child care, financial aid
advising, computer lab, student organizations, transfer credit assistance, and services to
students with disabilities.
The analyses of faculty-reported employment of best practices and student-
reported use of these practices on parallel CCSSFE and CCSSE items were conducted in
two ways. The first method examined faculty-reported employment of best practices and
student-reported use of these practices separately and independently. That is, the impact
of faculty-reported employment of best practices on course completion and retention was
examined; and separately, the impact of student-reported use on student course success
and retention was examined on its own. A second method examined the interrelationship
between faculty-reported employment of best practices and student-reported use of these
practices as a single, combined variable and its impact on course success and retention
was examined.
Faculty Perceptions Versus Student Use
To assess the impact of faculty-reported employment of best practices and
student-reported use of these practices separately, the average rating for all faculty
48
responses to the first set of CCSSFE questions (“How often do students use the
following?”) was calculated and compared to the rating for all student responses to the
comparable set of questions from the CCSSE questions (“How often do you use the
following?”). The six survey items in this set included: use of e-mail, discussing grades,
taking about career plans, discussing ideas outside of class, receiving prompt feedback,
and working on other types of activities. Each question was asked of faculty (CCSSFE)
and students (CCSSE) on 5-point scales (0 = Don’t know, 1 = Never, 2 = Sometimes, 3 =
Often, or 4 = Very often) and the average rating was calculated for each item across all
part-time faculty respondents, all full-time faculty respondents, and all students. Zero
ratings (i.e., Don’t Know) were rare and thus removed from analysis, and the resulting
averages across all questions ranged from 1.64 to 3.44 (SD = 0.65) for faculty, and 1.61
to 2.9 (SD = 0.51) for students. Results are shown in the line graphs in Figure 12.
Mean ratings for all six survey items are shown separately for faculty and students
in Figure 12, and are comparable by item between faculty and their students. These
aggregated averages ranged from 1.50 to 3.50 for faculty with a mean of 2.55 (SD = 0.60)
and 2.02 to 2.92 for students with a mean of 2.36 (SD = 0.20). One of the highest rated
items for both faculty and students was receiving prompt feedback (3.44 for faculty vs.
2.81 for students), whereas the lowest was working on other activities (1.64 for faculty
vs. 1.61 for students). Across all items, faculty ratings were higher than students’ ratings,
suggesting that faculty may believe they employ these practices more often than students
perceive they actually do.
Follow-up bar charts are also shown in Figure 12 and Figure 13. These charts
show course success and retention for this set of six items. Rather than showing each
49
item separately (six separate bar charts for each), the average across all mean ratings
were calculated, and bar charts of these averages are shown for part-time faculty and their
students. In examining the impact of these average ratings on student success and
retention, faculty were considered having employed best practices if their aggregated
average across all six survey items was at or higher than the mean of all other faculty
respondents; and similarly, students were considered using these practices if their
aggregated average across all responses was at or higher than the mean of all other
students.
For part-time faculty (see Figure 13), 12 respondents were classified as having
employed best practices and 13 respondents were classified as having not employed best
practices. For students of these part-time faculty members (see Figure 14), 13 students
were classified as using best practices, and 12 were classified as not using best practices.
The same analyses was conducted for full-time faculty, but for the sake of simplicity, this
section will only report results from the part-time faculty, unless full-time faculty results
provide contrasts to the part-time faculty results. Full-time faculty results are included in
Appendix D.
Use email Discuss grades Talk career plans
Discuss ideas outside
Receive prompt feedback
Work on other activities
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
Mea
n R
atin
g
Figure 12. Part-time faculty perceptions of student use versus students' reported use.
50
Success Retention0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
80%75%76%
72%
2.55 and above (N=12)2.54 and below (N=13)
% of Part-time Faculty-Reported Perception of Student Use
% o
f C
ou
rse
Su
cce
ss &
Re
ten
tio
n
Figure 13. Part-time faculty-reported use: Course success and retention.
Success Retention0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
76% 77%79%
70%
2.36 and above (N=13)2.35 and below (N=12)
% of Student-Reported Use in Part-time Faculty Courses
% o
f C
ou
rse
Su
cce
ss &
Re
ten
tio
n
Figure 14. Student-reported use: Course success and retention.
As Figure 13 indicates, part-time faculty who rated themselves above the mean
(2.55), indicating higher employment of best practices (i.e., blue bars), had students who
were, on average, more successful than faculty who rated themselves lower (i.e., red
bars). In terms of overall course success, students of faculty with higher ratings succeed
at 80%, whereas students of faculty with lower ratings succeeded at only 76%. In terms
of retention, students of faculty with higher ratings retained at 75%, on average, whereas
students of faculty with lower ratings retained at only 72%, on average. Thus, faculty
51
perceptions of their employment of these practices have some impact on student course
success and student retention.
Student perceptions produced different results. As shown in Figure 14, students
who rated themselves higher than the mean (2.36), indicating higher use of best practices
(i.e., blue bars), were no more successful in their courses than students who reported
lower use (76% vs. 79%). In fact, students who reported lower use were actually slightly
more successful. On the other hand, when it comes to retention, students who reported
higher use were more likely to retain to the next term than students who reported lower
use (77% vs. 70%).
How Often Faculty Refer and Student-Reported Use
The next set of analyses examined faculty-reported employment of best practices
and student-reported use of these practices as measured by the second set of CCSSFE
questions pertaining to faculty referrals (“How often do you refer students to the
following?”). As before, faculty ratings were tallied and compared to the ratings given
by students to comparable set of questions from the CCSSE (“How often do you use the
following?”). The 11 survey items in this set of each respective survey (i.e., academic
advising/planning, career counseling, job placement assistance, etc.) are asked on 5-point
scales (0 = Don’t know, 1 = Never, 2 = Sometimes, 3 = Often, or 4 = Very often) and the
average was calculated for each item across all part-time faculty respondents, all full-time
faculty respondents, and finally, all students taking courses from those part-time and full-
time faculty respondents. Removing all zero ratings, averages for particular items ranged
from 1.16 to 2.12 (SD = 0.28) for faculty and 1.21 to 2.19 (SD = 0.27) for students, and
results are shown in the line graphs in Figure 15.
52
Mean ratings for all 11 survey items are shown separately for faculty and students
in Figure 15, and mean ratings are shown for the majority comparable for each item
between faculty and students with the exception of use of tutoring, skill labs, and use of
computer labs. These aggregated averages ranged from 1.00 to 3.00 for part-time faculty
with a mean of 1.64 (SD = 0.48) and 1.21 to 1.94 for students with a mean of 1.59 (SD =
0.17). Faculty reported higher referrals of students to tutoring than student-reported use
of tutoring (2.12 vs. 1.51) and higher referrals to skill labs than student-reported use of
skill labs (2.04 vs. 1.64). Students reported higher use of computer labs than faculty-
reported referrals to computer labs (1.72 vs. 2.19).
Follow-up bar charts appear in Figure 16 and Figure 17 showing course success
and retention for this set of items. As with the previous set of analyses, the average
across all 11 items in this question set was calculated, and bar charts are shown for part-
time faculty and their students. To determine the best practice effect on course success
and retention, faculty respondents were considered employing best practices if their
aggregated average for this set was at or higher than the mean of all respondents’
aggregate averages. Respondents were considered not employing best practices if their
aggregated average was lower than the mean for this set of questions.
For part-time faculty (see Figure 16), 12 respondents were classified as having
employed best practices and 13 respondents were classified as having not employed best
practices. For students of part-time faculty (see Figure 17), 11 students were classified as
using best practices, and 14 were classified as not using best practices. The same
analyses were conducted for full-time faculty and are included in Appendix D.
53
Advisin
g
Career c
ounsel
Job p
lace
ment
Tutorin
g
Skill l
abs
Child c
are
Financi
al aid
Comp. l
ab
Student o
rg.
Transf
er
Disabili
ties0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
Mea
n R
atin
g
Figure 15. Part-time faculty referral versus. student-reported use.
Success Retention0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
73%
65%
81%
74%
1.64 and above (N=12)1.63 and below (N=13)
Part-time Faculty-Reported Referral
% o
f C
ou
rse
Su
cce
ss &
Re
ten
tio
n
Figure 16. Part-time faculty-reported referral of support services: Course success and retention.
Success Retention0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
79%75%76%
72%
1.59 and above (N=11)1.58 and below (N=14)
Student-Reported Use in Part-time Faculty Courses
% o
f C
ou
rse
Su
cce
ss &
Re
ten
tion
Figure 17. Student-reported use of support services: Course success and retention.
54
As shown in Figure 16, part-time faculty who rated themselves above the mean (N
= 12 above the mean of 1.64), indicating higher employment of best practices (i.e., blue
bars), had students who were on average less successful than faculty who rated
themselves lower (N = 13) (i.e., red bars). In terms of overall course success, students of
faculty with lower ratings succeeded at 81%, whereas students of faculty with higher
ratings succeeded at 73%. In terms of retention, students of faculty with lower ratings
retained at only 65%, on average. Thus, part-time faculty members who refer students do
not impact student course success or retention.
However, student-reported use produced different results. As shown in Figure 17,
students who rated themselves above the mean (N = 11 above the mean of 1.59),
indicating higher use of support services (i.e. blue bars), were more successful in their
courses than students who reported lower use of support services (i.e., red bars). In terms
of overall course success, students who reported higher ratings succeeded at 79%,
whereas students who reported lower ratings succeeded at 76%. These results were
similar for retention, where students who reported higher use of support services (75%)
were more likely to be retained in the next term than students who reported lower use of
services (72%).
How Often Faculty Incorporate and Student-Reported Use
The next set of analyses examined faculty-reported employment of best practices
and student-reported use of these practices as measured by the third set of CCSSFE
questions pertaining to faculty incorporation (“How often do you incorporate the
following support services in your classroom?”). As before, faculty ratings were tallied
and compared to the rating given by students to a comparable set of questions from the
55
CCSSE (“How often do you use the following?”). In this set, the 11 survey items (i.e.,
academic advising/planning, career counseling, job placement assistance, etc.) on each
respective survey, respondents were asked on 5-point scales (0 = Don’t know, 1 = Never,
2 = Sometimes, 3 = Often, or 4 = Very often) to indicate frequency of use, and the
average was calculated for each item across all part-time faculty respondents, all full-time
faculty respondents, and finally all students taking courses from those part-time and full-
time faculty respondents. Removing all zero ratings, averages for particular items ranged
from 0.92 to 1.76 (SD = 0.25) for faculty and from 1.21 to 2.19 (SD = 0.27) for students,
and results are shown in the line graphs in Figure 18.
In Figure 18, mean ratings for all 11 survey items are shown separately for faculty
and for students. Students reported higher use of support services in all other categories
with the exception of tutoring (1.76 vs. 1.51) and use of services by those with disabilities
(1.52 vs. 1.35), whereas faculty reported higher incorporation of these services in their
classrooms. These aggregated averages ranged from 0.00 to 2.27 for faculty with a mean
of 1.38 (SD = 0.45) and 1.21 to 2.19 for students with a mean of 1.59 (SD = 0.17).
Follow up bar charts appear in Figure 19 and Figure 20, showing course success
and retention for this set of items. As with the previous set of analyses, the average
across all 11 items in this question set was calculated, and bar charts of these averages are
shown separately for part-time faculty and for their students. To determine the effect of
use of support services on course success and retention, respondents were considered
having employed best practices if their aggregated average for this set was at or higher
than the mean of all respondents’ aggregate averages. Respondents were considered
56
having not employed best practices if their aggregated average was lower than the mean
for this set of questions.
For part-time faculty (see Figure 19), 12 respondents were classified as having
employed best practices, and 13 respondents were classified as having not employed best
practices. For students of part-time faculty, 13 students were classified as using best
practices, and 12 were classified as not using best practices. The same analyses were
conducted for full-time faculty and are included in Appendix D.
Advisin
g
Career c
ounsel
Job p
lace
ment
Tuto
ring
Skill
labs
Child ca
re
Financia
l aid
Comp. l
ab
Student o
rg.
Transf
er
Disabili
ties0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
Mea
n R
atin
g
Figure 18. Part-time faculty incorporate support services versus student-reported use.
Success Retention0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
80% 78%75%
69%
1.64 and above (N=12)1.63 and below (N=13)
Part-time Faculty-Reported Incorporation of Support Services
% o
f C
ou
rse
Su
cce
ss &
Re
ten
tio
n
Figure 19. Part-time faculty-reported incorporate of support services: Course success and retention.
57
Success Retention0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%81%
75%74% 72%
1.33 and above (N=13)1.32 and below (N=12)
Student-Reported Use in Part-time Faculty Courses
% o
f C
ou
rse
Su
cce
ss &
Re
ten
tio
n
Figure 20. Student-reported use of support services: Course success and retention.
As Figure 19 indicates, part-time faculty who rated themselves above the mean (N
= 12), indicating that they incorporate support services in their classroom (i.e., blue bars),
had students who were, on average, more successful than faculty who rated themselves
lower than the mean (N = 12) (i.e., red bars). In terms of overall course success, students
of faculty with higher ratings succeeded at 80%, whereas students of faculty with lower
ratings succeeded at 75%. In terms of retention, students of faculty with higher ratings
retained at 78%, whereas students of faculty with lower ratings retained at only 72%.
Thus, faculty who incorporate student services in their classroom have an impact on
student course success and retention.
Student-reported use of support services produced similar results. As shown in
Figure 20, students who reported above the mean (1.33), indicating higher use of support
services (i.e., blue bars), were more successful in their courses than students who
reported lower use of support services (81% vs. 74%). These results were similar for
retention, where students who reported higher use of support services (i.e., red bars) were
more likely to be retained in the next term than students who reported lower use of
services (75% vs. 72%).
58
Faculty-Reported Employment of High-Impact Practices and Student-Reported Use as Matched Variables
In the final set of analyses, employment of best practices was defined based on
the relationship between faculty and their students. Although faculty and students
responded independently on two different surveys, their responses did, to a large extent,
reflect the same classroom experiences. Thus, the extent to which faculty and students
are attuned to each other can be assessed by examining the relationship between faculty
responses and student responses to parallel questions on the CCSSFE and the CCSSE.
The degree of match between faculty and students on these items might indicate higher
faculty-student interactions.
To assess employment of best practices in this manner, a match between faculty
and students was defined when the average rating provided by a faculty respondent on the
CCSSFE was similar to the average rating that was provided by his or her students on the
CCSSE for comparable items. Similarity was defined as being within a margin of error
in either direction between the rating provided by the faculty respondent and his or her
students. Because CCSSFE and CCSSE questions were designed on the same 4-point
scales, the difference between one rating and the next higher (or lower) rating is 1 out of
4, or 25%. For instance, a rating of 3 is 25% higher than a rating of 2. For the purposes
of this analysis, two ratings were considered to match if the difference between them was
at or less than half of the distance between two adjacent ratings, or 12.5%. By this
definition, a rating of 2.5 obtained by a faculty member on a CCSSFE item would match
an average rating of 3.0 obtained by his or her class of students on a comparable CCSSE
item; however, a faculty rating of 2.0 would not match a class rating of 3.0.
59
The three sets of questions, which were analyzed as independent faculty and
student groups in the prior set of analyses (i.e., faculty perception vs. student use, faculty
referrals vs. student use, and faculty incorporation vs. student use), were classified as
either matching or not matching on the basis of the definition previously provided. That
is, the following sets of questions on the CCSSFE were compared to their counterparts on
the CCSSE.
Faculty responses to their perception of how often students use best practices
compared to student responses to how often they use these practices
Faculty responses to how often they refer students to support services
compared to student responses to how often they use support services
Faculty responses to how often they incorporate support services into course
sections compared to student responses to how often they use support services
Success Retention0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%83%
78%73%
70%
Match (N=11)No Match (N=14)
Part-time Faculty Perception and Student Use
% o
f C
ours
e S
ucce
ss &
Re
tenti
on
Figure 21. Matched variables: Part-time faculty perception versus student-reported use.
With respect to whether a part-time faculty’s perceptions of student use and actual
student-reported use of in-class activities (see Figure 21) indicates when part-time faculty
and students are in agreement, meaning the faculty’s perception matches the student-
60
reported use of in-class activities, students have higher course success (83% vs. 73%) and
higher retention (78% vs. 70%) than when faculty and students are in disagreement or do
not match.
Success Retention0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
80% 78%73%
67%
Match (N=15)No Match (N=10)
Part-time Faculty Referral and Student Use
% o
f C
ou
rse
Su
cce
ss &
Re
ten
tion
Figure 22. Matched variables: Part-time faculty referral versus student-reported use.
With respect to how often faculty refer students to support services compared to
student-reported use of support services (see Figure 22), when part-time faculty and
students are in agreement, meaning how often a faculty refers a student to support
services matches the student-reported use of student services, students have higher course
success (80% vs. 73%) and higher retention (78% vs. 67%) than when faculty and
students are in disagreement or do not match.
61
Success Retention0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%81%
75%72% 71%
Match (N=15)No Match (N=10)
Part-time Faculty Incorporate and Student Use
% o
f C
ou
rse
Su
cce
ss &
Re
ten
tio
n
Figure 23. Matched variables: Part-time faculty incorporate support services versus student-reported use.
With respect to how often faculty incorporate student services into their
classroom and student-reported use of support services (see Figure 23), when part-time
faculty and students are in agreement, when the frequency of faculty incorporating
support services in their classroom matches the student-reported use of support services,
students have higher course success (81% vs. 72%) and retention (75% vs. 71%) than
when faculty and students are in disagreement or do not match.
62
CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION
This chapter discusses the findings from the study, offers conclusions, and
provides recommendations for future research. The study examined part-time faculty
employment of best practices in community college courses and their effect on student
completion and retention. This study also attempted to answer the following three
questions through quantitative analysis:
1. Is there a relationship between faculty-reported employment of best practices
in community colleges taught by part-time faculty and successful completion?
2. Is there a relationship between faculty-reported employment of best practices
and student-reported use of these practices in community colleges taught by
part-time faculty and successfully completion?
3. Is there a relationship between faculty-reported employment of best practices
and student-reported use of these practices in community colleges taught by
part-time faculty and retention in subsequent terms?
Statement of the Problem
Community colleges cannot afford to neglect implementing practices that support
the college completion agenda. They also cannot afford to hire full-time faculty to teach
all courses and must rely, to a large extent, on part-time faculty. Today, community
colleges “must produce results efficiently, that is, within the constraints of available
resources” (Alfred et al., 2007). Therefore, it is crucial that as community colleges seek
to increase completion rates of students in order to meet the national agenda, an
63
examination of the best practices of part-time faculty and the relationship of these
practices to student success is important to research.
Summary
Analysis of the quantitative data has provided some answers to the three research
questions posed.
Question 1: Is there a relationship between faculty-reported employment of best
practices in community colleges taught by part-time faculty and successful
completion?
Specific questions from the CCSFE survey were used to measure four contexts
related to faculty employment of best practices; these included: teaching-related practices
in the classroom, teaching-related practices out of class, time spent on teaching-related
activities, and time spent on other professional activities. For each of these contexts,
faculty rated their own use of these practices and each context was compared to the
course success of their students.
Three of these four contexts had at least some impact on successful course
completion: (a) teaching-related practices in the classroom, (b) time spent on teaching-
related activities, and (c) time spent on other professional activities. Regarding teaching-
related practices in the classroom, 4 of 6 (66%) of the survey items used in the analyses
had some impact on student success. These practices included: administering an
assessment at beginning of the term, having an attendance policy, and service learning.
One practice that had a significant impact on course success was requiring supplemental
instruction (N = 21, t = 2.138, p < .05). The results indicated that, among part-time
64
faculty, this practice of requiring supplemental instruction positively predicted course
completion for the students they taught.
When considering time spent on teaching-related activities, 3 of 5 (60%) practices
surveyed had some meaningful impact on student success. Two of these practices were
giving other forms of written and oral feedback to students and preparing for class. The
third practice in particular approached statistical significance; this was reflecting and
working on ways to improve teaching (N = 19, t = 2.092, p = .059).
As for time spent on other professional activities, 6 of 8 (75%) practices surveyed
had some measurable impact on student success. Five of these practices were advising
students, supervising internships or other field experiences, working with students on
activities other than course work, other interactions with students, and professional
development. The sixth practice that had a statistically significant impact on course
success was spending time on research and scholarly activities (N = 17, t = 2.781, p
< .05).
For these comparisons, employment of best practices by part-time faculty was
compared to employment of best practices by full-time faculty, and part-time faculty
employment of best practices was found to significantly impact course success. One of
the reasons part-time faculty employ best practices might be due to an individual’s
motivation to create personal interactions with students. According to CCSSE, this
“personal interaction with faculty members strengthens students’ connections to the
college and helps them focus on their academic progress” (CCSSE, 2015, “Student-
Faculty Interaction,” para. 1). One theory that explains the role of faculty-student
interaction is self-determination theory. This theory states that, “the effectiveness of a
65
structured change process will require people to internalize the value and behavioral
regulations that are its key components” (Deci, 2009, p. 245). In other words, an
inference made in this study is that part-time faculty who rate practices highly on the
CCSSFE actually internalize these practices when implementing them with their students.
These results also support the notion that interpersonal relationships play a pivotal role in
resolving complex or critical concerns that impact course success. The need to resolve
critical concerns is presumably met through faculty-student interactions and learning-
centered practices, resulting in the gains observed in course success among the faculty
who purported to use these best practices.
One context of part-time faculty employment of best practices that did not have a
meaningful impact on successful course completion was teaching-related practices out of
class. In this area, only 1 of 5 (20%) out-of-class practices surveyed—orientation—had a
meaningful impact. The lack of involvement of part-time faculty at Midwestern
Community College in out-of-class practices (e.g., first-year experience, learning
community, student orientation, student success course or accelerated education) is
comparable to national data. “Most faculty members—83% to 88% of part-time faculty
and 61% to 77% of full-time faculty—report that they have no role in planning,
designing, or facilitating structured group learning experiences” (CCCSE, 2014b, p. 12).
One could argue that the reason these practices did not have a meaningful impact
on student success is because they are done, by definition, outside of class and, therefore,
do not directly impact the students who, for the most part, only interact with the
instructor in the context of a class. Although there are faculty members who indicated
they do use some of these practices, the practices may not have been displayed in the
66
particular course being measured. As CCSEE pointed out, “part-time faculty are rarely
engaged in any role other than teaching” (CCCSE, 2014b, p. 12). If best practices do not
occur in class, it seems like they are unlikely to occur at all.
Specific questions from both the CCSFE and CCSSE surveys were used in the
analysis of additional data and provided insights into the second two research questions.
Question 2: Is there a relationship between faculty-reported employment of best
practices and student-reported use of these practices in community
college courses taught by part-time faculty and successful
completion?
Question 3: Is there a relationship between faculty-reported employment of best
practices and student-reported use of these practices in community
college courses taught by part-time faculty and retention in
subsequent terms?
Regarding the relationship between faculty-reported employment of best practices
and student-reported use of these practices, the data indicate successful course
completion and retention. This is true when student perceptions and faculty perceptions
are analyzed independently as well as when they are analyzed as matched variables. Data
from faculty were analyzed at three levels—use, referrals, and incorporation—and were
compared to students’ use.
When faculty-reported employment of best practices and student-reported use of
these practices were analyzed independently, faculty employment, measured in
aggregate, had an impact on course success and retention, whereas student use impacted
retention only and not course success. However, when examining responses by item,
67
mean ratings provided by part-time faculty parallel mean ratings provided by their
students in all instances, except for the item measuring receiving prompt feedback. In
this instance, there was a relatively large gap between faculty and students and, in fact,
part-time faculty indicated higher levels of providing prompt feedback than their students
actually reported. Although feedback has been shown through research to help students
reach their learning goals (Ambrose, Bridges, Lovett, DiPietro, & Norman, 2010), “part-
time faculty report spending significantly less time preparing for class, advising students,
and giving written and oral feedback to students than do full-time faculty” (CCCSE,
2014b, p. 10). Not only is the role of feedback important for part-time faculty to
understand, but this study highlights the differences in perception between faculty and
student. The latter may also be an important consideration when it comes to
understanding the role of feedback in general.
When faculty referrals to support services are compared to student use of support
services, part-time faculty referrals had little effect on either course success or retention
(see Figure 16), whereas student-reported use impacted both course success and retention
(see Figure 17). Finally, for faculty-reported incorporation of support services compared
to student-reported use of support services, course success and retention were impacted
by both faculty and students (see Figure 19 and Figure 20).
Two distinct inferences can be made from these results about the employment of
referrals to support services and the incorporation of support services in the classroom by
faculty. First, although part-time faculty indicated they referred students to support
services, this study suggests that referrals may not be enough. Instead, it is the
incorporation of those services into teaching that seemed to impact student success and
68
retention most saliently. Faculty who gave higher ratings to incorporating student
services had students with higher course success and retention than faculty who gave
lower ratings. However, the opposite pattern held for faculty referrals. The latter
suggests that the incorporation of services rather than simply referring students to the
support services plays a large role in student success. This finding also underscored an
observation made by McClenney (2011), “while . . . effective communication about
support services is needed, it also becomes increasingly evident that integrating key
services and experiences into courses helps to make them an inescapable part of students’
experiences” (p. 23).
On the other hand, these data also implied that students may use support services
on their own regardless of faculty referrals. In fact, student-reported use of best practices
(see Figure 17) shows a stronger correlation on course success and retention than faculty
employment (see Figure 16), at least when measured independently. “Today’s students
are more self-directed than their earlier counterparts. In other words, students generally
know what they want and where they are going” (Greive, 2005, p. 28). Additional
comparisons made between the line graphs in Figure 15 and Figure 18 indicated
disparities between faculty and students on particular support services. “A key challenge
in providing goal-directed practice is that instructors often think they are conveying
specific goals to students when, in fact, they are not” (Ambrose et al., 2010, p. 128). For
example, faculty reported they refer students to tutoring and incorporate tutoring in their
classrooms more often than students reported using tutoring. The opposite was reported
for the use of computer labs; students reported using computer labs more often than
faculty indicated they referred or incorporated the use of these labs in their classrooms.
69
One reason for the disparities may be because there is not often an authentic orientation
to support services available to students and having a “simple declaration in class or in
the syllabus is not enough” (Greive, 2005, p. 101). Regardless of the underlying reason,
this study uncovered a prominent disconnect between how faculty refer to support
services versus how students actually use support services and found that student-
reported use of best practices, when measured on its own, may be a more reliable
predictor of student success than faculty-reported employment of best practices. These
results can be tied to the self-efficacy theory which proposes the idea that individuals
who believe in their own capacities are motivated to achieve (Bandura, 1977).
Finally, this study also assessed faculty employment of best practices and student
use of these practices as matched variables to assess the degree of alignment or
attunement between faculty and students, regardless of absolute use levels. Faculty and
students who responded in similar ways to similar survey items were considered matched
in their use, whereas faculty and students who responded differently were considered not
matched.
When faculty and student responses are more aligned, as seen in Figure 21, Figure
22, and Figure 23, both course success and retention were impacted. This finding held
across a variety of survey items pertaining to student support services and included
faculty use, faculty referral, and faculty incorporation. The robustness of these results
implied that employment of best practices alone may not be as powerful a predictor of
student success as use of these practices construed jointly between a faculty member and
his or her students. Thus, the degree of attunement or harmony between faculty and
students may be in itself a powerful predictor of student success. This is an important
70
construct for future studies to explore. These results can be tied back to the self-
determination theory which suggests that faculty-student interactions in and out of the
classroom play a pivotal role in student achievement (Deci, 2009).
Recommendations for Community Colleges
As the demands for student completion continue to increase so as to meet the
national agenda, community colleges need to identify successful practices that support
this goal. This is a challenge in light of the fact that 60% of community college courses
are taught by part-time faculty. Although the literature suggests that when students are
taught by part-time faculty, this impacts student success negatively (Jacoby, 2006; Jaeger
& Eagan, 2009, 2011; Schibik & Harrington, 2004; Umbach, 2007), this study identifies
several best practices that contradict this notion. Based on the literature and the
quantitative results from this study, the following recommendations are offered for
community colleges employing part-time faculty.
New Faculty Orientation
Of all the out-of-class practices measured on the CCSSFE, student orientation was
the only practice that impacted student course success. In a similar way, research has
shown that faculty orientation for new hires is one way to communicate successful best
practices to part-time faculty. Community colleges need to “create an integrated pathway
for part-time faculty that includes: the hiring process; orientation; professional
development; evaluation; incentives; and integration into the college community and the
student success agenda” (CCCSE, 2014b, p. 24). More often than not, part-time faculty
members hired at community colleges have little or no teaching experience, and as
reported previously, a great deal of unfamiliarity with college services that support
71
student learning and success. Faculty orientation provides community colleges the
opportunities to introduce these services to faculty and encourage the employment of best
practices, such as the importance of having an attendance policy, implementing
supplemental instruction in the classroom, referring students to tutoring, and advising
students. As part-time faculty become more familiar with the support services available
to students and understand the impact that they have on student success, the more likely
they will refer and incorporate these services into their classroom. “Part-time faculty
members, whether teaching introductory or more advanced professional practice courses,
should find ways to communicate their expectation and performance requirements using
as many ways and modes of delivery as they do for course content” (Greive, 2005, p.
101).
Professional Development
As shown in Figure 10 and Figure 11, part-time faculty (N = 11) and full-time
faculty (N = 11) reporting participation in professional development activities had higher
course success than those faculty who did not participate (81% vs. 75% and 74% vs.
72%); therefore, professional development may be another venue for communicating best
practices to faculty. “Professional development opportunities need to be tailored to the
unique instructional context so that faculty, staff, and administrators are prepared to
address the learning needs of the students on their campuses” (Brown et al., 2011, p.
170). Community colleges need to communicate the benefits of attending professional
development and provide ample opportunities, especially for part-time faculty and with
an understanding of their different schedules and obligations outside of the college.
“Providing a part-time faculty professional development activity each quarter or semester
72
would far better demonstrate a college's commitment to striving to improve the quality of
part-time faculty, student outcomes, and institutional effectiveness” (Sanford, Dainty,
Belcher, & Frisbee, 2011, p. 58). Therefore, professional development for part-time
faculty is essential in order to enhance their knowledge and understanding of best
practices that influence student success.
Limitations
Even though the results of this study provide promise for future research, some
limitations of the study’s design and sampling warrant future investigation before larger
inferences can be made. First, through the data gathered, it is clear that not all best
practices were as likely to be utilized by the participants in this study compared to other
studies. This is particularly true in the case of the out-of-class practices, which were less
predictive of student success than other measures studied. In turn, the employment of
best practices measured through the faculty-reported use of these practices is skewed
simply due to the nuances of the faculty who were selected to participate. However,
because these practices are nationally recognized and because each were rated by
participants at levels greater than 0 = none, the data of Midwestern Community College
faculty and students do, to some extent, represent the characteristics of faculty and
students more generally.
Another limitation that may have impacted the results of this study was that the
data collected from faculty on the CCSSFE were comprised of individual-level data,
which were then compared to group-level data from an entire classroom of students.
Thus, a methodological decision was made in this study to compare survey responses
from individuals to responses provided by an entire classroom. In the present study,
73
faculty data could not be linked individually to student data because these data were
collected anonymously. However, future studies might apply a more conservative
methodology, comparing individual measures to other individual measures only. This
may be especially important if, as this study suggests, use of best practices is recast as a
joint construct, created interdependently between faculty and students through common
interactions.
Recommendations for Future Research
This study proposed that part-time faculty who employ best practices in and out
of the classroom improve student success and retention. The results of the study are
based on faculty-reported employment of best practices and student-reported use of these
best practices. The results indicate that when best practices are either employed by the
faculty or used by their students, student success improves in a meaningful way. As
such, this study provides a new platform for future research.
First, this study found that while faculty referrals to support services did not
impact student success in themselves, student-reported use of these services did impact
student success. Thus, “simple declaration in class or in the syllabus is not enough”
(Greive, 2005, p. 101) to supply the benefits these services provide. Faculty referrals do
not take the place of authentic orientations to support services for students. Further
research, using a qualitative approach, could be used to investigate student use of these
support services and what factors encouraged them to use the services. For example,
were they referred by a faculty member? Did they seek support services on their own
accord? This research could also explore factors which motivate students who access
support services on their own without faculty referrals. “Today’s students are more self-
74
directed than their earlier counterparts. In other words, students generally know what
they want and where they are going” (Greive, 2005, p. 28). This research could identify
student motivation factors that could assist community colleges in communicating and
educating students of available support services that will help them be more successful in
and out of the classroom. Importantly, this study found that faculty who incorporate
support services into their classrooms did impact student success, an observation made by
McClenney (2011), “while . . . effective communication about support services is needed,
it also becomes increasingly evident that integrating key services and experiences into
courses helps to make them an inescapable part of students’ experiences” (p. 23).
Therefore, faculty can have a meaningful impact on student use of services – and student
success – if they would not just refer students to them but actually take the additional step
of incorporating the use of services into their course expectations.
Another significant finding of this study is that when faculty-student interaction
exists in the classroom student success is impacted. This finding aligns to CCSSE’s
research which found that, “personal interaction with faculty members strengthens
students’ connections to the college and helps them focus on their academic progress”
(CCSSE, 2015, “Student-Faculty Interaction,” para. 1). This study supported this concept
and found that the degree of attunement or harmony between faculty and students
regarding the employment and use of best practices in and out of the classroom may be in
itself a powerful predictor of student success. As mentioned in the limitations section, the
data collected from faculty on the CCSSFE were comprised of individual-level data,
which were then compared to group-level data from an entire classroom of students.
Through a qualitative research design, further investigation could explore the relationship
75
of an individual faculty member with individual students in their class sections to
determine if the degree of attunement occurs with some students more than others. This
approach would complement existing research on self-efficacy and self-determination
(Bandura, 1977; Deci, 2009) which is done, for the most part, on an individual, as
opposed to group, level. First, the analysis may identify certain variables that individual
students possess and whether or not those variables contribute to their success in the
classroom. Second, the analysis may identify additional best practices that faculty can
employ with individual students in the classroom based on the level of motivation
students possess or lack.
Finally, this study implies that there are limitations for part-time faculty to
become more engaged in the campus activities such as new faculty orientation or
professional development. As discussed in the literature review chapter, these
opportunities may not be required and as a result, fewer part-time faculty members
participate. The lack of participation may impact faculty’s knowledge and awareness of
campus resources and procedures available to students which in turn influences student
success. Further research could investigate best practices that for-profit higher education
institutions have employed through technology in order to engage their faculty who may
not be available to attend face-to-face. Many of these institutions are primarily structured
through an online platform where neither the faculty nor students have face-to-face
contact; therefore, education and awareness of support services available to students must
be communicated through technology. By studying this practice, future research could
provide additional insight on how technology can serve as an effective means to
communicate and share best practices with faculty and students. Community colleges
76
could also benefit from these results to better use technology to educate faculty of best
practices that impact student success.
Conclusion
Community colleges will need to identify and implement ways to communicate
with their faculty and to illustrate to part-time faculty in particular that “interactions
between students and faculty may have a greater impact on students than purely social
interactions” (Cotten & Wilson, 2006, p. 510). Increasing faculty awareness and
enhancing their knowledge of best practices and services that support student success will
allow community colleges to increase student completion that supports the national
agenda. “Colleges that are committed to helping more students earn credentials must
rethink their model for working with part-time faculty so that all faculty are expected—
and prepared—to serve their students effectively” (CCSSE, 2014b, p. 2).
77
REFERENCES
Achieving the Dream. (2009). Field guide for improving student success. MDC Inc. and
Lipman Hearne. Retrieved from
http://achievingthedream.org/docs/Field_Guide_for_Improving_Student_Success.
Achieving the Dream. (2011). Engaging adjunct and full-time faculty in student success
innovation. New York, NY: Public Agenda.
Alfred, R., Shults, C., & Seybert, J. (2007). Core indicators of effectiveness for
community colleges (3rd ed.). Washington, D.C.: Community College Press.
Ambrose, R., Bridges, M., Lovett, M., DiPietro, M., & Norman, M. (2010). How learning
works: 7 research-based principles for smart teaching. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
American Association of Colleges and Universities. (2008). High-impact practices.
Retrieved from http://www.aacu.org/sites/default/files/files/hip_tables.pdf
American Association of Community Colleges. (2014). Empowering community colleges
to build the nation's future: An implementation guide. Washington, DC: Author.
Retrieved from www.aacc21stcenturycenter.org
American Association of University Professors. (n.d.). Background facts on contingent
faculty. Retrieved December 4, 2014 from
http://www.aaup.org/issues/contingency/background-facts
Amercian Federation of Teachers. (2010). American academic: A national survey of part-
time/adjunct faculty. American Federation of Teachers. Retrieved from
www.aft.org
77
Asera, R. (2011). Becoming an ace teacher. Retrieved from
http://statis.squarespace.com/static/50c8ca4ae4b)a1d4330d2851/t/50f88157e4b09
b3b7e454c88/1358463319880/ACE
Baker, E., Hope, L., & Karandjeff, K. (2009). Contextualized teaching & learning: A
faculty primer. Sacramento, CA: Statewide Academic Senate. Retrieved from
http://www.careerladdersproject.org/docs/docs/CTL.pdf
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.
Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215.
Brown, T., King, M., & Stanley, P. (Eds.). (2011). Summary and recommendations.
Fulfilling the promise of the community college: Increasing first-year student
engagement and success (Monograph No. 56). Columbia, SC: University of South
Carolina, National Resource Center for First-Year Experience & Students in
Transition.
Center for Community College Student Engagement. (2009a). 2009 institutional report:
Benchmarks of effective educational practice. Austin, TX: The University of
Texas at Austin, Program in Higher Education Leadership. Retrieved from
http://www.ccsse.org/ExampleReport/Benchmark%20Reports/2009%20Benchma
rk.pdf
Center for Community College Student Engagement. (2009b). Making connections:
Dimensions of student engagement (2009 CCSSE findings). Austin, TX: The
University of Texas at Austin, Community College Leadership Program.
Retrieved from
http://www.ccsse.org/center/resources/docs/publications/CCSSE09_execsum.pdf
78
Center for Community College Student Engagement. (2012). A matter of degrees:
Promising practices for community college student success (A first look). Austin,
TX: The University of Texas at Austin, Community College Leadership Program.
Center for Community College Student Engagement. (2014a). A matter of degress:
Practies to pathways(High-impact practices for community college student
success). Austin, TX: The University of Texas at Austin, Program in Higher
Education Leadership.
Center for Community College Student Engagement. (2014b). Contingent committments:
Bringing part-time faculty into focus(A special report from the Center for
Community College Student Engagement). Austin, TX: The University of Texas
at Austin, Program in Higher Education Leadership.
Chickering, A., & Gamson, Z. (1987, March). Seven principles for good practice in
undergraduate education. AAHE Bulletin, 39(7), 3–7.
Community College Survey of Student Engagement. (2005). Engaging students,
challenging the odds: 2005 findings. Austin, TX: The University of Texas at
Austin, Community College Leadership Program, Center for Community College
Student Engagement.
Community College Survey of Student Engagement. (2014). Faculty survey CCFSSE
reports. Retrieved from http://www.ccsse.org/survey/ccfsse.cfm
Community College Survey of Student Engagement. (2015). Student-faculty interaction.
Retrieved from http://www.ccsse.org/survey/bench_sfi.html
Cooper, D., Rodrigues-Kiino, D., Scharper, A., Karandjeff, K., Chaplot, P., Schiorring,
E., & Taylor, S. (2014). Practically speaking. Community college practices that
79
help (re)define student support: A practioner primer. Berkeley, CA: Research and
Planning Group for California Community Colleges.
Cotten, S. R., & Wilson, B. (2006). Student-faculty interactions: Dynamics and
determinants. Higher Education, 51, 487–519.
Creswell, J. (2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating
quantitative and qualitative research (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
Deci, E. (2009). Large-scale school reform as viewed from the self-determination theory
perspective. Theory and Research in Education, 7(2), 244–253.
doi:10.1177/1477878509104329
Finley, A., & McNair, T. (2013). Assessing underserved students' engagement in high-
impact practices. Washington, DC: American Colleges and Universities
Greive, D. (2005). A handbook for adjunct & part-time faculty & teachers of adults (6th
ed.). Ann Arbor, MI: The Part-time Press.
Hughes, K. (2013). The college completion agenda: 2012 progress report. Advocacy and
Policy Center. Retrieved from
http://media.collegeboard.com/digitalServices/pdf/advocacy/cca/12b-
6368_CCAProgressReport_WR.pdf
Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System. (n.d.). Retrieved from National Center
for Education Statistics: http://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/glossary/?charindex=R
Jacoby, D. (2006, November/December). Effects of part-time faculty employment on
community college graduation rates. Journal of Higher Education, 77(6), 1081–
1103. doi:10.1353/jhe.2006.0050
80
Jaegar, A., & Eagan, M. K. (2009). Unintended consequences: Examining the effect of
part-time faculty members on associate's degree completion. Community College
Reveiw, 36(3), 167–194. doi:10.1177/0091552108327070
Jaeger, A., & Eagan, M. K. (2010, June). Examining retention and contingent faculty use
in a state system of public higher education. Educational Policy, 20(10), 1–31.
doi:10.1177/0895904810361723
June, A. (2012). Adjuncts build strength in numbers. The Chronicle of Higher Education.
Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/article/Adjuncts-Build-Strength-in/135520
Kezar, A. (2011, January). Engaged students required engaged faculty: Facing the
paradox of a largely non-tenure-track faculty. American Association of Colleges
and Universities. Bringing Theory to Practice Newsletter, 1–3. Retrived from
http://www.archieve.aacu.org/bringing_theory/newsletter/pdf/Jan2011.pdf
Kezar, A., & Sam, C. (2010). Understanding the new majority of non-tenure-track
faculty: Demographics, experiences, and plans of action. ASHE Higher Education
Report, 36(4), 1–132.
Kezar, A., Longanecker, D., & Maxey, D. (2013, March 26). Our dirty little secret. Inside
Higher Education. Retrieved from
https://www.insidehighered.com/views/2013/03/26/essay-calls-college-leaders-
admit-they-treat-adjuncts-unethically
Kim, E., Newton, F., Downey, R., & Benton, S. (2010). Personal factors impacting
college student success: Constructing college learning effectiveness inventory
(CLEI). College Student Journal, 44(1), 112–125. doi:1984269161
81
Kuh, G. (2009). What student affairs professionals need to know about student
engagement. Journal of College Student Development, 50(6), 683–706.
Lumina Foundation. (2013). Lumina Foundation strategic plan 2013 to 2016.
Indianapolis, IN: Lumina Foundation. Retrieved from
http://www.luminafoundation.org/files/file/2013-lumina-strategic-plan.pdf
Marklein, M. (2008, December 3). Studies examine impact of part-time college faculty.
Retrieved from USA Today:
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/education/2008-12-03-part-time-
professors_N.htm
Martin, A., & Dowson, M. (2009). Interpersonal relationships, motivation, engagement,
and achievement: Yields for theory, current issues, and educational practice.
Review of Educational Research, 79(1), 327–365.
doi:10.3102/0034654308325583
McClenney, K. (2011). Understanding entering community college students: Learning
from student voices. In T. Brown, M. C. King, & P. Stanley (Eds.), Fulfilling the
promise of the community college (Monograph No. 56, pp. 15–33). Columbia, SC:
University of South Carolina, National Resource Center for the First-Year
Experience & Students in Transition.
McClenney, K., & Greene, T. (2005, July-August). A tale of two students: Building a
culture of engagement in the community college. About Campus, 2–7.
Moltz, D. (2009, November 16). The part-time impact. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/11/16/ccsse
82
O'Neill, N. (2012). Promising practices for personal and social responsibility.
Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities.
Phillippe, K. A. (2014, December). Voluntary framework of accountability. American
Association of Community Colleges. Retrieved from
http://vfa.aacc.nche.edu/Documents/VFAMetricsManual.pdf
Public Agenda. (2010). Changing the conversation about productivity: Strategies for
engaging faculty and institutional leaders. A report by Public Agenda for Lumina
Foundation's Higher Education Productivity Initiative. New York, NY: Public
Agenda. Retrieved from http://www.publicagenda.org/files/pdf/changing-
conversation-college-productivity.pdf
Rhoades, G. (2012). Faculty engagement to enhance student attainment. Tucson, AZ:
University of Arizona, Center for the Study of Higher Education. National
Commission on Higher Education.
Rossol Allison, P. M., & Alleman Beyers, N. J. (2011). The role of full-time and part-
time faculty in student learning outcomes. Overland Park, KS: Johnson County
Community College, National Benchmarking Institute.
Sanford, B. A., Dainty, J., Belcher, G., & Frisbee, R. (2011, Spring). Perceptions and the
willingness of part-time instructors in community colleges in the U.S. to engage
in professional development opportuntunies and the best method(s) of delivering
these experiences. Journal of Career and Technical Education, 26(1).
Schibik, T., & Harrington, C. (2004). Caveat emptor: Is there a relationship between part-
time faculty utilization and student learning outcomes and retention? AIR
Professional File, Spring(91).
83
State of Illinois Board of Higher Education. (2002). All faculty matter: A study of
nontenure track faculty at Illinois public colleges and universities. Springfield,
IL: Author.
Umbach, P. (2007, Winter). How effective are they? Exploring the impact of contingent
faculty on undergraduate education. The Review of Higher Education,30(2), 91–
123. doi:10.1353/rhe.2006.0080
U.S. Department of Education. (2006). A test of leadership: Charting the future of U.S.
higher education. Washington DC: ED Pubs, Education Publications Center, U.S.
Department of Education.
Washington, K. E. P. (2011). Towards a deeper understanding of community college
part-time faculty: Perceptions of roles and expectations [Poster]. North Carolina
State University. Retrieved from
http://www.ncsu.edu/grad/research/docs/washington-poster-2011.pdf
Wolf-Wendel, L., Ward, K., & Kinzie, J. (2009, July/August). A tangled web of terms:
The overlap and unique contribution of involvement, engagement, and integration
to understanding college student success. Journal of College Student
Development, 50(4), 407–428. doi:10.1353.csd.0.0077
84
APPENDIX A
DEFINITION OF TERMS
85
APPENDIX A
Definition of Terms
Best Practice—A teaching-related practice that has been aligned to the CCSSE student-
faculty interaction benchmark, Promising Practices—High Impact Practice, or professional
development activity.
Completion—Percent of students who have completed an associate degree may or may not
have subsequently transferred, completed a certificate, and may or may not have
subsequently transferred. (Phillippe, 2014)
Employment of Best Practice—The act of applying best practices in and out of the
classroom; a provider of key resources and information.
Retention—A measure of the rate at which students persist in their educational program
at an institution, expressed as a percentage. This is the percentage of first-time
degree/certificate-seeking students from the previous fall who either re-enrolled or
successfully completed their program by the current fall. (NCES, n.d.)
Successful Completion of a Course—Success in a course is defined as earning a grade of at
least a “C” or “Passing,” if course is graded as “pass/fail.” (Phillippe, 2014)
Use of Best Practice—The act of utilizing best practices in and out of the classroom; a
receiver of key resources and information.
86
APPENDIX B
LETTER TO PARTICIPANTS
87
APPENDIX B
Letter to Participants
Subject line: Faculty Engagement Survey
My name is Marcy Thompson. I am a doctoral student at Benedictine University in Lisle, Illinois. I am interested in faculty engagement that occurs in the classroom. Though not sponsoring my research, after reviewing my proposed research, CCFSSE has kindly agreed the use of a few questions that pertain to this topic.
I ask that you complete a survey that will ask you questions about your level of engagement that occurs in your classroom. The survey takes approximately 15 minutes to complete. Participation is voluntary. You do not have to answer any question you do not want to answer. If at any time you do not want to continue with the survey, you may close the survey and decline further participation.
If you complete the survey, you may request to receive summary results of data collected from it, along with a brief report of the findings of the study. You may find these data useful to you by gaining a better understanding of behavioral best practices that impact student success in your classrooms.
Participants in this study will be completely confidential. In order to protect the anonymity of the faculty and students who are identified through the course sections in this study, each faculty and student will be assigned a code number. Each code number will be linked to student enrollee obtained from the college statistical information. That merge will be conducted by someone other than the researcher to ensure confidentiality of the faculty and student information. The data collected in this study will be kept in a locked location and under no circumstances will your name, your institution’s name, or other potential identifying characteristics appear in any reports of the results of this research study.
Your decision to complete the survey for this study will confirm that you have read and understand these instructions, and freely agree to participate in this study. To proceed, simply complete the enclosed survey and return in the envelope provided to you by Friday, June 13, 2014. If you have any questions or wish to discuss the study at any time, please email me at B******@ben.desire2learn.com, or phone me at (***) ***-****. This study has been approved by the Institutional Review Board of Benedictine University and Midwestern Community College. The Chair of Benedictine University’s Institutional Review Board (IRB) is Dr. Alandra Weller-Clarke. She may be reached at (***) ***-****; her email address is *****@ben.edu. The chairperson of this dissertation is Dr. Sunil Chand. He may be reached at (***) ***-****; his email address is ******@ben.edu.
Sincerely, Marcy ThompsonBenedictine University
88
APPENDIX C
FACULTY ENGAGEMENT SURVEY—2014
89
APPENDIX C
Faculty Engagement Survey – 2014
90
91
92
93
APPENDIX D
FACULTY-REPORTED EMPLOYMENT AND STUDENT-REPORTED USE AS
INDEPENDENT VARIABLES
94
APPENDIX D
Faculty-Reported Employment and Student-Reported Use as Independent Variables
This appendix contains results from full-time faculty in their use, referrals and incorporation of teaching activities in their classrooms. For each figure, results from students’ use of these activities are also displayed. These results thus mirror results presented in the narrative for part-time faculty and their students in the sections entitled Faculty-Reported Employment and Student-Reported Use as Independent Variables and Faculty-Reported Employment and Student-Reported Use as Matched Variables.
Use email Discuss grades Talk career plans
Discuss ideas outside
Receive prompt feedback
Work on other activities
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
Mea
n R
atin
g
Figure 12*
Full-time Faculty Perceptions of Student Use v. Students’ Reported Use
Success Retention0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
78%
69%69%62%
Full-time Faculty-Reported Use: Course Success and Retention
2.85 and above (N=12)2.84 and below (N=19)
% of Full-time Faculty-Reported Perception of Student Use
% o
f St
ud
ent
Co
urs
e Su
cces
s an
d R
eten
tio
n
Figure 13*
Full-time Faculty-Reported Use: Course Success and Retention
95
Success Retention0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
76%
58%
70% 70%
2.40 and above (N=14)2.39 and below (N=17)
% of Student-Reported Use in Full-time Faculty Courses
% o
f Stu
den
t C
ou
rse S
ucc
ess
an
d R
ete
nti
on
Figure 14*
Student Reported Use: Course Success and Retention
Advisi
ng
Career
counse
l
Job p
lace
ment
Tutoring
Skill
labs
Child
care
Financi
al aid
Com
p. lab
Student
org.
Transf
er
Disabili
ties0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
Me
an
Ra
tin
g
Figure 15*
Full-time Faculty Referral v. Students’ Reported Use
Success Retention0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
72%
65%
74%
64%
1.86 and above (N=14)1.85 and below (N=17)
% of Full-time Faculty-Reported Referral of Support Services
% o
f St
ud
en
t C
ou
rse S
ucc
ess
an
d R
ete
nti
on
Figure 16*
Full-time Faculty-Reported Referral of Support Services: Course Success and Retention
96
Success Retention0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
75%70%71%
61%
1.54 and above (N=14)1.53 and below (N=17)
% of Student-Reported Use of Support Services
% o
f St
ud
ents
Co
urs
e Su
cces
s an
d R
eten
tio
n
Figure 17*
Student-Reported Use of Support Service: Course Success and Retention
Advisin
g
Career c
ounsel
Job p
lace
ment
Tutorin
g
Skill l
abs
Child ca
re
Financia
l aid
Comp. l
ab
Student o
rg.
Transf
er
Disabili
ties0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
Mea
n R
atin
g
Figure 18*
Full-time Faculty Incorporate v. Students’ Reported Use
Success Retention0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
70%
62%
75%
67%
1.52 and above (N=16)1.51 and below (N=15)
% of Full-time Faculty-Reported Incorporate of Support Services
% o
f St
ude
nt C
ou
rse
Succ
ess
and
Ret
entio
n
97
Figure 19*
Full-time Faculty-Reported Incorporate of Support Services: Course Success and Retention
Success Retention0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
75%70%71%
61%
1.54 and above (N=14)1.53 and below (N=17)
% of Student-Reported Use of Support Services
% o
f St
ude
nt C
ou
rse
Succ
ess
and
Ret
entio
n
Figure 20*
Student-Reported Use of Support Services: Course Success and Retention
Success Retention0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
73%67%
72%
61%
Full-time Faculty Perception v. Actual Student Use
Match (N=18)No Match (N=13)
% of Full-time Faculty-Reported
% o
f St
ude
nt C
ou
rse
Succ
ess
and
Ret
entio
n
Figure 21*
Matched Variables: Full-time Faculty Perception of Student Use v. Students’ Reported Use
98
Success Retention0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
74%
66%71%
63%
Full-time Faculty Referral v. Actual Student Use
Match (N=19) No Match (N=12)
% o
f R
esp
ond
ents
Figure 22*
Matched Variables: Full-time Faculty Referral of Student Use v. Students’ Reported Use
Success Retention0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
74%
62%68%
71%
Full-time Faculty Incorporate v. Actual Student Use
Match (N=23) No Match (N=8)
% o
f R
esp
on
den
ts
Figure 23*
Matched Variables: Full-time Faculty Incorporate of Student Use v. Students’ Reported Use
99
VITA
Marcy Thompson has worked in higher education for over 18 years at two Illinois two
year public community colleges. She earned her Bachelor of Science in Recreation
Management at the University of Wisconsin La Crosse. In 1999, she earned her Master
of Education in Adult Education from Northern Illinois University in DeKalb, IL. In
2015, she earned a Doctor of Education in Higher Education and Organizational Change
from Benedictine University in Lisle, IL.
100