18 Faculty Development in Community Colleges: A Model for Part-Time Faculty

Historically, part-time faculty have not received the same development opportunities as fall-time faculty. This study surveyed current practices in faculty development for both full-time and part-time faculty in 232 public two-year colleges throughout the United States. Over 90% reported that they had a formal faculty development program for both faculty cohorts, funded with 1%–5% of their operating budgets. About one half of the colleges designated a faculty development coordinator, used needs assessment to determine program content, and evaluated program outcomes. Results of this study were used to design a generic model for part-time faculty development.

FACULTY DEVELOPMENT IN COMMUNITY COLLEGES

Faculty are the core of any institution of higher education. They are one human resource that is vital to the institution’s mission. Community colleges rely on full-time and part-time faculty to meet standards of quality in their teaching mission. The increasing number and reliance on part-time faculty warrants serious consideration in terms of academic quality and institutional integrity (Banachowski, 1996; Gappa & Leslie, 1993; Roueche, Roueche, & Milliron, 1995). Faculty development is an institutional commitment to academic integrity (O’Banion, 1994). Faculty development programs serve as vehicles for professional growth and renewal and should be open to all part-time as well as full-time faculty (Murray, 2002; Schuster, 1995). According to national statistics, 64% of the faculty at community colleges was part-time in 1997, an increase of 22% in five years (American Association of State Colleges and Universities [AASCU], 1999; National Center for Education Statistics, 2002; National Education Association [NEA], 2001). This shift in the demographics of faculty in the community college is not an episodic or short-term trend but a permanent feature in higher education (AASCU, 1999). For community college administrators, assessing the roles and responsibilities of part-time faculty becomes more critical. An investment in support structures for part-time faculty, including integration into the learning community, strengthens the institutional mission (Gappa & Leslie, 1993, 1997).

This study investigates current practices in faculty development of both full- and part-time faculty in public community colleges of different sizes and accreditation regions. A formal, comprehensive model for part-time faculty development emerges from this study, which identifies elements of planning, implementation, funding, and evaluation.

Historically, before the late 1960s, faculty development programs were essentially nonexistent (Schuster, 1990). Faculty development efforts prior to the mid-1960s were limited to orientation of new faculty, sabbatical leaves, reduced teaching loads, and visiting professorships (Bergquist & Phillips, 1975).

Faculty development expanded in the 1970s, especially in the area of teaching improvement. The momentum continued to build, providing opportunities to enhance teaching effectiveness, to improve student learning, and to revitalize existing faculty (Gaff, 1975; Hammons, 1983; Richardson & Moore, 1987).

As the faculty development movement progressed, models were developed that stressed the interrelationship and overlap of all aspects of faculty development: personal, professional, instructional, and organizational (Schuster, 1990). A number of studies in the 1980s recommended the inclusion of part-time faculty in faculty development programs (Miller & Ratcliff, 1986; Richardson & Moore, 1987; Williams, 1986).

This study may provide basic information and insights that can be used to initiate, plan, and implement comprehensive faculty development programs in any type of institution of higher education that routinely depends upon the expertise and employment of part-time faculty. The results of this research may also provide demographically different institutions a foundation on which to build formal full-time and part-time faculty development programs and add to the strategies they use to successfully institutionalize these programs. The information garnered from this study was used to inform, plan, develop, and implement a comprehensive model of professional development for part-time faculty in Saint Louis University’s School for Continuing Education, whose demographics and ratio of full- to part-time faculty is similar to that found in most community colleges.

In addition, a literature search revealed that no studies had compared faculty development programs or practices among accreditation regions. By sampling faculty development programs nationwide, the sub-elements of faculty development programs among accreditation regions were categorized and compared in this study. National data categorized in this way could become a departure point for further investigation into how meeting accreditation performance standards promotes inclusive faculty development as a critical factor in improving teaching and learning.

METHOD

A random sample of 300 community colleges was selected from an address database provided by the American Association of Community Colleges (AACC) to participate in this nationwide study. A 30-item survey was mailed to the president at each of the colleges to be forwarded to the administrator or faculty member responsible for faculty development. A total of 232 institutions returned completed surveys (77%). The survey was divided into six sections to assess program practices, content, coordination, participation, funding, and evaluation associated with faculty development. Responding schools were categorized into six accreditation regions: Middle States Association of Colleges and Schools (MSACS), North Central Association of Colleges and Schools (NCACS), New England Association of Schools and Colleges (NEASC), Northwest Association of Schools and Colleges (NWASC), Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS), and Western Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC). The responding community colleges were also divided into size subcategories: small, full-time equivalent (FTE) students less than 1,500; medium, FTE students between 1,500 and 4,000; and large, FTE students greater than 4,000. Besides descriptive statistics, chi-square and one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) were performed to analyze data.

RESULTS

DISCUSSION

Unlike previous research that reported a lack of comprehensive faculty development programs in community colleges (Hoerner, Clowes, & Impara, 1991; Murray, 1995, 1999, 2002; Richardson & Moore, 1987), this study concluded that the availability of faculty development in the four subcategories of professional, personal, organizational, and curricular was institution-wide across community colleges and accreditation regions and seemed to be well planned, coordinated, and supported and included part-time faculty.

Faculty development, as a formalized, structured, and comprehensive program for full- and part-time faculty in United States public community colleges, has grown in depth, breadth, and scope over the past 5 to 10 years. Community colleges are reexamining the role of part-time faculty in their institutions and making efforts to integrate professional, personal, curricular, and organizational goals into their faculty development program practices. The increasing ratio of part-time to full-time faculty (NEA, 200 I) may have prompted the increase in practices for faculty development in both cohorts.

Community colleges seem to be more focused on institutional mission, that is, teaching and learning, than on enhancement of faculty knowledge alone. Hence, the frequency of occurrence of curricular and organizational practices was reported more often than more traditional practices, such as sabbatical leaves and conference attendance. The increase in curricular practices may also indicate that, with changing enrollment patterns, increased requirements for accountability, performance standards, student retention, and learning outcomes, faculty development must include practices to increase faculty knowledge about the teaching and learning process itself.

Orientation and enculturation of both full-time and part-time faculty is critical to institutional mission. Increased utilization of and reliance on part-time faculty necessitates the increase in efforts to integrate part-time faculty into the mainstream of the campus (Balch, 1999; Banachowski, 1996; Brewster, 2000). This change in faculty demographics changes the way education is delivered. Institutions, in this study, seemed to recognize that organizational fit, job satisfaction, and retention of qualified teaching staff is essential and cost effective.

Many institutions (40%) reported that personal development practices were not available, and, if they were, the most common was in the area of interpersonal skills. Schuster (1990) predicted an increase in this type of development practice, which could not be documented in this report. In accordance with O’Banion (1994), though, when faculty development for the purpose of personal growth leads to professional growth with improved organizational communication and student interaction and is linked to institutional goals, the result can be better institutions and better education.

With regard to faculty development content, it appears that more institutions are making efforts to meet the needs of individual faculty by developing programs that are cohesive and relevant to faculty interests and demographics and based on assessed needs. This confirmed the findings of Murray (1995, 1999, 2002) and Schuster, Wheeler, and Associates (1990) about faculty ownership of development programs. Also, according to Sandford and McCaslin (2003), community colleges should continually update professional development activities to meet changing faculty needs.

In this study, many vice presidents for instruction or academic deans completed the study survey, suggesting that these positions are most often recognized to be responsible for faculty development, even when a faculty development coordinator was in place. It appears that administrators remain responsible and accountable for implementation of and funding for faculty development programs.

With regard to faculty participation in development activities, it seems chat most faculty are eligible. This may be due to several factors: I) the need for a more technologically oriented and proficient faculty; 2) the recognition that a learning institution must promote individual learning for organizational development; and 3) the lifelong learning and continuing education philosophy of the community college dictates inclusion of all. In accord with Balch (1999), as community college leadership recognizes the strategic role all stakeholders play in institutional mission, professional development policies and procedures will he enhanced and better defined.

Compensation for participation in faculty development is a matter of extrinsic versus intrinsic incentives. Previous researchers reported that community colleges relied on intrinsic rewards based on faculty commitment and individual professionalism as appropriate incentives (Hoerner et al., 1991; Impara, Hoerner, Clowes, & Allkins, 1991). Sandford and McCaslin (2003) reported that both intrinsic and extrinsic rewards were perceived to be important in influencing part-time faculty participation. From the results of this study, faculty participation was voluntary and more influenced by intrinsic rather than extrinsic incentives or monetary awards.

Most community colleges (93%) received financial support for faculty development from multiple funding sources and spend 1%–5% of their total budget on faculty development. The cost effectiveness of hiring part-time faculty cannot diminish the need to fund professional development. As the number of part-time faculty increases, hiring rationale must be reexamined. Educational quality rather than economic pressures should weight hiring procedures and influence funding for faculty development.

Confirming the findings by Burnstad (1994), Maxwell and Kazlauskas (1992), and Murray (1999, 2002), most institutions have no formal evaluation process in place or established criteria to evaluate their programs. Evaluation procedures must be planned from the outset and implemented as an integral part of a comprehensive faculty development program in order to be effective.

CONCLUSIONS

Crucial to the academic integrity of the institution and consistent with the teaching and learning mission, community colleges must emphasize the importance of professional development of all faculty. To recruit and retain quality faculty, a formal, comprehensive program to orient, enculcurate, renew, and develop all faculty is essential. Faculty development must be an integral part of the institution’s strategic plan. Only a systemic approach to faculty development, with high-level administrative support and permanent funding sources, will effect institutional as well as individual change. In creating development programs that are relevant and focused on individual needs, institutions can address the growing diversity of faculty demographics, as well as incorporate processes that promote continuous institutional learning and innovation. Formal program evaluation, with established criteria, is critical to program integrity and viability. Differences in faculty development programs and practices along accreditation regions dictate further investigation of faculty development as tied to assessment, student retention, and learning outcomes.

Based on these conclusions a formal, systematic, and comprehensive model for faculty development is proposed. The generic nature of the model makes it applicable for either full- or part-time faculty and provides a framework in which the institution can structure an evolutionary faculty development program, which is specific to its culture and faculty demographics.

The components of this model are focused on the organizational, curricular, professional, and personal needs of the faculty and operationalized in five areas: administration, planning, program content, implementation, and evaluation. Administrative support, commitment of time, personnel, and financial resources are vital to program planning and practice. Planning begins with identification of institutional goals and assessment of faculty needs. Given that faculty ownership is imperative to the success of the model, a faculty development coordinator is designated and a council of full-time and part-time faculty selected. This group determines specific competencies, informed by needs analysis, to be achieved by relevant program activities. Measurable objectives are generated and linked to expected outcomes. Program implementation and participation demands program awareness and promotion. Formal criteria for program evaluation are established, which allow for continuous reassessment of program effectiveness.

As community colleges expand efforts to maximize professional development for part-time faculty, a model of development, tailored to achieve identified competencies and linked to institutional mission, can enhance and improve organizational, as well as, individual performance.

REFERENCES

• American Association of State Colleges and Universities. (1999). Facing change: Building the faculty of the future. Washington, DC: Author.
• Balch, P. (1999). Part-time faculty are here to stay. Planning for Higher Education,27(3), 32–40.
• Banachowski, G. (1996). Perspectives and perceptions: The use of part-time faculty in community colleges. Community College Review. 24(2), 49–62.
• Bergquist, W. H., & Phillips, S. R. (1975). Components of an effective faculty development program. Journal of Higher Education, 46(2), 177–211.
• Brewster, D. (2000). The use of part-time faculty in the community college. Inquiry,5(1), 66–76.
• Burnstad, H. M. (1994). Management of human resources in the community college. In G. A. Baker, III (Ed.), A handbook on the community college in America: Its history, mission, and management (pp. 386–395). Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
• Eble, K. E., & McKeachie, W. J. (1985). Improving undergraduate education through faculty development. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
• Gaff, J. G. (1975). Toward faculty renewal: Advances in faculty, instructional, and organization development. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
• Gappa, J. M., & Leslie, D. W. (1993). The invisible faculty: Improving the status of part-timers in higher education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
• Gappa, J. M., & Leslie, D. W. (1997). Two faculties or one? The conundrum of part-timers in a bifurcated workforce (Inquiry No. 6). Washington, DC: American Association for Higher Education.
• Hammons, J. (1983). Faculty development: A necessary corollary to faculty evaluation. In A. M. Cohen & F. B. Brawer (Eds.), New directions for community colleges: No. 41. Evaluating faculty and staff (pp. 75–82). San Francisco, CA: JosseyBass.
• Hoerner, J., Clowes, D., & lmpara, J. (1991). Professional development programs in community and technical colleges: Are occupational-technical faculty needs well served? Journal of Studies in Technical Careers, 13(4), 351–360.
• Impara, J., Hoerner, J., Clowes, D., & Allkins, M. (1991). Professional development programs: A comparison of full-time and part-time occupational faculty. Community Services Catalyst, 21(2), 8–12.
• Maxwell, W. E., & Kazlauskas, E. J. (1992). Which faculty development methods really work in community colleges? A review of research. Community/Junior College Quarterly, 16, 351–360.
• Miller, D. J., & Ratcliff, J. L. (1986). Analysis of professional activities of Iowa Community College faculty. Community/Junior College Journal, 10, 317–343.
• Murray, J. P. (1995). Faculty (mis)development in Ohio two-year colleges. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 19, 549–593.
• Murray, J. P. (1999). Faculty development in a national sample of community colleges. Community College Review, 27(3), 47–64.
• Murray, J. P. (2002). Faculty development in SACS-accredited community colleges. Community College Review, 29(4), 50–67.
• National Center for Education Statistics. (2002). A profile of part-time faculty: Fall 1998. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
• National Education Association Higher Education Research Center. (2001). Part-time faculty. Update, 7(4), 1–4.
• O’Banion, T. (1994a). Teaching and learning: A mandate for the nineties. Community College Journal 64(4), 21–25.
• Richardson, R., & Moore, W. (1987). Faculty development and evaluation in Texas community colleges. Community/Junior College Quarterly, 11, 19–32.
• Roueche, J. E., Roueche, S. D., & Milliron, M. D. (1995). Strangers in their own land: Part-time faculty in American community colleges. Washington, DC: Community College Press.
• Sandford, B., & McCaslin, N. L. ( 2003, October). Assessment of professional development activities, instructional needs, and methods of delivery for part-time technical and occupational faculty in U.S. community colleges. Paper presented at the Midwest Research to Practice Conference in Adult, Continuing, and Community Education, Columbus, OH. Retrieved May 9, 2004, from http://www.alumni-osu.org/midwest/midwest%20papers/Sandford%20&%20McCaslin--Done.pdf
• Schuster, J. H. (1990). The need for fresh approaches to faculty renewal. In J. H. Schuster, D. W. Wheeler, & Associates (Eds.), Enhancing faculty careers: Strategies for development and renewal (pp. 3–19). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
• Schuster, J. H. (1995). Whither the faculty? The changing academic labor market. Educational Record, 76(4), 28–33.
• Schuster, J. H., Wheeler, D. W., & Associates. (Eds.). (1990). Enhancing faculty careers: Strategies for development and renewal. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
• Williams, J. (1986). A study of professional development practices of part-time instructors at selected League for Innovation community colleges. Los Angeles, CA: League for Innovation in the Community College.