Web viewChaffey College, for example, implemented student and faculty success centers with the intent of ... examples of faculty best ... Part-time faculty

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?


and student-reported use of these practices in community college courses

taught by part-time faculty and successful completion?


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


q. Worked with instructors on activities other than coursework


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?


practices and student-reported use of these practices in community

college courses taught by part-time faculty and successful

completion?



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


practices in community college courses taught by part-time faculty

and successful completion?




completion?




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


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


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


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


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


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


*

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)


(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


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%


% 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.


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%


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%


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.


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%


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%


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%


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%


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?


and student-reported use of these practices in community colleges taught by

part-time faculty and successfully completion?


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.


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.




completion?




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).


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.

pdf

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


% 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%


% 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%


% 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%


% 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%


% 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%


% 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


% 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