Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
Adjunct faculty engagement at the community college: an exploration of work engagement and perceived motivational factors through the lens of Self-Determination Theory
(USC Thesis Other)
Adjunct faculty engagement at the community college: an exploration of work engagement and perceived motivational factors through the lens of Self-Determination Theory
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
Running head: ADJUNCT FACULTY ENGAGEMENT
1
ADJUNCT FACULTY ENGAGEMENT AT THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE:
AN EXPLORATION OF WORK ENGAGEMENT AND PERCEIVED MOTIVATIONAL
FACTORS THROUGH THE LENS OF SELF-DETERMINATION THEORY
by
Ursula Tameka Worsham
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
December 2017
Copyright 2017 Ursula Tameka Worsham
ADJUNCT FACULTY ENGAGEMENT
2
DEDICATION
While I was fighting to complete this dissertation, you were fighting for your life. You
embody the battle cry “Fight On!” Mamma, I dedicate this dissertation to you.
ADJUNCT FACULTY ENGAGEMENT
3
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Lord, thank you for your grace and mercy. You sustained me when I had no earthly
strength left. Without you this accomplishment would not have been possible. You have always
given me your best and for this, I am eternally grateful.
Your best is evident in giving me parents who loved me from day one and who
communicated wisdom, and encouragement to believe I could accomplish anything when the
world communicated limitations. Your best is evident in giving me siblings to love and to laugh
with in the good times and the challenging ones too. Your best is evident in giving me family,
and friends who love me unconditionally and have tolerated my seemingly never-ending pursuit
of higher education. Your best is evident in surrounding me with co-workers, colleagues, and
neighbors to keep my spirits lifted and my focus engaged, even when I was restless. Your best is
evident in all of the teachers, counselors, and mentors you placed along my journey.
I am humbled as they saw the ending, before I could see the beginning.
A special thank you to the USC Rossier School of Education Family; with notable
appreciation to the selfless efforts of my dissertation chair Dr. Patricia Tobey, and co-chairs;
Dr. Helena Seli, and Dr. Laila Hassan- your commitment to service and intellectual gifts will
forever inspire me. And last, yet certainly not least- to my husband Gregory for his love,
patience, support, and bionic right shoulder; that held me up on more nights than I can count.
You are truly my super hero.
Tetelestai.
ADJUNCT FACULTY ENGAGEMENT
4
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DEDICATION .................................................................................................................................2
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .............................................................................................................3
LIST OF TABLES ...........................................................................................................................7
LIST OF FIGURES .........................................................................................................................9
ABSTRACT ...................................................................................................................................10
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................12
Statement of the Problem ................................................................................................13
Significance of the Problem ............................................................................................13
Theoretical Framework ...................................................................................................14
Purpose of the Study .......................................................................................................15
Research Questions .........................................................................................................16
Organization of Study .....................................................................................................17
Key Terms .......................................................................................................................18
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................................20
Introduction ....................................................................................................................20
Historical Context of The Community College .............................................................21
Community College Mission and Characteristics ................................................23
California Community Colleges ..........................................................................25
Adjunct Faculty Competence .........................................................................................26
Community College Faculty Composition ..........................................................27
Adjunct Faculty Characteristics ...........................................................................29
Adjunct Faculty Autonomy ............................................................................................31
Adjunct Faculty Engagement ...............................................................................32
Adjunct Faculty Student Engagement .................................................................34
Teacher Motivation .........................................................................................34
Student Success ...............................................................................................35
Adjunct Faculty Relatedness ..........................................................................................37
Institutional Culture and Governance ..................................................................37
ADJUNCT FACULTY ENGAGEMENT
5
Adjunct Faculty Organizational Engagement .......................................................39
Summary .........................................................................................................................40
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY ......................................................................................41
Research Design and Methodology ................................................................................41
Research Questions ...............................................................................................41
Mixed Methods Research ...............................................................................................43
Design Rationale ...................................................................................................43
Research Site and Participants ..............................................................................45
Instrumentation and Permissions ..........................................................................47
Data Collection .....................................................................................................48
Data Analysis ........................................................................................................49
Validity and Reliability .........................................................................................50
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS .....................................................................................................52
Context of Study .............................................................................................................52
Quantitative Data Collection .................................................................................53
Qualitative Data Collection ...................................................................................53
Description of Participants ....................................................................................55
Phase I: Quantitative Research Questions and Results ...................................................61
Phase II: Qualitative Research Questions .......................................................................77
Qualitative Findings: Competence ........................................................................78
Faculty Assignments and Teacher Preparation ................................................78
Faculty Evaluations ..........................................................................................82
Professional Development ...............................................................................86
Qualitative Findings: Autonomy ...........................................................................89
Decision to Teach and Institutional Selection .................................................89
Teacher Motivation ..........................................................................................93
Facilitating Student Engagement .....................................................................96
Academic Freedom ..........................................................................................98
Qualitative Findings: Relatedness .................................................................................101
Work Climate ..................................................................................................101
Perceived Institutional Support ......................................................................105
Involvement in Strategic Planning .................................................................110
Teacher Recognition and Awards ..................................................................112
ADJUNCT FACULTY ENGAGEMENT
6
Summary .......................................................................................................................113
CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION ...............................................................................................115
Overview of Study ........................................................................................................115
Research Questions .......................................................................................................116
Summary of Results ......................................................................................................117
Implications for Practice ...............................................................................................121
Recommendations for Future Research ........................................................................123
Conclusion ....................................................................................................................124
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................126
APPENDIX A: The Basic Need Satisfaction at Work Scale (BNSW-S) .....................................137
APPENDIX B: The Basic Need Satisfaction at Work Scale Scoring Guide ...............................138
APPENDIX C: The Basic Need Satisfaction at Work Scale Addendum .....................................139
APPENDIX D: Interview Protocol and Script .............................................................................140
APPENDIX E: Online Survey Participant Request .....................................................................143
APPENDIX F: Informed Consent Letter .....................................................................................144
APPENDIX G: Research Study Matrix .......................................................................................145
ADJUNCT FACULTY ENGAGEMENT
7
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Faculty Composition at Union West Community College (UWCC) 45
Table 2: Adjunct Faculty Hours Spent Teaching Courses on Campus at UWCC. 59
Table 3: Adjunct Faculty Length of Employment at UWCC 60
Table 4: The Basic Need Satisfaction at Work Scale- Competence Items 62
Table 5: The Basic Need Satisfaction at Work Scale- Autonomy Items 63
Table 6: The Basic Need Satisfaction at Work Scale- Relatedness Items 65
Table 7: Descriptive Statistics for Competency Scores by Discipline 66
Table 8: Analysis of Variance Results for Competency Scores 66
Table 9: Descriptive Statistics for Autonomy Scores by Discipline 67
Table 10: Analysis of Variance Results for Autonomy Scores 67
Table 11: Descriptive Statistics for Relatedness Scores by Discipline 68
Table 12: Analysis of Variance Results for Relatedness Scores 68
Table 13: Ordered Logic Regression: Length of Employment (LOE) 69
Table 14: Goodness of Fit
a
– Length of Employment 70
Table 15: Omnibus Test
a
– Length of Employment 70
Table 16: Ordered Logic Regression- Tests of Model Effects (LOE) 71
Table 17: Ordered Logic Regression- Parameter Estimates (LOE) 71
Table 18: Ordered Logic Regression: Teaching Workload (TW) 72
Table 19: Goodness of Fit
a
– Teaching Workload 73
Table 20: Omnibus Test
a
– Teaching Workload 74
Table 21: Ordered Logic Regression- Tests of Model Effects (TW) 74
Table 22: Ordered Logic Regression- Parameter Estimates (TW) 75
ADJUNCT FACULTY ENGAGEMENT
8
Table 23: Qualitative Demographic Data- Adjunct Faculty Interview Participants 76
ADJUNCT FACULTY ENGAGEMENT
9
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Mixed Methods Design Matrix 44
Figure 2: Basic Need Satisfaction at Work Scale- Respondents by Gender 56
Figure 3: Basic Need Satisfaction at Work Scale-Respondents by Race/Ethnicity 57
Figure 4: Basic Need Satisfaction at Work Scale-Respondents by Age Distribution 58
Figure 5: UWCC Adjunct Faculty Educational Attainment by Age Distribution 58
Figure 6: UWCC Adjunct Faculty Academic Department Affiliation 60
ADJUNCT FACULTY ENGAGEMENT
10
ABSTRACT
U.S. institutions of higher education face internal and external pressures to stay both
economically competitive and academically appealing in light of waning budgets at the local,
state, and national levels. Each year community colleges enroll nearly fifty percent of all
undergraduate students in the U.S., and disproportionally rely on part-time faculty members to
facilitate instruction (American Association of Community Colleges, 2014). This constituency
of faculty is limited in academic decision making and is often relegated to experience salary
inequities, lack of institutional support and lack of professional development (Gappa & Leslie,
1993; Roney & Ulerick, 2013; Jaeger & Eagan, 2009; Umbach, 2006; Kezar, 2013). This study
sought to explore adjunct faculty engagement through the lens of Self-Determination Theory
(SDT) to understand the perceived autonomy, competence, and relatedness experienced by
adjunct faculty members in their roles as instructor and employee. This two-phase, mixed study
design included an administration of The Basic Need Satisfaction at Work Scale (BNSW-S, 21-
item survey) to a sample population of 52 adjunct faculty members; comprised of 35 female and
17 male participants at one suburban community college. Phase two, encapsulates the adjunct
faculty “voice” of eight participants using semi-structured interviews. Using SPSS, an Analysis
of Variance (ANOVA) was used to determine if a statistically significant relationship existed
between perceived competence, autonomy, and relatedness by the discipline taught. ANOVA
results revealed a significant difference in scores across adjunct faculty by discipline. Results of
the ordered logistic regression showed no significant contribution of competence, autonomy, or
relatedness scores on teaching workload and length of employment. The Constant Comparative
Method (Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Strauss & Corbin, 1999) resulted in the emergence of key
ADJUNCT FACULTY ENGAGEMENT
11
themes which were categorized under the three elements of SDT: competence, autonomy, and
relatedness.
ADJUNCT FACULTY ENGAGEMENT
12
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
Engaged employees display enthusiasm and commitment to their work. In the
workplace, they are connected to positive organizational outcomes including greater
productivity, profitability, and overall customer satisfaction (Gallup, 2015; Bakker, Shaufeli,
Leiter, & Taris, 2008). Moreover, engaged employees are more likely to bring new ideas and
innovation to the organizations in which they serve (Gallup, 2015; Nair & Gopal, 2010). The
experience of being engaged, however, is not commonplace for a multitude of U.S. workers, as
fifty percent; report a lack of engagement in their jobs (Gallup, 2015). Taking into consideration
the additional 17.5 percent who are “actively disengaged,” seventy percent of the American
workplace is inordinately representative of employees going through the motions of daily work,
void of commitment and passion. In the current economic climate, organizations cannot afford
to ignore the financial, social, or organizational implications of such a reality, of which
institutions of higher education are not exempt.
Within U.S. community colleges exists a diverse workforce of instructional staff
entrusted to meet the charge of educating the masses. This constituency of faculty members
works on a part-time basis and brings with them a multitude of skill sets, abilities, and
professional ties to the private sector (Levin, Kater, & Wagoner, 2006; Jacobs, 1998).
Frequently referenced in the literature as contingent or adjunct; this part-time workforce teaches
over sixty percent of community college courses and are just as susceptible to challenges of work
engagement as employees beyond the academe (Center for Community College Student
Engagement [CCCSE], 2014; American Federation of Teachers [AFT], 2009). Throughout this
study, the terms part-time and adjunct faculty will be used to reference the same population as
reflected in the pertinent literature.
ADJUNCT FACULTY ENGAGEMENT
13
Statement of the Problem
Challenges to adjunct faculty engagement include but are not limited to experiencing a
disconnect from their respective institution(s), lack of resources and or training, nominal
academic privileges, extensive workloads, and lack of job security or commitment to long-term
employment (Kezar & Sam, 2010; Eagan, Jaeger, & Grantham, 2015; Yakoboski, 2014;
American Association of University Professors [AAUP], 2013; Jolley, Cross, & Bryant, 2014;
Meixner, Kruck, & Madden, 2010). The preceding working conditions are problematic for the
personal satisfaction of part-time or adjunct faculty members and can prove detrimental to the
professional outcomes needed to impact student learning and success.
Significance of the Problem
Within higher education, community colleges serve a vital role in the U.S. economy, the
lives of students, and society as a whole. Each year community colleges enroll nearly fifty
percent of all undergraduate students within the United States while continuing to have the
lowest costs for students and taxpayers alike (American Association of Community Colleges
[AACC], 2014). In 2013, the AACC reported an estimated 7.4 million students were enrolled in
community colleges, with the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES, 2013) projecting
the U.S. undergraduate student enrollment will increase from 17.5 million to 19.6 million
students by 2024. This academic forecast in conjunction with the community colleges trend to
educate half of the U.S. undergraduate population annually, will undoubtedly be influenced by
the work engagement and experiences of current and future adjunct faculty.
ADJUNCT FACULTY ENGAGEMENT
14
The significance of the community colleges’ role in 21st-Century education is marked in
President Barak Obama’s charge to educate an additional five million students with degrees,
certificates, or other credentials by the year 2020 (Obama, 2009; AACC, 2012), however, limited
Qualitative research exists in discussing the role of adjunct faculty in the aforesaid “college
completion initiatives” (Jolley et al., 2014, p. 219). This study will implore both quantitative and
qualitative research methods in efforts to contribute to a growing body of research aimed at
capturing the perspective or “voice” of the adjunct faculty practitioner in the community college
setting. The quantitative study results are limited to, one local suburban community college and
its adjunct faculty and therefore are specific and limited to this institution. The qualitative
results, however, can be utilized more broadly to inform best practices in the support of adjunct
faculty work engagement and motivation.
Theoretical Framework
Individual motivation and optimal performance stems from a series of psychological
needs, which must be supported in the form of relatedness, competence, and autonomy (Deci &
Ryan, 1985; La Guardia & Ryan, 2002). Scholarly research, repeatedly characterizes the
construct of work engagement with reference to both cognition and affect. Annotated a
motivational variable; employee engagement can be viewed as the materialization of individual
choice to invest energy in a work-related task following the culmination of a cognitive and
affective evaluation (Christian, Garza, & Slaughter; 2011; Rich, LePine, & Crawford, 2010).
Within this study, the construct of community college adjunct faculty engagement is undergirded
by Self-Determination Theory ([SDT]; Deci & Ryan, 1985; Ryan & Deci, 2000a), which
postulates that people have three basic psychological needs (competence, autonomy, and
relatedness) that when met, lead to pro-activity, optimal development, and psychological well-
ADJUNCT FACULTY ENGAGEMENT
15
being. SDT defines these needs as universal necessities which encompass the essence of human
nature, and in turn account for gender, culture, and time; (Ryan & Deci, 2000a; Chirkov, Ryan,
Kim & Kaplan, 2003) ultimately allowing people to draw near to, or away from social
experiences that foster or inhibit these needs respectively.
Self-Determination Theory
Van den Berg, Bakker, and Cate (2013) emphasize the utility of self-determination theory
in understanding human behavior and its plausible application to teacher motivation. Their
position affirms SDT’s: Competence (a need to feel capable), autonomy (a need for self-
determination), and relatedness (the need for connectedness) can be fulfilled, predominately
within the work environment due to the disproportionate amount of time spent in the workplace
by employees (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Van den Berg et al., 2013, p. 265). Kahn (1990) initiated the
conversation of employee engagement in the workplace with the assertion than one is personally
engaged when the physical, cognitive, and emotional “self” is fully enveloped in a specific task.
Kahn (1990) further posits, increased involvement in one or more of the aforementioned
dimensions, results in an overall increase in personal engagement within said task (Serrano &
Reichard, 2011). Self-Determination Theory can be applied to the construct of work
engagement in the community college teaching experience in exploring the perceived
competence, autonomy, and relatedness experienced by adjunct faculty.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of the study is to explore adjunct faculty work engagement through the theoretical
lens of self-determination theory in examining the perceived competence, autonomy, and
relatedness experienced by adjunct faculty in their role as employee and instructor. The study
seeks to discover the institutional practices and teaching experiences that either fosters or
ADJUNCT FACULTY ENGAGEMENT
16
inhibits work engagement and motivation. Research supports this constituency of the U.S.
professoriate is largely understudied and often overlooked in regards to their work experiences,
engagement, and motivation in the community college as a whole (Jolley et al., 2014), yet a gap
in the research literature exists in explaining the overall work experiences of this pertinent
population of the United States academic workforce. In efforts to gain a greater understanding of
how adjunct faculty members at the community college perceive their own work engagement, a
review of pertinent literature and perceived motivational factors through the lens of self-
determination theory will be explored.
Research Questions
The guiding research questions for this study are:
1. To what extent, if any, do institutional teaching experiences within Union West
Community College influence adjunct faculty’s perceived need satisfaction for
autonomy, competence, and relatedness (using The Basic Need Satisfaction at
Work Scale [BNSW-S], Kasser, Davey, & Ryan, 1992) in the workplace?
a) Is there a difference in the perception of
autonomy/competence/relatedness based on discipline?
Hypothesis 1: There is no difference in the perception of
autonomy/competence/relatedness of adjunct faculty members based
on discipline (department affiliation).
b) Is there a relationship between the perception of
autonomy/competence/relatedness and length of employment?
Hypothesis 2: There is no relationship between the perception of
autonomy/competence/relatedness and length of employment.
ADJUNCT FACULTY ENGAGEMENT
17
c) Is there a relationship between the perception of
autonomy/competence/relatedness and teaching workload?
Hypothesis 3: There is no relationship between the perception of
autonomy/competence/relatedness and teaching workload.
2. How do institutional practices within Union West Community College
inform the perceived work engagement and motivation of adjunct faculty?
Organization of the Study
Organization of the study following the introduction begins with the presentation of
foundational literature encompassing the historical context of the community college system and
the impact provided at this point of higher education access for students, the United States
workforce and society at large. A review of pertinent literature in Chapter Two, reveals the
limitations associated in meeting this demand considering waning external funding and the need
for part-time faculty. The California Community College system is highlighted as a result of its
integral role in providing educational access within the state to include the utilization of adjunct
faculty in the pursuit of student success and mission achievement. Through the theoretical lens
of Self-Determination Theory (SDT), the work engagement of adjunct faculty is explored as it
relates to competence, autonomy, and relatedness. Chapter Three outlines the research design
including the philosophy of mixed methodology in conjunction with the theoretical framework,
research site and participants, instrumentation, data collection, and analysis. Context of the
study, participant demographics, study results and analyses are discussed in Chapter Four.
Chapter 5 concludes with a summary of both quantitative and qualitative results, study
implications and recommendations, followed by final conclusions of the researcher.
ADJUNCT FACULTY ENGAGEMENT
18
Key Terms
Adjunct Faculty- The American Association of University Professors ([AAUP]; 2003, 2006)
defines adjunct faculty as those who identify as contingent faculty, non-tenure-track
faculty, part-timers, lecturers, instructors, or non-senate faculty.
Contingent Faculty- The AAUP (2003, 2006) defines the term contingent faculty to include part-
and full-time faculty who are appointed off the tenure track with the defining
characteristic of their hiring institution making no, or little, long-term commitment to
them or their academic work.
Employee engagement- “employees’ investment of physical, cognitive, and emotional energy
and their full deployment of themselves into their work roles or tasks” (Kahn, 1990;
Serrano & Reichard, p. 176)
Student success- Completion, graduation, transfer, or achievement of educational goals (Jacoby,
2006).
Community college- Two-year public institution accredited in the United States that awards
degrees and certificates in addition to providing workforce training and community
education (AACC, 2016).
Autonomy- Through the lens of Self-Determination Theory (SDT), the need to feel one’s
behavior is self-determined in contrast to being controlled by external sources (Ryan &
Deci, 1985).
Competence- According to SDT, the need to feel effective and capable in one’s ability to
perform a specific task or set of tasks (Ryan & Deci, 1985).
Relatedness- According to SDT, the need to feel connected to or supported by others (Ryan &
Deci, 1985).
ADJUNCT FACULTY ENGAGEMENT
19
Shared Governance- At the community college consists of the shared decisions made by district
administrators, governing boards, and appointed faculty (Lau, 1996).
Organizational culture- Shared assumptions of individuals participating in an organization which
includes but is not limited to language, norms, ideology, and attitudes (Tierney, 1988).
ADJUNCT FACULTY ENGAGEMENT
20
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
Historically community colleges have acted as a functioning hub of education and
training for U.S. residents seeking academic advancement, vocational training, and professional
opportunities in business and industry (AACC, 2014). In 2012 alone, the AACC (2014) reported
that the U.S. economy benefited from over 800 billion dollars of additional income generated
from former community college students. Beyond the finances, community college students can
expect to benefit from higher wages, increased employability, better health habits, and a
decreased need for income assistance, concurrently benefiting society, in addition to themselves.
In light of growing budget cuts at the national and state level, postsecondary institutions
are being asked to do more with less. Community colleges are particularly impacted by this
mantra due to limited resources, increased competition, and the charge to educate a complex
group of learners with diverse needs (Kadlec & Rowlett, 2014). In the current economic climate,
the affordability and access provided by the community college is appealing to a multitude of
students with varying academic, social, and vocational goals. As the financial investment in
public higher education has waned, it has become increasingly imperative that the focus of
college attainment is not lost due to a sacrifice in quality or access (Jenkins & Rodriguez, 2013).
In the face of the pressure to perform, community colleges face internal and external pressures to
stay economically competitive and academically appealing.
Facing growing enrollment and a declining budget, community colleges found
themselves, collectively, at a crossroad to either increase tuition or find a way to cut costs
(Brewster, 2000). In consideration of the community college’s commitment to provide open-
access, an increase in tuition would have undoubtedly been detrimental to a large constituency of
the lower socioeconomic students being served (Christensen, 2008). Embracing the charge,
ADJUNCT FACULTY ENGAGEMENT
21
community colleges have progressively made efforts to increase efficiency, in the practice of
hiring of part-time or adjunct faculty. The utilization of adjunct faculty is not a new
phenomenon to the community college. Adjunct faculty have long played a significant role in
the community college labor force, yet the reliance on contingent faculty has grown
exponentially in the past thirty years and more increasingly since the 1980’s (Levin et al., 2006;
AAUP, 2016; Roueche, Roueche, & Milliron, 1995).
Evidence of this phenomenon is represented in the 2012 reporting’s of NCES, declaring
over seventy percent of community college’s academic workforce serves on a part-time basis.
While adjunct faculty are commonplace for the community college arena, this growing trend was
landmarked across all institutional types in higher education, just one year earlier, with part-time
faculty outnumbering full-time faculty, for the first time in U.S. history (Lyons, 1999; NCES,
2012; Roueche, Roueche, & Milliron, 1995). The aforestated practice has changed the landscape
of community colleges over time and increased the number of adjunct faculty within the United
States. With over two-thirds of community college instructor’s serving in a part-time capacity,
this number is only expected to increase across all academia (Roney & Ulerick, 2013; Gappa,
Austin & Trice, 2007; NCES, 2011; Kezar & Sam, 2010).
Historical Context of the Community College
Conventionally, the community college; formerly known as the junior college, emerged
out of a need to bridge “egalitarian high schools and tradition-bound senior colleges, professional
schools, and universities” (Phillippe & Patton, 2000; p. 4). Generated from the ideas of J.
Stanley Brown and William Rainey Harper, emerged an innovative concept to tackle the
challenge of underprepared students, sitting in crowded classrooms without the economic needs
to finance themselves through college (Phillippe & Patton, 2000). Determined to offer a means
ADJUNCT FACULTY ENGAGEMENT
22
in which the first two years of college could be housed within secondary schools, Joliet College
was founded in 1901 and remains one of the oldest existing public two-year colleges. With
initial beginnings in the liberal arts, the community college expanded its offerings in the 1930’s
in response to the economic disparity of the time. Efforts to provide job training evolved out of
the social need to counteract rising unemployment stemming from the Great Depression and the
1920’s to 1940’s surge in high school graduates which increased from 56,000 to 150,000 during
a twenty-year time span (Phillippe & Patton, 2000; Drury, 2003; Brint & Karabel, 1989).
Primarily evolving post World War II, these institutions followed in kind to the Morrill
Act of 1862 (the Land Grant Act) in providing access and opportunity for postsecondary
education and training to students who would have otherwise been denied access. Additionally,
the creation of the GI Bill and the need for more postsecondary education options prompted the
1948 Truman Commission to create a consortium of public, community-based colleges to
address the needs of the public head-on (Phillippe & Patton, 2000). This ultimately paved the
way for the 1960’s creation of a national network of community colleges in which 457 public
community colleges were founded (AACC, 2016). Vaughan (2006) highlights three historical
events which paved the way for the community college, including the influx of baby boomers
(children born of returning World War II veterans) realizing the need for a college education, the
Civil Rights Movement, and lastly, the social and political arena of the 1960’s and 70’s which
ultimately led to the creation of the Higher Education Act of 1965. Jointly the events of this era
increased access to higher education and contributed to a rise in community college enrollment
from 1.6 million to 4.5 million, between 1970 and 1980 respectively (Brint, 1989). Reasonably
considered an era of tumultuous change, equal rights being demanded by minorities, women, and
other citizens, required a change in the social ills and inequities of which President Lyndon B.
ADJUNCT FACULTY ENGAGEMENT
23
Johnson characterized as poverty and ignorance (Vaughan, 2006). This proclamation brought
higher education to the national spotlight, increased funding opportunities, and reinforced the
need for increased access of traditionally academically underrepresented students.
Community College Mission and Characteristics
Community colleges embrace a shared mission of providing higher education access and
service to the community. Categorized as public, independent (private) or tribal colleges, the
enacted mission may look different depending on the institution and its surrounding community.
Vaughan (2006) posits the delivery of courses, training, and programs are shaped by a common
commitment regardless of institution to include:
● Serving all segments of society through an open access admissions policy that
offers equal and fair treatment to all students.
● Providing a comprehensive educational program.
● Serving the community as a community-based institution of higher education.
● Teaching and learning.
● Fostering lifelong learning. (p. 3)
Whether in service to meet the job training demands of a changing economic workforce or the
needs of the local community, these institutions are grounded in being responsive to the needs of
the community at large. In efforts to enrich the lives of its local constituency, community
colleges are structured to provide a diverse group of learners with varying academic, personal,
and professional needs. This includes prospective students in need of vocational training,
personal enrichment, certification, linkage to local industry, and or the academic preparation
necessary for the college transfer process (AACC, 2016; Hamrick, Evans, & Schuh, 2002).
ADJUNCT FACULTY ENGAGEMENT
24
The present day community college has not strayed from its initial mission and continues
to purport open access for students while continuing to serve as an academic and vocational
pathway to historically underrepresented groups including but not limited to the returning adult
learner, and those seeking a training ground for life skills and career exploration (Hamrick,
Evans, & Schuh, 2002). Most are public and depend highly on the financial support of public tax
dollars. Historically community colleges have granted the associate’s degree as its highest
degree, however, many present day colleges now grant the bachelor’s degree as well.
Community colleges offer both credit and noncredit coursework and often serve as
intellectual, social, and cultural hubs for their surrounding communities (Vaughan, 2006).
Approximately 1,600 community colleges exist within the United States representing a
collaboration of 986, public two-year colleges including branch campuses and 29 tribal colleges
(AACC, 2016). Often referred to as junior colleges, technical colleges, or two-year colleges,
community colleges are collectively connected by a common goal of affordable access and
service to the community amidst their individual designations and missions (AACC, 2016). The
specific types of community colleges are categorized as public, independent, and tribal.
According the U.S. Department of Education (2008) community colleges are
characterized as public institutions which offer an array of services for professional training and
academic preparation for higher levels of study to include: Postsecondary career and technical
training, adult and community education services, and university level studies permitting
transfer. The Current Carnegie Classification of Higher Education (2015) further classifies
community colleges as Associate’s Colleges in they ability to confer the associate’s degrees as
their highest degree. Although many community colleges have expanded their offerings to
include baccalaureate offerings in response to community and workforce needs, most community
ADJUNCT FACULTY ENGAGEMENT
25
colleges still fall within the Carnegie Classification of Associate’s Dominant institutions; as they
confer less than 10% of degrees at the baccalaureate level (Carnegie Classification of Higher
Education, 2015).
California Community Colleges
The California Community College System retains a particular role amongst community
colleges as the largest system of public higher education in the world; serving 2.5 million
students within 109 colleges across the state (California Community Colleges Chancellor’s
Office [CCCCO], 2016). Historically the state of California has served as a pioneer in regards to
community college access and legislation. California was the first state to create legislation to
extend the curriculum of high schools to offer postgraduate coursework through the Caminetti
Bill; named after the State Senator Anthony Caminetti (Tollefson, 2009). Although adopted by
the California General Assembly in 1907, the bill was vetoed and never became law. With
continued efforts to support the junior college, California subsequently followed this effort with
the Ballard Act in 1917; becoming the first state to authorize by law, state appropriations for
public junior college funding (Tollefson, 2009). This commitment continues to present day as
the majority of community college funding is derived from state, local, and federal government
monies along with student tuition.
In large part due to the extent of existing institutions, the state of California plays an
integral role in providing educational access, as over 75 percent of California’s public
undergraduate college enrollment is served by the community college (CCCCO, 2016). In 2014,
60.7 percent of California Community College students were enrolled part-time, 30 percent full-
time, while 9.3 percent were enrolled in non-credit coursework (CCCCO, 2016). Furthermore,
over 80 percent of the student population was under nineteen or younger than 35 years of age
ADJUNCT FACULTY ENGAGEMENT
26
(CCCCO, 2016). The academic and vocational programming provided by the community
college serves as a pathway to a diverse group of learners with needs towards goals including
academic training as well as transfer into two other California public systems; the California
State University (CSU) system and the University of California (UC) system.
The 2016 Long-Range Master Plan highlights a diversity of ethnic backgrounds in the
kaleidoscope of California Community Colleges. Data reported as of 2014, reflects the largest
student enrollment across the California Community College System is held by Hispanic
students at 42.7 percent, followed by White (non-Hispanic) students at 28.1 percent, Asian (10.9
percent), African American (6.6 percent), Filipino (2.9 percent), American Indian/Alaskan
Native (1.4 percent), Pacific Islanders (0.4 percent), multi-ethnicities (3.8 percent), and students
reporting “unknown” at 4.2 percent (CCCCO, 2014). Although the reported demographics
reflect the diverse nature of the students served, they should be viewed holistically, as they do
not necessarily reflect the ethnic diversity represented by scale at each individual community
college campus. Nevertheless, the changing demographics of community colleges will continue
to require faculty with a diverse set of skills and competencies to meet the charge of student
academic and psychosocial needs.
Adjunct Faculty Competence
The first of three basic needs outlined by SDT is competence. Competence is driven by
the need to feel effective and confident in one’s ability to perform a specific set of tasks (Ryan &
Deci, 2002). Growing reliance on adjunct faculty at the community college through the lens of
SDT will require a workforce capable of managing the demands of diverse learners and the self –
efficacy to manage competing responsibilities within the institution and classroom setting. An
ADJUNCT FACULTY ENGAGEMENT
27
overview of the change in faculty composition over time alongside adjunct faculty characteristics
will provide insight into the impact potential of this population engaged in their work.
Community colleges are characterized in their ability to be responsive to the changing
needs of the local community and national workforce. This is evident in growing student
enrollment as well as changes experienced in faculty composition. Part-time faculty members
are not only commonplace in higher education; they have historical presence in the community
college. The Council for Higher Education Accreditation ([CHEA], 2014) reports that
community colleges were the first to rely on Non-Tenure Track Faculty (NTTF) and still employ
the largest percentage of part-time faculty. The former reliance on full-time tenured and tenure-
track faculty has shifted to an academic workforce fueled primarily by non-tenure track faculty
(CHEA, 2014). According to Schuster and Finkelstein (2006) 78.3 percent of the faculty in 1969
were tenured or on tenure-track positions, where now approximately 47.7 percent of today’s
faculty are part-time, and hold non-tenure track positions (AFT, 2009). Similarly, NCES (2012)
reports that part-time faculty constitutes more than 69.2 percent of community college faculty.
Community College Faculty Composition
Faculty members across institutional type vary in composition and in terminology.
Regardless of their teaching load and or additional responsibilities, part-time and full-time
faculty members have different experiences and bring with them a host of varying rationale for
securing tenure and non-tenure track positions. Kezar and Maxey (2012) reiterate the fact that
non-tenure-track and contingent faculty are not eligible to be considered for tenure, can be full or
part-time, and are not a homogeneous group. Although much debate exists around how the
terms are applied, what remains clear is that the reasoning behind academic staff assuming these
types of positions remains an individual concession. Full-time non-tenure track faculty members
ADJUNCT FACULTY ENGAGEMENT
28
are also classified as lecturers, instructors, or clinical faculty and often work at one institution as
they are employed on a full-time status (Kezar & Maxey, 2012). For the purpose of this study,
the faculty referenced will be part-time, commonly referred to as adjunct faculty; and comprise
the preponderance of community college faculty at 53 percent (AACC, 2016; Kezar & Maxey,
2012).
Adjunct faculty members have found a place in the economic engine of today’s
community college labor force. Community colleges are undoubtedly tied to “economic
development and private interests” often employing similar business practices which will
continue to enable adjunct faculty to serve as a pivotal means of controlling costs (Levin et al.,
2006, p. 85). While providing a viable financial solution in an era of enrollment uncertainty, the
utilization of a part-time workforce has not been without its challenges to institutions, adjunct
faculty, and the students they collectively serve. Moreover, research suggests additional
challenges in the form of retention, graduation rates, weakened faculty governance, and
diminished student learning (AAUP, 2016; Bettinger & Long, 2004). Additionally, these
challenges are equally compounded in a time of increased accountability as external stakeholders
are more recently defining institutional effectiveness by student completion rates (Roney &
Ulerick, 2013).
Institutions are challenged with providing support for a changing part-time constituency
all the while; adjunct faculty must navigate their environment with limited resources, and with
less time to engage with students. Research by Eagan and Jaeger (2009) highlights the negative
effects of this trend on student success, in the correlation between increased exposure to part-
time faculty and decreased student graduation and transfer rates. Furthermore, these limitations
impact the ability for adjunct faculty to participate in and contribute to the shaping of
ADJUNCT FACULTY ENGAGEMENT
29
institutional culture. This interpersonal exclusion is in direct conflict with the sense making
derived from institutional culture and climate, ultimately needed to impact institutional reform
(Kadlec & Rowlett, 2014).
Adjunct Faculty Characteristics
Community college adjunct faculty members are as diverse as the students they serve.
With a range of professional profiles, many are practitioners within their respective fields,
pending retirees, or recent graduates choosing the two-year institution as an alternate pathway to
employment in response to a lack of full-time tenure-track positions at four-year institutions
(Gappa, Austin, & Trice, 2007; Christensen, 2008). As study by Levin et al., (2006) examined
the part-time and full-time community college labor market and categorized adjunct faculty into
one of two groups with mirroring characteristics. The first group is characterized as adjunct
faculty having a rare and highly valued skill set with strong ties to the private sector through full-
time employment outside the academe. Interviews provided feedback that members of this
group were less dependent on the community college income, lacked feelings of alienation and
had higher levels of satisfaction (Levin et al., 2006). The second group was characterized as
lacking any rare or highly valued skills, however, through their part-time status; they were
extremely beneficial to institutions’ goals of financial control and flexibility within their labor
force. Contrastively, interviews of this group revealed many adjunct faculty members were
working concurrently at other institutions and were less satisfied due to their roles as adjuncts
having to meet both their financial and professional identity needs (Levin et al., 2006).
Levin et al., (2006) describes the utilization of adjunct faculty as a means to provide
pertinent work skills to meet the demands of learners expecting specific and highly valued skills
that may be less feasible for full-time faculty members removed from private industry. This
ADJUNCT FACULTY ENGAGEMENT
30
disposition is supported in the case that many adjunct faculty members work outside the academe
and bring with them a specific set of skills and abilities, often not present in regular faculty
(Jacobs, 1998). Additionally, these specific talents increase the prestige of institutions all the
while lowering costs and increasing flexibility (Jacobs, 1998).
The part-time employment path provides flexibility for faculty and institutions as faculty
members are allotted the freedom to engage in competing responsibilities while administrators
are given more leverage in scheduling practices (Christensen, 2008; Jacobs, 1998; Levin et al.,
2006). This flexibility can manifest itself in impromptu course scheduling and inconsistency in
teaching loads from term to term, creating an “uncertain environment where part-time faculty
can be fired and hired with short notice” (Christensen, 2008, p. 31). The last-minute hiring of
adjunct faculty and scheduling of courses limits preparation and impacts the quality of
instruction (Kezar & Gehrke, 2013).
Perceptions of adjunct faculty in comparison with full-time faculty vary within current
literature and can be characterized as inconsistent. Likewise, inconsistencies in the perception of
the adjunct faculty role is compounded by inequity in salaries, lack of professional development,
nominal academic decision making and limited institutional resources (Gappa & Leslie, 1993;
Roney & Ulerick, 2013; Jaeger & Eagan, 2009; Umbach, 2007; Kezar, 2013). In addition to
earning a median pay of $2,700 per course, adjunct faculty are by default excluded from
increased pay as a result of higher wages and years of service (Roney & Ulerick, 2013; Coalition
on the Academic Workforce, 2012). A recent survey of part-time faculty compensation across
institutional types indicated the average single employer earnings of part-time faculty members
per year is approximately $16,718 (AAUP, 2016). In comparison, this figure eclipses the
average earnings of part-time faculty at the associate’s level ($9,803) when disaggregated by
ADJUNCT FACULTY ENGAGEMENT
31
institutional category (AAUP, 2016). Christensen (2008) suggests this contributes to the
growing dissatisfaction and turnover amongst adjunct faculty. Research suggests the lack of
autonomy in one’s work can contribute to disengagement and essential well-being necessary to
function holistically; undoubtedly adjunct faculty can experience this phenomenon within an
overly structured environment (Johnston & Finney, 2010; Deci & Ryan, 2000).
Adjunct Faculty Autonomy
The second purview of basic needs outlined by SDT is autonomy. Autonomy is nestled
in one’s feelings of internal control over outcomes versus external control (Ryan & Deci, 2002).
This sphere deems in the time of increased accountability and emphasis on student learning
outcomes and student success. The literature highlights both contributions and limitations of
instruction by adjunct faculty and warrants the exploration of engagement as a construct, its
relation to teacher motivation, and consideration for adjunct faculty and the success of students
served.
The construct of employee engagement has humble beginnings in both the industrial and
academic arena. Initially attractive to organizational managers and human resource (HR)
consultants alike; linkages to increased productivity, profitability, customer satisfaction, and
employee retention were highly desired outcomes that extended beyond research to include
practice (Swanson & Holton, 2009).
The connection between engagement and two key constructs which serve as the
foundation of HR, organizational learning and workplace performance (Swanson & Holton,
2009). With such positive consequences, it’s not surprising that academia-followed suit in their
desire to create and leverage similar outcomes for practitioners. Challenged by limited and
diverse empirical conceptualizations of employee engagement, existing research called for
ADJUNCT FACULTY ENGAGEMENT
32
clarity and further measurement (Macey & Schneider, 2008; Shuck et al. 2012). Fundamentally
the challenge of operationalizing the construct of employee engagement from bottom-line
industry results to the practitioner, summoned a new approach.
Determined to create a theoretical loop to the practitioner, Macey and Schneider (2008)
sought to conceptualize both the attitudinal and behavioral components of engagement in
proposing a framework annotated by trait (positive views of life and work), state (feelings of
energy, absorption), and behavioral (extra-role behavior) engagement. Saks (2006) characterized
the engaged employee as exhibiting attentiveness and mental absorption towards their work,
while other scholars focused on the deep emotional connection to the workplace itself (Kahn,
1990; Wagner & Harter, 2006). Although seminal, existing research highlights a gap in the
perceived engagement experience from the practitioner’s perspective (Shuck, Rocco, &
Albornoz, 2011).
Adjunct Faculty Engagement
Although employed at record numbers, adjunct faculty at the community college often
experience marginalization due to both academic and social disconnects from the institutions in
which they serve (Spaniel & Scott, 2013). Academically, this disconnect can be linked to
disproportionate teaching loads; as many part-time faculty, teach more courses than full-time
faculty and at multiple institutions (AAUP, 2016). The default workload created by teaching a
full-time load as a part-time faculty member, albeit economically beneficial, can prove
detrimental to student accessibility. The American Association of University Professors (2016)
highlights the disproportionate assigning of adjunct faculty to “gateway” courses and further
illustrates the challenge this creates in providing adjunct faculty the opportunity to fully engage
with institutions and students correspondingly. Furthermore, increased part-time faculty
ADJUNCT FACULTY ENGAGEMENT
33
workloads can influence preparation time and the kind of instruction fostered toward students
whom may need additional support and hands-on instruction (AAUP, 2016). Research suggests,
adjunct faculty consistently regulated to function with inadequate resources, including but not
limited to non-existent work space, by default, are less accessible to the students they were
ultimately hired to serve.
Levin et al. (2006) highlights the psychosocial consequences of such alienation and
warns of the depravity created in the “personal satisfaction, relatedness, and meaningfulness of
participating in a college’s culture” (p. 2). Reevy and Deason (2014) highlight potential
psychological effects in their subsequent findings, of non-tenured faculty members being more
likely to experience feelings of anxiety, depression and stress related to their position. These
aforesaid psychosocial implications speak to the human side of change as described by Kadlec
and Rowlett (2014) emphasizing the importance of taking time to be widely inclusive of varying
perspectives in the development and refining of processes for change. Perhaps initially
counterintuitive, the benefits of including the insights of appropriate stakeholders upfront will
inevitably outweigh the challenge of managing resistance of those needed for successful
implementation of processes later in the timeline (Kadlec & Rowlett, 2014). Specific to faculty,
recommendations for engagement, signal for the inclusion of “formal faculty, informal leaders,
peer influencers, and adjunct faculty who teach the majority of college courses” within the
United States (Kadlec & Rowlett, 2014, p. 91).
A recent study of adjunct faculty inclusion by Spaniel and Scott (2013) was conducted at
three public, 2-year community colleges in Texas, including a rural, suburban, and urban
environment as classified by the Basic Carnegie Classification for associate degree-granting
institutions (Carnegie Foundation, n.d.). Of the participating community colleges, 75 adjuncts
ADJUNCT FACULTY ENGAGEMENT
34
self-selected to participate in a survey representing 25.3% at a rural institution, 33.3% at a
suburban institution, and 41.3% at an urban institution (Spaniel & Scott, 2013). The study
sought to explore faculty inclusion in relation to institution type and years of service. Although
no significance was found in the results for years of service or rationale for teaching on a part-
time basis, significance was found in adjunct faculty inclusion based on institution type. Results
indicated, more than 75% of adjuncts across institution type did not participate in graduation
activities, 68.8% of urban adjunct teachers “rarely or never communicated with administrators
(i.e. vice presidents, deans, and/or assistant deans)” and a combined average of 41% of all three
institutional types reported to have “rarely or never have received feedback” from student
evaluations (Spaniel & Scott, 2013, p. 8).
Meyer and Gagne (2008) signify the instrumental use of SDT in developing a measure
for the three components of engagement as illustrated by Macey and Schneider (i.e., trait, state,
behavior) to extend the conceptual model, while bridging the efforts of research and practice
collaboratively.
Adjunct Faculty Student Engagement
Teacher motivation undergirds the student learning experience and can have rippling
effects on student engagement. Bakker (2005) emphasizes the importance of teacher motivation
in relation to the investment of energy and presumed quality of teaching; directly impacting
student engagement and in turn the corresponding investment of energy by students in their
studies.
Teacher motivation. A survey conducted by Dailey-Hebert, Mandernach, Donnelli-
Sallee, and Norris (2014), sampling 649 online adjunct faculty members teaching at the post-
secondary level to explore the motivations and barriers to participation in faculty professional
ADJUNCT FACULTY ENGAGEMENT
35
development. Conducted at a large, private university, the study sought to gain insight into the
value, relevance, and utility of professional development using Likert-ratings (Dailey-Hebert et
al., 2014). Results indicated that 78.8% of adjunct faculty was motivated by intrinsic rewards
(opportunity for professional growth and or to improve teaching effectiveness) in comparison to
those who reported strong motivation associated with economic incentives (64.7%), including
pay increases, retention, or teaching rewards. Although the authors caution against
generalization of the data across institution type and mode of instruction, the results provide
insight to adjunct faculty motivation and contribute to a growing discussion of how best to
support professional development efforts to a diverse and growing population of faculty.
Additional recommendations emphasize the need for continued research and a disaggregate
approach to include consideration for both the individual and collective perspectives to adjunct
faculty participation in professional development. Kezar (2013) adds the importance of fostering
identification with the institution and academic departments when providing professional
development as well.
Student success. Within higher education, engagement is positively connected to
student success and persistence towards postsecondary educational goal achievement (Kuh,
2016). Described as an input in the equation of student persistence, Kuh (2016) asserts the
construct of student engagement as the combined representation of student effort (time and
energy) and institutional effort (programming, policy, and practice), which serve as the inducing
agents for student academic achievement and persistence towards graduation. Roney and
Ulerick (2013) suggest existing gaps in student success are less in response to the stereotypical
“distracted and underpaid part-timer” and more due to a lack of institutional support, inadequate
resources and exclusion from education policy and programming (p. 2). Foretold by Pascarella
ADJUNCT FACULTY ENGAGEMENT
36
and Terenzini (2005) a parallel sentiment was echoed in encouraging postsecondary institutions
to facilitate student engagement through intentional and purposeful activities. Akin to Kuh,
institutions are charged to consider a multitude of policies, programming, and practices to
support and enhance student learning, including the use of adjunct faculty in the classroom.
A recent and related construct added by Kuh (2016), identified as goal realization, incite
institutions to look beyond the facilitation of traditional student experiences to incorporate those
which help students “distill meaning from their studies and connect what they are learning from
their courses to their lives outside the classroom” (p. 50). Additionally, five factors are affirmed
as determinants for student success for administrators, faculty, and staff to consider in
programming and practice; three are of particular relevance to student engagement:
1. Academic and social support—when students sense their campus is meeting
their academic needs through study and academic skills programs and
opportunities for social interaction; they are more satisfied and tend to
participate in various educationally purposeful activities at higher levels.
2. Involvement in the “right” kinds of activities—when students devote more
time and effort to educationally purposeful activities (a major component of
the engagement construct), they are more likely to persist and otherwise
benefit from the college experience.
3. Goal realization—when students find their studies personally meaningful,
comprehend the relevance of what they are learning, and are able to apply at
least some of what they are learning to some aspects of their lives they
consider important, they are more likely to persist and be satisfied with their
college experience. (Kuh, 2016, p. 51).
ADJUNCT FACULTY ENGAGEMENT
37
Particular connections can be made to the influence of the adjunct faculty member in
students’ goal realization, as many hold full-time jobs in their respective industries and bring to
the classroom a set of highly valued skills, abilities, and talents (Levin et al., 2006; Jacobs,
1998). Students seeking to gain new skills, credentials, and or transfer to a four-year institution,
will benefit first-hand from the adjunct faculty member who is also a practitioner, in connecting
what is being learned in the classroom to out-of-classroom real world experiences. The
connection facilitated by adjunct faculty in this type of scenario can prove powerful and impact
relatedness.
Adjunct Faculty Relatedness
The final need within the sphere of SDT is relatedness. Relatedness is closely tied to
relationships with others and the desire to feel connected, supported, and cared for (Ryan &
Deci, 2002). The collaboration needed to address the changing demands of the classroom and
students served impact adjunct faculty in the way they are engaged with the institution and the
students. Participation in decision-making and engagement in campus culture has the potential
to impact adjunct faculty feelings of support and overall engagement in their work and needed
institutional change.
Institutional Culture and Governance
Community colleges each have their own distinct culture, which often reflects the needs
of the surrounding area in which they are housed. Moreover, programs and services may differ
at varying colleges based upon the needs of the surrounding community. Cultural influences
range beyond the external environment to include the internal dynamics of an institution as well.
Research on organizational culture by Tierney (1988) asserts that institutions with similar
missions can still be perceived differently from each other due to the internalized and lived
ADJUNCT FACULTY ENGAGEMENT
38
experiences of their internal and external stakeholders. This occurrence stems from the identities
communicated by organizations in conjunction with employee interpretation. Organizational
culture is also influenced by economic, political, and demographic factors all the while being
internally shaped by the shared assumptions created by its participants. Internally, institutional
values, processes, goals, and history shape culture. Simply stated, an “organization’s
culture is reflected in what is done, how it is done, and who is involved in doing it” (Tierney,
1988, p. 3).
Governance at the community college is more likely to mirror public school governance
in consideration of historical ties to what Cohen and Brawer (2003) note as the junior college
movement. As community colleges are in large part funded through the financial support of
local, state, and federal government sources, their accountability is governed and shaped by the
external and internal influences of these entities. Lau (1996) exhorts community college
governance as the bedrock of decisions shared by district administrators, governing boards, and
appointed faculty. Beyond the community college itself, local articulation agreements with high
schools and other institutions of higher education call for a collaborative approach to decision
making and problem solving in considering all entities involved (Amey, Jessup-Anger, & Jessup-
Anger, 2008; Amey & VanDerLinden, 2002). Levin (1998) states the importance of these
external players and considers the role-played in influencing organizational change.
Additionally, the inherent responsiveness of the community college to the workforce, local
industry, and the communities in which they serve, innately make them more visible and
susceptible to internal and external scrutiny (Amey et al., 2008).
Key stakeholders in the governance process include but are not limited to faculty,
administrators, trustees, union representatives, and students (Amey et al., 2008). When
ADJUNCT FACULTY ENGAGEMENT
39
considering these constituents and the aforementioned external entities, the growing part-time
faculty labor force is creating a challenge for full faculty participation across the community
college system. Amey et al. (2008) reinforces the missing faculty voice in highlighting the
absence of part-time faculty from governance due to limited availability, status in union or
collective bargaining units and overall lack of connection to their respective campuses.
Townsend and Twombly (2007) call for the prioritization of part-time faculty representation
while (Amey et al., 2008) cautions against stereotyping part-time faculty as transient employees
and in converse suggests a thriving constituency in the academic community with long-term
connections to the institution. Kezar (2004) reinforces the importance of leadership in framing
governance and calls for the nurturing of faculty and staff relationships in creating environments
of trust and effective decision-making. Beyond each individual institution, however, several
shared values span across the community college system and serve to shape the role and scope of
the community college and distinguishes the collective body from other institutions of higher
education in light of its focus on “open access, comprehensiveness in course and program
offerings, and community building” (Vaughan, 2006, p. 1).
Adjunct Faculty Organizational Engagement
Pugh and Dietz (2008) boded the need to conceptualize employee engagement beyond
the individual analysis to account for changing research and practice at the organizational level
to include “any meaningful unit above the individual level (e.g., work group, store, department)”
(pg. 44). As highlighted in the literature, practitioner results are often measured as a collective;
at the organizational level, and not at the individual level. As asserted by Pugh and Dietz (2008),
ADJUNCT FACULTY ENGAGEMENT
40
language utilized by leadership to gauge success as well as initiate interventions, are increasingly
used to identify organizational characteristics and measure organizational outcomes in contrast to
that of individual employees.
Summary
Adjunct faculty are a growing professoriate of the community college system, yet receive
varying forms of institutional reinforcement in the form of personal finance, academic support,
and access to institutional resources (Lyons, 1999; NCES, 2012; Roueche, Roueche, & Milliron,
1995; Kezar & Sam, 2010). Through the lens of self-determination theory, the inconsistencies
previously mentioned have the potential to impact the basic needs of competence, autonomy, and
relatedness of adjunct faculty members; directly influencing their motivation, well-being, and
willingness to fully engage in their work (Ryan & Deci, 2000a; Christian et al., 2011). A review
of the literature highlights this cohort’s central role in community college student success as well
as the institutional benefits afforded to colleges as a result of their part-time status in the form of
financial savings and scheduling flexibility (Levin et al., 2006; Wagoner, Metcalfe, & Olaore,
2005; Gappa & Leslie, 1993). Collaboratively, the personal experiences resulting from the
aforementioned characteristics impact the overall well-being and work engagement of adjunct
faculty, and impede local and national efforts geared towards student success.
ADJUNCT FACULTY ENGAGEMENT
41
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
Research Design and Methodology
Through the lens of self-determination theory, basic psychological needs stem from the
fulfillment of competence, autonomy, and relatedness (Deci & Ryan, 2000). This theoretical
framework when applied to adjunct faculty at the community college, suggests that an
exploration of institutional experiences can prove insightful in understanding the perceived work
engagement and motivation of this population as instructors and employees. Investigation of this
inquiry warrants a revisiting of the guiding research questions and depiction of the research
design and methodology. This chapter begins with a restatement of the research questions
followed by a discussion of the proposed research methodology, design and justification.
Demographics of the research site are revealed in conjunction with profile data of site
participants. Next, research instruments are discussed along with the permissions granted to
utilize said instruments as appropriate. Finally, a synopsis of plans for quantitative and
qualitative data collection and analysis is discussed with considerations for research validity and
reliability.
Research Questions
The guiding research questions for this study are:
1. To what extent, if any, do institutional teaching experiences within Union West
Community College influence adjunct faculty’s perceived need satisfaction for
autonomy, competence, and relatedness (using The Basic Need Satisfaction at
Work Scale [BNSW-S], Kasser, Davey, & Ryan, 1992) in the workplace?
a) Is there a difference in the perception of
autonomy/competence/relatedness based on discipline?
ADJUNCT FACULTY ENGAGEMENT
42
Hypothesis 1: There is no significant difference in the perception of
autonomy/competence/relatedness of adjunct faculty members based
on discipline (department affiliation).
b) Is there a relationship between the perception of
autonomy/competence/relatedness and length of employment?
Hypothesis 2: There is no significant relationship between the
perception of autonomy/competence/relatedness and length of
employment.
c) Is there a relationship between the perception of
autonomy/competence/relatedness and teaching workload?
Hypothesis 3: There is no significant relationship between the
perception of autonomy/competence/relatedness and teaching
workload.
2. How do institutional practices within Union West Community College
inform the perceived work engagement and motivation of adjunct faculty?
The theoretical framework and research questions guided the researcher to explore and
contribute to the current body of literature related to work engagement from the perspective of
the community college adjunct faculty member. A mixed design will follow the primary-
emphasis, sequential design method, which supports the use of quantitative and qualitative data
used in sequence and with emphasis. According to Creswell (2014) this mixed methods
approach allows for either quantitative or qualitative results to be integrated into the
interpretation phase following an initial collection and analysis of data from either method. This
approach will prove useful in exploring the construct of work engagement and allowing the data
ADJUNCT FACULTY ENGAGEMENT
43
from each method to prove complementary in the final analysis. This is especially helpful given
the challenges, which often arise in collecting data from adjunct faculty members due to their
competing responsibilities and varying schedules (Kezar, 2011). A synopsis of the research
study is highlighted in the Research Study Matrix to include the guiding research questions;
theoretical foundation, data analysis, and instrumentation (see Appendix G).
Mixed Methods Research
Mixed methods research is a relatively new, yet powerful tool of inquiry in examining
both quantitative and qualitative data collaboratively to address problems of practice within
higher education and traditional social and behavioral science research (Tashakkori & Teddlie,
2006). The mixed methods approach is undergirded by the assumption that quantitative and
qualitative methodology used in compliment to each other provide the researcher a more holistic
understanding of a problem than either approach used alone (Creswell, 2014). Utilization of this
approach also tackles potential limitations of each methodology used independently, while
maximizing the outcome of the combined strengths of each design type (Creswell, 2014; Johnson
& Turner, 2003). Examination using mixed methodology involves the collection of open-ended
(qualitative) and closed-ended (quantitative) data which can be collected concurrently or
sequentially, then analyzed, validated, and interpreted in efforts to provide a robust response to a
particular set of research question(s) (Creswell, 2014; Johnson & Christensen, 2014).
Design Rationale
A qualitatively driven design was utilized following the conceptual model outlined in the
mixed methods design matrix (Johnson & Christensen, 2014; Morse, 1991; Morgan, 2014)
incorporating the dimensions of time orientation (references the concurrent or sequential
collection of quantitative or qualitative data) and paradigm (research-approach) emphasis
ADJUNCT FACULTY ENGAGEMENT
44
(references the emphasis given to quantitative or qualitative data). As depicted in Figure 1, the
design matrix provides a visual construct of the researchers intended research emphasis and
sequence in the collection of data. Common mixed methods notations (symbols) are used to
denote high (capital letters) or low (lower case letters) priority and weight given to the type of
design selected (Morse, 1991). Morse (1991) notes, the letters qual or QUAL stand for
qualitative research, while the letters quan or QUAN stand for quantitative research.
Additionally, a plus sign (+) represents a concurrent collection of data, while an arrow (®)
represents a sequential collection of data (Morse, 1991; Johnson & Christensen, p. 496).
Paradigm
Emphasis
Decision
Equal Status
Dominant
Status
Time Order Decision
Concurrent Sequential
QUAL + QUAN
QUAL ®QUAN
QUAN®QUAL
QUAL + quan
QUAN + qual
QUAL®quan
qual®QUAN
QUAN®qual
quan®QUAL
Figure 1. Mixed methods design matrix. Adapted from Educational research: Quantitative,
qualitative, and mixed approaches (p. 497), by R. B. Johnson, B. R., & L. Christensen, (2014).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Copyright 2014 by SAGE Publications, Inc.
This two-phase study will follow the primary-emphasis, sequential design listed in
quadrant four; denoted in Figure 1, as (quan® QUAL) which indicates an emphasis of the
qualitative paradigm, sequentially following the quantitative phase of the study. Data will be
collected an analyzed in two phases allowing for convergence between quantitative and
qualitative data in exploration of the stated research questions and variables under investigation.
ADJUNCT FACULTY ENGAGEMENT
45
In phase one, quantitative data will be collected in the form of an online survey using the Basic
Need Satisfaction at Work Scale, BNSW-S (Kasser et al., 1992) (see Appendix A) to measure
the perceived need satisfaction for autonomy, competence, and relatedness of adjunct faculty in
the workplace. Phase two will be qualitative in approach and seek to explore the perceived work
engagement and motivation of adjunct faculty within Union West Community College
(pseudonym) through personal interviews.
Research Site and Participants
Classified by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching (2016), Union
West is a large public suburban institution, which grants both associate’s degrees and
certificates. Although total student enrollment as of Fall 2014 was approximately 21,000; the
majority of students attend the institution on a part-time basis totaling 14,520 (NCES, 2014).
Student demographics suggest the institution is classified as a Hispanic-Serving Institution
(HSI), with Hispanic students comprising 68% of the student enrolment (NCES, 2014; U.S.
Department of Education). Additionally, 66% of Union West’s student body is 24 years of age
and under with a retention rate of first-time undergraduate students at 63% (NCES, 2014).
IPEDS (2014) data (see Table 1) of Union West mirrors the current literature emphasizing the
majority of instructional staff is contingent and employed on a part-time basis at 68% of the total
faculty population.
Table 1
Full-and part-time staff by primary occupational category at UWCC, Fall Term 2014
Occupational Category Total Full-time Part-time
All staff 1144 588 556
Instructional Staff 793 255 538
Note: Adapted from IPEDS Data Feedback Reports
ADJUNCT FACULTY ENGAGEMENT
46
Participants for the research study will be selected exclusively based upon their
occupational category as part-time instructional staff at Union West Community College. For
the quantitative phase of the study, faculty identified as part-time will be invited to complete an
online survey instrument using Qualtrics. The survey instrument will house initial demographic
questions, followed by the BNSW-S to measure levels of perceived autonomy, competence, and
relatedness in the work domain. Opening instructions in the BNSW-S will ask participants to
respond to the questions in reflection to feelings associated with their job in the past year or total
duration of their employment if less than a year.
A convenience sample amongst the 538 part-time instructional staff will serve as a viable
sampling method in the quantitative exploration of the study and will allow data to be collected
from adjunct faculty with consideration for their time, and availability; as many part-time faculty
members teach at multiple institutions and have competing responsibilities in the private sector
(AAUP, 2016; Gappa, Austin, & Trice, 2007; Eagan & Jaeger, 2008; Kezar & Sam, 2011).
Limitations of this sampling method include the inability to generalize findings; it can serve as
an alternative method when external factors limit the researcher’s ability to create a random
sample (Creswell, 2014; Weiss, 1995). An instructional leader will facilitate the dissemination
of the Qualtrics survey link to all active adjunct faculty members at UWCC as the researcher will
not have access to adjunct faculty contact information. Concluding the BNSW-S, participants
will be invited indicate their interest in participating in personal interviews for the qualitative
phase of the study. The qualitative exploration of the study will focus on a smaller sample size
of approximately 8-10 adjunct faculty members, selected from respondents indicating interest on
the survey instrument.
ADJUNCT FACULTY ENGAGEMENT
47
Instrumentation and Permissions
Permission was requested by means of email to founding SDT theorists; Edward L. Deci
and Richard M. Ryan to adopt the pre-existing survey instrument BNSW-S within the research
study for academic (non-commercial) purposes only. The BNSW-S is one of three scales within
the Basic Psychological Needs Scale, which assesses basic psychological needs in general, in
one’s interpersonal relations and in the workplace. For the purpose of this research study, the
BNSW-S was selected as the most appropriate scale to address the research questions posed in
large part due to the instruments Cronbach’s alpha which is .73, .84, and .79 for data collected in
the subscale areas of competence, relatedness, and autonomy respectively (Deci, Ryan, Gagné,
Leone, Usunov, and Ryan, 2001). Cronbach alpha provides reliability scoring for the internal
consistency of scales and is recommended when using multiple items to form a scaled score
(Kaplan, 1982; Peterson, 1994). Scores for this instrument are within the acceptable range for
the social sciences which is typically 0.7 or 0.8 (Peterson, 1994). After the data is collected from
the administered BNSW-S, the researcher will run a Cronbach alpha on the collected scales as
part of the data analysis and overall measure of reliability.
The Basic Need Satisfaction at Work Scale (Appendix A) will be used in the first phase
of the study to quantitatively assess the three variables of competence, autonomy, and
relatedness at work, of adjunct faculty members at UWCC. Designed by Kasser et al. (1992),
this instrument consists of 21-items measured using a Likert scale, ranging from “not at all true”
(1) to “very true” (7). To facilitate the delivery of the instrument to the target population,
questions from the BNSW-S will be transferred to online survey software; Qualtrics, designed
for ease of respondent use and management by the researcher in retrieving desired data
(Qualtrics LLC, 2016). In an effort to identify potential relationships between adjunct faculty
ADJUNCT FACULTY ENGAGEMENT
48
work engagement and discipline, length of employment, and or work course load, addendum
questions (see Appendix C) were added to the beginning of the BNSW-S for depth and clarity of
the survey demographics. The supplemental questions were designed to collect data across
respondents related to age, gender, ethnicity, education, course load, and academic department
affiliation.
The second phase of the study incorporates a qualitative approach by using in-depth semi
structured interviews to collect additional respondent data. The interview protocol (Appendix D)
was designed under the guide of the SDT theoretical framework to pose open-ended questions
aimed at understanding the three basic psychological needs of autonomy, competence, and
relatedness in the work environment of adjunct faculty at UWCC. Yin (2014) asserts the
importance of this method of inquiry in establishing conversation flow and rapport. Guided by
the primary-emphasis, sequential design, the use of personal interviews following the BNSW-S
survey instrument ensures the quantitative data collected will be corroborated by the thick rich
descriptions afforded by qualitative data (Creswell, 2014).
Data Collection
This study implores two methods of data collection in the form of: Surveys and in-depth
interviews. Commonly used to collect rich data, the utilization of both quantitative and
qualitative data provides for a holistic and robust analysis (Merriam, 2009). When seeking data
on work engagement, surveys can often provide limited data, however, they can prove
complementary in conjunction with hosted interviews to gather data on the perspectives of
adjunct faculty beyond the immediate reach of in-person interviews (Kadlec & Rowlett, 2014,
Yin, 2009). Thach (1995) outlines the use of electronic surveys and highlights this mode of
delivery as inexpensive and flexible for needed edits. Additionally, the use of electronic surveys
ADJUNCT FACULTY ENGAGEMENT
49
versus paper surveys may in some instances increase the response rate (Thach, 1995). The use of
qualitative interviews will add depth to the data collected and incorporate the experiences of
adjunct faculty in their own words (Merriam, 2009). Furthermore, qualitative data provides a
platform for emerging variables and variations in phenomenon, otherwise unavailable to
quantitative exclusive research (Weiss, 1995).
Data Analysis
Data collected from the BNSW-S will be analyzed to determine to what extent, if any, do
institutional teaching experiences within Union West Community College influence adjunct
faculty’s perceived need satisfaction for autonomy, competence, and relatedness in the
workplace. An initial Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) will be conducted in SPSS to determine if
statistical mean differences exist in the perceived need scores of autonomy, competence, and
relatedness in adjunct faculty by discipline (department affiliations) at UWCC. Within this
analysis, discipline will serve as the independent variable while need perception for autonomy,
competence, and relatedness will each serve as a dependent variable. In an effort to address the
posed research question, the researcher chose an ANOVA for its resource in determining if
differences exist between two or more groups on one dependent variable (Creswell, 2014). A
second analysis will be performed on the data set to determine if a relationship exists between
adjunct faculty need perception scores of autonomy, competence, and relatedness with
consideration for length of employment and teaching workload. In an effort to explain if a
relationship exists, an ordered logistic regression will be used to analyze the data provided for in
the length of employment and teaching workload categories. This method is suggested by
Menard (1997) to be the ideal analysis method for ordered data, specifically when the data set
includes ordinal variables. In this case, the dependent variables are both length of employment
ADJUNCT FACULTY ENGAGEMENT
50
and teaching workload. Used in conjunction with qualitative data, trends may emerge and
contribute to the overall narrative of the adjunct faculty member engagement experience.
Data collected from the in-depth interviews will be analyzed using the Constant
Comparative Method (Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Strauss & Corbin, 1999). As an additional check
and balance, the researcher will ensure follow-up with all respondents for member checks to
ensure the interpretation of the information was as intended to be shared ensuring reliability of
the data (Merriam, 2009). In contrast to the quantitative analysis, data analyzed from the
interviews will focus on interpretation and integration (Weiss, 1995). Prior to data collection a
list of a priori codes will be created as a result of the conceptual framework, current literature
and the research questions. This set of pre-set codes will serve as a starting point in the coding
process and a precursor to emerging concepts from the data to include themes and relationships
(Merriam, 2009). Following a review of the data, open coding will be used to identify broad
categories, then axial coding to further identify groupings from coded data and finally selective
coding to reveal key emergent themes (Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Strauss & Corbin, 1990).
Validity and Reliability
Concerted efforts in the administration of this research study to account for external and
internal validity and reliability will be sought. Merriam (2009) further suggests that reliability in
a qualitative study is supported by systematic procedures of data analysis and the check and
balance between data collected and the accuracy of results displayed. Merriam (2009) espouses
several strategies designed to assist qualitative researchers in their quest to create studies, which
are credible and trustworthy. Of the strategies recommended, two specific techniques to address
internal validity, external validity, and external reliability will be accounted for. The first
strategy will involve the transcription and review of the qualitative interview data. Following
ADJUNCT FACULTY ENGAGEMENT
51
data collection, the content will be carefully scrutinized for emerging themes using the Constant
Comparative Method (Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Strauss & Corbin, 1990). To account for internal
validity, emergent themes associated with data analysis, will be shared with respondents for
member checks and validation (Merriam, 2009). Additionally, triangulation in gathering data
from multiple methods (surveys and interviews) was incorporated into the research design. The
researcher will be mindful to collect “rich thick descriptions” to account for external validity.
Johnson and Christensen (2014) highlight the opportunity for qualitative methods to capture rich
descriptions, which include but are not limited to the values, opinions, behaviors, and emotions
of study participants. This will not only assist in the analysis of data, but also contributes to
baseline content for future study. Chapter Four outlines the context of the study, discusses
participant demographics, and presents both the results and analysis of the quantitative and
qualitative data collected.
ADJUNCT FACULTY ENGAGEMENT
52
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS
Context of Study
The research emphasis of this mixed methods study was highlighted in Chapter Three to
include the use of both quantitative and qualitative data to address the research questions aimed
at exploring the perceived work engagement of adjunct faculty members at the community
college level. In their roles as employee and instructor, the framework of this study was guided
by Self-Determination Theory to examine the perceived competence, autonomy, and relatedness,
of adjunct faculty, from their own vantage point, within Union West Community College.
Chapter Four presents the findings of this research which was collected by means of an
electronic survey of adjunct faculty at UWCC using the Basic Need Satisfaction at Work Scale
questionnaire and subsequent, in-depth interviews. Survey data was analyzed in SPSS using two
methods: ANOVA and ordered logistic regression as appropriate for the data and research
question addressed. Chapter four outlines the survey response data, data collection procedures
by methodology, participant demographics, quantitative analysis results and qualitative findings.
With the aforementioned purpose in mind, a primary-emphasis, sequential study design
(Johnson & Christensen, 2014; Morse, 1991; Morgan, 2014; Creswell, 2014) necessitated a two
phase gathering of both quantitative and qualitative data with prominence given to the qualitative
data in the second phase of the collection process. After obtaining approval from the
Institutional Review Board of the University of Southern California and Union West College, an
introductory email was sent exclusively to all active, part-time instructional staff with an
invitation to participate in the research study. The study invitation was disseminated through an
institutional email list to 200 adjunct faculty members at UWCC by an instructional leader on the
researcher’s behalf. Fifty-two adjunct faculty members responded to the online survey, and 148
ADJUNCT FACULTY ENGAGEMENT
53
adjunct faculty members did not respond to the online survey, resulting in a 26% response rate.
To foster confidence in the survey results, the researcher pursued efforts in the survey design,
communication, and ease of access, to yield response rates in range of the average response rate
for online surveys at 32.6% (Creswell, 2014; Watt, Simpson, McKillop & Nunn, 2002).
Additionally, a reminder email was sent through the institutional email list to adjunct faculty to
increase participation.
Quantitative Data Collection
Quantitative data was collected using an online Qualtrics survey and included an
adaptation of the BNSW-S questionnaire (Kasser et al., 1992) preceded by a series of
demographic questions. A total of eight demographic questions were posed in the beginning of
the survey to include: gender, race/ethnicity, age, level of education, hours spent teaching on
campus, length of employment at UWCC, and academic department affiliation. This series of
questions was followed by a 21-item, seven-point Likert scale (1= not at all true, 5= very true)
incorporated into the BNSW-S. The mean score of the 52 respondents for the BNSW-S is 4.12
with a standard deviation of 2.25. Although the BNSW-S survey content was not altered from its
original scale, the Cronbach’s alpha for the annotated scale was 0.61, lower than desired, yet
common within exploratory research (Hair et al., 2006). The closing question of the survey
extended an invitation for interested adjunct faculty to participate in a follow-up interview and
sought their interest in being contacted by the researcher. As a result of this request the
researcher conducted eight follow-up interviews to collect qualitative data as part of the study.
Qualitative Data Collection
Qualitative data was collected through the use of in-depth interviews of eight adjunct
faculty members who indicated on the initial online survey, that they were interested in being
ADJUNCT FACULTY ENGAGEMENT
54
contacted for a follow-up interview. All participant interviews were voluntary and took place at
a location convenient to the faculty member. Interviews were semi-structured and provided the
researcher with the opportunity to collect descriptive data on the institutional practices within
UWCC that influence the perceived work engagement and motivation of said adjunct faculty.
The mixed methodology approach implored in this chapter is framed with an opening
discussion of participating adjunct faculty demographics, followed by a presentation of
quantitative analysis of the Basic Need Satisfaction at Work Scale responses and concluded with
an analysis of the qualitative data provided in the in-depth interviews. Data is presented in the
order it was collected and is aligned with the research questions as they appear in the study.
Used collaboratively, the researcher aimed to address the following research questions:
1. To what extent, if any, do institutional teaching experiences within Union West
Community College influence adjunct faculty’s perceived need satisfaction for
autonomy, competence, and relatedness in the workplace?
a) Is there a difference in the perception of
autonomy/competence/relatedness based on discipline?
Hypothesis 1: There is no significant difference in the perception of
autonomy/competence/relatedness of adjunct faculty members based
on discipline (department affiliation).
b) Is there a relationship between the perception of
autonomy/competence/relatedness and length of employment?
Hypothesis 2: There is no significant relationship between the
perception of autonomy/competence/relatedness and length of
employment.
ADJUNCT FACULTY ENGAGEMENT
55
c) Is there a relationship between the perception of
autonomy/competence/relatedness and teaching workload?
Hypothesis 3: There is no significant relationship between the
perception of autonomy/competence/relatedness and teaching
workload.
2. How do institutional practices within Union West Community College inform the
perceived work engagement and motivation of adjunct faculty?
Description of Participants
A description of the adjunct faculty who participated in the quantitative phase of this
study reflect a pool of faculty with a diverse range in gender, race and ethnicity, age, educational
attainment, employment characteristics, and academic affiliation as is represented in the
literature. Figure 2 illustrates gender participation of male and female adjunct faculty as self-
identified by survey participants. Of the 52 survey participants, 67% (35) self-identified as
female whereas 33% (17) self-identified as male; highlighting the majority of the survey
respondents were female.
ADJUNCT FACULTY ENGAGEMENT
56
Figure 2. UWCC Basic Need Satisfaction at Work Scale (BNSW-S) survey respondents by
gender.
When asked to self-identify by race and or ethnicity, 9.62% (n=5) of survey participants
did not identify with any of the descriptors as presented; including 1 respondent who preferred
the classification of “Human” and another respondent who self-identified as Middle Eastern.
Results indicate three respondents chose not to respond to the race/ethnicity question entirely,
and consistently did not provide an alternate designation in the race/ethnicity category. Of the
adjunct faculty who chose to answer the race/ethnicity demographic question, 76% stated either
Hispanic/Latino or White; followed by 15% Asian/Pacific Islander, 4% African-
American/Black, and 4% Multiracial (Figure 3).
ADJUNCT FACULTY ENGAGEMENT
57
Figure 3. UWCC Basic Need Satisfaction at Work Scale (BNSW-S) survey respondents by
race/ethnicity.
Figure 3 highlights the age distribution of the adjunct faculty members surveyed. Results
indicate the majority of adjunct faculty respondents are between the ages of 30 and 59 years of
age with 90% over the age of thirty. When asked to designate their level of education, all
adjunct faculty members reported having at least a master’s degree, while 13.46% reported to
holding a doctoral degree. When disaggregated by age and educational attainment, results
signify 85.71% of the adjunct faculty members who hold doctoral degrees fall within the age
distribution ranges of 30-39 and 60 or older, respectively (Figure 5).
ADJUNCT FACULTY ENGAGEMENT
58
Figure 4. UWCC Basic Need Satisfaction at Work Scale (BNSW-S) survey respondents age
distribution.
Figure 5. UWCC adjunct faculty educational attainment by age distribution.
Hours spent teaching on campus varied across participating adjunct faculty members.
Faculty members were prompted to include their preparation and grading time into the selected
response when considering their hours per week. Table 2 reveals the majority of adjunct faculty
members teach 11-20 hours per week. An equal number of responses were recorded for adjunct
ADJUNCT FACULTY ENGAGEMENT
59
faculty who teach either 1-10 hours per week or 21-30 hours per week. Results indicated 5.77%
of the faculty members teach primarily online and therefore reported their time as (none) in
response to the survey question. Overall the survey results highlight 67.31% of participating
adjunct faculty teach more than 10 hours a week.
Table 2
Adjunct faculty hours spent teaching courses on campus
Hours/Week
NONE*
1-10 11-20 21-30 30+ TOTAL
Number Of
Adjunct
Faculty
3 14 15 14 6 52
% Of
Adjunct
Faculty
5.77 26.92 28.85 26.92 11.54 100
Note. Hours spent teaching to include preparation and grading time.
* None indicates teaching hours that took place primarily online and do not reflect time taught
teaching on campus.
Table 3 highlights the length of employment at UWCC for all adjunct faculty members
surveyed. Over half (57.69%) of the adjunct faculty at UWCC have been teaching between 1 to
6 years. Although 9.62% of adjunct faculty members have been teaching less than 7 months, the
median length of employment is 10 or more years. Currently 26.92% of the respondents have
taught at the institution at least 10 years or more. Reviewed across the range of employment
lengths, the survey data reveals 86.54% of the adjunct faculty examined, have been teaching at
least one year.
ADJUNCT FACULTY ENGAGEMENT
60
Table 3
Adjunct faculty length of employment at UWCC
Term Of
Employment
0-6 MO. 7-12 MO. 1-3 YRS. 4-6 YRS. 7-9 YRS. 10+ YRS. TOTAL
Number Of
Adjunct
Faculty
5 2 15 15 1 14 52
% Of
Adjunct
Faculty
9.62 3.85 28.85 28.85 1.91 26.92 100
Adjunct faculty survey participation was representative across all academic departments
at UWCC with the exception of the the categorization of Technology. According to survey
results, the largest response was led by the Humanities/Social Sciences department at 23% of
survey respondents, followed by Liberal Arts, Business Education, and Health Occupations.
Combined, these four departments account for 66% of the participating adjunct faculty.
Although the category of technology was not indicated as an affiliate department by participants,
three additional categories were indicated by adjunct faculty in the “Other” category to account
for the addition of Counseling, Library Sciences, and Philosophy as indicated in Figure 6.
Figure 6. UWCC adjunct faculty academic department affiliation.
ADJUNCT FACULTY ENGAGEMENT
61
Phase I: Quantitative Research Questions
To what extent, if any, do institutional teaching experiences within Union West
Community College influence adjunct faculty’s perceived need satisfaction for autonomy,
competence, and relatedness in the workplace?
Competence. Six questions on the BNSW-S survey were categorized within the
subscale of competence. Within this subset of questions, the percentages at which participants
selected “Not at all True,” “Somewhat True” and “Very True” are illustrated in Table 4.
Participants were asked to preface each of the provided statements in this category with “when I
am at work,” therefore forming a complete question. An equal amount (71.15%) of adjunct
faculty responded to the statements I do not feel very competent when I am at work and When I
am working I often do not feel very capable, within the scale option of not at all true. Results of
the highlighted Likert scale options indicate the lowest percentage (0%) of the very true scale
selection is reflected in the response to the following 3 questions: (a) I do not feel very competent
when I am at work; (b) On my job I do not get much of a chance to show how capable I am, and
(c) When I am working I often do not feel very capable. Comparably, none of the adjunct faculty
selected not at all true for the question Most days I feel a sense of accomplishment from working.
ADJUNCT FACULTY ENGAGEMENT
62
Table 4
Survey
Statement
Item #
Percent of AF Response to Competence Questions
Not at all True Somewhat True Very True
I do not feel very
competent when I
am at work.
3(R)
71.15% 3.85% 0%
People at work
tell me I am good
at what I do.
4
9.62% 23.08% 25%
I have been able
to learn
interesting new
skills on my job.
10
1.92% 13.46% 30.77%
Most days I feel a
sense of
accomplishment
from working.
12
0% 1.92% 40.38%
On my job I do
not get much of a
chance to show
how capable I
am.
14(R)
46.15% 11.54% 0%
When I am
working I often
do not feel very
capable.
19(R)
71.15% 1.92% 0%
Autonomy. Seven questions on the BNSW-S survey were categorized within the
subscale of autonomy. Within this subset of questions, the percentages at which participants
selected “Not at all True,” “Somewhat True” and “Very True” are illustrated in Table 5.
Participants were asked to preface each of the provided statements in this category with “when I
am at work,” therefore forming a complete question. Of the 52 adjunct faculty surveyed, 30
(57.69%) provided the choice of not at all true as their response to the question There is not
much opportunity for me to decide for myself how to go about my work. When indicating how
true the statement When I am at work, I have to do what I am told, 17.31% stated this was not at
all true, while 36% stated this was somewhat true or very true. None of the adjunct faculty
ADJUNCT FACULTY ENGAGEMENT
63
respondents indicated this statement as very true. Relatedly, when adjunct faculty were asked to
indicate how true they felt the statement “I feel pressured at work,” was to them 59.62% (n=31)
indicated this statement was not at all true. Within the highlighted Likert-type scale options, the
lowest selection of 1.92% is reflected in the very true response to the, I feel pressured at work
question.
Table 5
Survey
Statement
Item #
Percent of AF Response to Autonomy Questions
Not at all True Somewhat True Very True
I feel like I can
make a lot of
inputs to deciding
how my job gets
done.
1 3.85% 26.92% 36.54%
I feel pressured
at work.
5(R) 59.62% 17.31% 1.92%
I am free to
express my ideas
and opinions on
the job.
8 9.62% 26.92% 23.08%
When I am at
work, I have to
do what I am
told.
11(R) 17.31% 28.85% 7.69%
My feelings are
taken into
consideration at
work.
13 15.38% 30.77% 17.31%
I feel like I can
pretty much be
myself at work.
17 7.69% 9.62% 36.54%
There is not much
opportunity for
me to decide for
myself how to go
about my work.
20(R) 57.69% 11.54% 0%
Note. Results exclude responses in between Likert-type scale ratings. Numbers with (R) next to
them annotate a negatively phrased question.
ADJUNCT FACULTY ENGAGEMENT
64
Relatedness. Eight questions on the BNSW-S survey were categorized within the
subscale of relatedness. Within this subset of questions, the percentages at which participants
selected “Not at all True,” “Somewhat True” and “Very True” are illustrated in Table 6.
Participants were asked to preface each of the provided statements in this category with “when I
am at work,” therefore forming a complete question. In the relatedness category of questions,
53.85% (n=28) quantified the question as very true when asked to respond to the question I get
along with people at work.
Of the adjunct faculty surveyed, over 59% picked either somewhat true or very true to the
inquiry I really like the people I work with. Correspondingly 46.15% indicated people at work
are pretty friendly towards me. When asked a similar question worded in the negative, 30 out of
52 (57.69%) adjunct faculty stated not at all true to the question The people I work with do not
seem to like me much. In contrast, none of the respondents indicated a reply of very true to this
question. Of all of the three subscale categories (autonomy, competence, and relatedness),
relatedness had the greatest instances of a 0% response rate to the not at all true scale selection.
The four questions representing this percentage are: (a) I really like the people I work with; (b) I
get along with people at work; (c) People at work care about me, and (d) People at work are
pretty friendly towards me.
ADJUNCT FACULTY ENGAGEMENT
65
Table 6
Survey Statement
Item #
Percent of AF Response to Relatedness Questions
Not at all True Somewhat True Very True
I really like the
people I work with.
2
0% 21.15% 38.46%
I get along with
people at work.
6
0% 13.46% 53.85%
I pretty much keep
to myself when I
am at work.
7(R)
9.62% 21.15% 25%
I consider the
people I work with
to be my friends.
9
15.38% 25% 13.46%
People at work
care about me.
15
0% 19.23% 32.69%
There are not
many people at
work that I am
close to.
16(R)
13.46% 19.23% 9.62%
The people I work
with do not seem
to like me much.
18 (R)
57.69% 1.92% 0%
People at work are
pretty friendly
towards me.
21
0% 15.38% 46.15%
Discipline
Phase one of the quantitative data analysis sought to answer the researcher’s first
question posed in the study: Is there a difference in the perception of autonomy/competence/
relatedness based on discipline? Table 7 outlines pertinent descriptive statistics of the sample
for competency, including the mean and standard deviation for each of the eight disciplines
(departments) examined. The results of the analysis of variance conducted on the element of
competence by adjunct faculty discipline were evaluated using a level of significance (α): .05.
Results of the ANOVA are presented in Table 8 indicating a p-value = .926, which is greater
ADJUNCT FACULTY ENGAGEMENT
66
than α = .05, therefore we reject the null hypothesis. Interpretation of this analysis concludes
there is a significant difference in the competency score of adjunct faculty across discipline
(department).
Table 7
Descriptive Statistics for Competency Scores by Discipline
Department Mean ± SE
Business Education -.3542 ± .212
Counseling -.3333 ± .585
Fine Arts & communication -.6250 ± .080
Health Occupations -.5556 ± .226
Health, Physical Education, Athletics & Dance -.0556 ± .389
Humanities/Social Sciences -.3889 ± .202
Liberal Arts -.2222 ± .241
Science, Engineering & Mathematics -.2500 ± .198
Total -.3571 ± .088
Table 8
Table 9 outlines pertinent descriptive statistics of the autonomy sample, including the
mean and standard deviation for each of the eight disciplines (departments) examined. The
results of the analysis of variance conducted on the element of autonomy by adjunct faculty
discipline were evaluated using a level of significance (α): .05. Results of the ANOVA are
presented in Table 10 indicating a p-value = .313, which is greater than α = .05, therefore we
reject the null hypothesis. Interpretation of this analysis concludes there is a significant
difference in the autonomy score of adjunct faculty across discipline (department).
Analysis of Variance results for Competency Scores
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Between Groups 1.020 7 .146 .348 .926
Within Groups 17.147 41 .418
Total 18.167 48
ADJUNCT FACULTY ENGAGEMENT
67
Table 9
Descriptive Statistics for Autonomy Scores by Discipline
Department Mean ± SE
Business Education .8571 ± .200
Counseling .3810 ± .208
Fine Arts & communication -.1071 ± .135
Health Occupations .5476 ± .140
Health, Physical Education, Athletics & Dance .9048 ± .372
Humanities/Social Sciences .4742 ± .217
Liberal Arts .4444 ± .246
Science, Engineering & Mathematics .3929 ± .147
Total .5068 ± .088
Table 10
Analysis of Variance results for Autonomy Scores
Sum of
Squares
df Mean Square F Sig.
Between Groups 3.122 7 .446 1.223 .313
Within Groups 14.953 41 .365
Total 18.075 48
Table 11 outlines pertinent descriptive statistics of the relatedness sample, including the
mean and standard deviation for each of the eight disciplines (departments) examined. The
results of the analysis of variance conducted on the element of relatedness by adjunct faculty
discipline were evaluated using a level of significance (α): .05. Results of the ANOVA are
presented in Table 12 indicating a p-value = .949, which is greater than α = .05, therefore we
reject the null hypothesis. Interpretation of this analysis concludes there is a significant
difference in the relatedness score of adjunct faculty across discipline (department).
ADJUNCT FACULTY ENGAGEMENT
68
Table 11
Descriptive Statistics for Relatedness Scores by Discipline
Department Mean ± SE
Business Education 1.8594 ± .241
Counseling 1.6667 ± .363
Fine Arts & communication 1.5000 ± .372
Health Occupations 1.6250 ± .289
Health, Physical Education, Athletics & Dance 1.7917 ± .292
Humanities/Social Sciences 1.5625 ± .265
Liberal Arts 1.8889 ± .201
Science, Engineering & Mathematics 1.5313 ± .094
Total 1.6913 ± .097
Table 12
Analysis of Variance results for Relatedness Scores
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Between Groups 1.084 7 .155 .302 .949
Within Groups 21.044 41 .513
Total 22.128 48
In summary, scores across discipline (department) were analyzed using an ANOVA for
competence, autonomy, and relatedness. Across all data analyzed the null was rejected in within
each sub score indicating a significant difference in scores across adjunct faculty at UWCC. The
final set of quantitative data was analyzed to determine if a relationship exists in the perception
of autonomy, competence, and relatedness in consideration (independently) for both length of
employment and teaching workload. The length of adjunct faculty employment was investigated
first using an ordered logistics regression analysis.
Length of employment
The next question the researcher pursued in the quantitative data analysis was: Is there a
relationship between the perception of autonomy/competence/relatedness and length of
ADJUNCT FACULTY ENGAGEMENT
69
employment? Survey participants were asked to select their length of employment (Appendix C)
at UWCC; categorized at a minimum duration of (0-6 months) to a maximum length of (10 or
more years). Although the collected data for length of employment was ordinal, for the purpose
of the data analysis performed in SPSS, the independent variables of autonomy, competence and
relatedness were treated as continuous. Table 13 specifies the continuous variable information
along with minimum and maximum levels of the three scores, individual score means and
standard deviations.
Table 13
Ordered Logic Regression-Continuous Variable Information- Length of Employment
N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation
Covariate
AUTONOMY 49 -1.14 1.86 .5214 .66837
COMPETENCE 49 -1.83 1.00 -.3912 .60146
RELATEDNESS 49 -.13 2.75 1.6531 .68763
Creswell (2014) differentiates ordinal data from nominal data as it is characterized by a
ranking from highest to lowest. An ordered logistic regression served as the data analysis
method to predict if the independent variables of autonomy, competence, and relatedness scores
have a statistically significant effect on the prediction of the dependent variable of length of
employment, therefore determining a relationship. Data from the goodness-of-fit test is recorded
in Table 14, representing the attempt of the ordered logistic regression method to determine the
most appropriately fitting probability equation (Burns and Burns, 2008).
ADJUNCT FACULTY ENGAGEMENT
70
Table 14
Goodness of Fit
a
Value df Value/df
Deviance 128.371 141 .910
Scaled Deviance 128.371 141
Pearson Chi-Square 146.319 141 1.038
Scaled Pearson Chi-Square 146.319 141
Log Likelihood
b
-64.185
Akaike's Information Criterion (AIC) 140.371
Finite Sample Corrected AIC (AICC) 142.371
Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC) 151.722
Consistent AIC (CAIC) 157.722
Dependent Variable: Length of Employment
Model: (Threshold), Autn, Comptd, Reltd
a. Information criteria are in small-is-better form.
b. The full log likelihood function is displayed and used in computing
information criteria.
The Omnibus Test result in Table 15 checks for the overall significance of the fitted
model containing the independent variables over the thresholds-only model, it shows that the
model with independent variables is not statistically different nor has an improvement over the
thresholds-only model in the prediction of length of employment, χ
2
(3) = .557, p = .906.
Table 15
Omnibus Test
a
Likelihood Ratio
Chi-Square
df Sig.
.557 3 .906
Dependent Variable: Length of Employment
Model: (Threshold), Autn, Comptd, Reltd
a. Compares the fitted model against the
thresholds-only model.
ADJUNCT FACULTY ENGAGEMENT
71
With confirmation that the fitted model with independent variables does not make an
improvement over the thresholds-only model, Table 16 demonstrates the Tests of Model Effects
performed. The aforementioned test, checks for contribution of each independent variable in the
model along with its result (with p-values >.05). This analysis reveals that none of the
independent variables contribute significantly in the prediction of length of employment.
Parameter estimates are outlined in Table 17.
Table 16
Ordered Logic Regression-Tests of Model Effects
Source Type III
Wald Chi-Square df Sig.
Autn .176 1 .675
Comptd .000 1 .987
Reltd .548 1 .459
Dependent Variable: Length of Employment
Model: (Threshold), Autn, Comptd, Reltd
Table 17
Ordered Logic Regression-Parameter Estimates
Parameter B Std.
Error
95% Wald
Confidence
Interval
Hypothesis Test
Exp(B)
95% Wald
Confidence
Interval for Exp(B)
Lower Upper Wald Chi-
Square
df Sig. Lower Upper
Threshold
[LOF=1] -2.613 .8744 -4.327 -.899 8.931 1 .003 .073 .013 .407
[LOF=2] -.788 .7751 -2.307 .731 1.033 1 .309 .455 .100 2.078
[LOF=3] .510 .7705 -1.000 2.020 .439 1 .508 1.666 .368 7.542
Autn .198 .4707 -.725 1.120 .176 1 .675 1.219 .484 3.065
Comptd .008 .4793 -.932 .947 .000 1 .987 1.008 .394 2.579
Reltd -.318 .4296 -1.160 .524 .548 1 .459 .728 .313 1.689
(Scale) 1
a
Dependent Variable: Length of Employment
Model: (Threshold), Autn, Comptd, Reltd a. Fixed at the displayed value.
ADJUNCT FACULTY ENGAGEMENT
72
The examined results of the ordered logistic regression on this data set reveal three
outcomes informing the relationship between autonomy, competence, and relatedness and length
of employment:
Autonomy score does not have a statistically significant effect on the prediction of length
of employment, Wald χ
2
(1) = .176, p =.675.
Completeness score does not have a statistically significant effect on the prediction of
length of employment, Wald χ
2
(1) = .000, p =.987.
Relatedness score does not have a statistically significant effect on the prediction of
length of employment, Wald χ
2
(1) = .548, p =.459.
Teaching workload
The final analysis in the collected data was reviewed to determine: Is there a relationship
between perception of autonomy/competence/relatedness and teaching workload? Survey
participants were asked to select the hour spent teaching on campus (Appendix C) at UWCC;
categorized at a minimum amount of (None) indicating they teach primarily online to a
maximum amount of (More than 30 hours/week). Although the collected data for teaching
workload was ordinal, for the purpose of the data analysis performed in SPSS, the independent
variables of autonomy, competence and relatedness were treated as continuous. Table 18
specifies the continuous variable information along with minimum and maximum levels of the
three scores, individual score means and standard deviations.
Table 18
Ordered Logic Regression-Continuous Variable Information-Teaching Workload
N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation
Covariate
AUTONOMY 52 -1.14 1.86 .5023 .65938
COMPETENCY 52 -1.83 1.00 -.3590 .61249
RELATEDNESS 52 -.13 2.75 1.6683 .67650
ADJUNCT FACULTY ENGAGEMENT
73
An ordered logistic regression served as the data analysis method to predict if the
independent variables of autonomy, competence, and relatedness scores have a statistically
significant effect on the prediction of the dependent variable of teaching workload, therefore
determining a relationship. SSPS data for goodness-of-fit is presented in Table 19.
Table 19
Goodness of Fit
a
Value df Value/df
Deviance 149.717 197 .760
Scaled Deviance 149.717 197
Pearson Chi-Square 203.862 197 1.035
Scaled Pearson Chi-Square 203.862 197
Log Likelihood
b
-75.552
Akaike's Information Criterion (AIC) 165.103
Finite Sample Corrected AIC (AICC) 167.649
Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC) 178.762
Consistent AIC (CAIC) 185.762
Dependent Variable: Teaching Workload
Model: (Threshold), Autn, Compt, Reltd
a. Information criteria are in small-is-better form.
b. The full log likelihood function is displayed and used in computing
information criteria.
The Omnibus Test result shown in Table 20 checks for the overall significance of the
fitted model containing the independents variables over the thresholds-only model, it shows that
the model with independent variables is not statistically different nor has an improvement over
the thresholds-only model in the prediction of teaching workload, χ
2
(3) = 1.318, p = .725.
ADJUNCT FACULTY ENGAGEMENT
74
Table 20
Omnibus Test
a
Likelihood Ratio Chi-Square df Sig.
1.318 3 .725
Dependent Variable: Teaching Workload
Model: (Threshold), Autn, Compt, Reltd
a. Compares the fitted model against the
thresholds-only model.
With validation that the fitted model with independent variables does not make an
improvement over the thresholds-only model, Table 21 makes evident the Tests of Model Effects
calculated. This analysis performs checks for the contribution of each independent variable in
the model along with its result (with p-values >.05). Analysis of the provided data shows that
none of the independent variables contribute significantly in the prediction of teaching workload.
Parameter estimates are indicated in Table 22.
Table 21
Ordered Logic Regression-Tests of Model
Effects
Source Type III
Wald Chi-Square df Sig.
Autn 1.184 1 .277
Compt .272 1 .602
Reltd .033 1 .856
Dependent Variable: Teaching Workload
Model: (Threshold), Autn, Compt, Reltd
ADJUNCT FACULTY ENGAGEMENT
75
Table 22
Ordered Logic Regression-Parameter Estimates
Parameter B Std. Error 95% Wald Confidence
Interval
Hypothesis Test
Lower Upper Wald Chi-
Square
df Sig.
Threshold
[TW=1] -3.053 .9284 -4.873 -1.233 10.812 1 .001
[TW=2] -.980 .7605 -2.470 .511 1.659 1 .198
[TW=3] .258 .7483 -1.209 1.724 .119 1 .731
[TW=4] 1.871 .8135 .277 3.466 5.291 1 .021
Autn -.494 .4538 -1.383 .396 1.184 1 .277
Compt .235 .4497 -.647 1.116 .272 1 .602
Reltd .075 .4152 -.739 .889 .033 1 .856
(Scale) 1
a
Dependent Variable: Teaching Workload
Model: (Threshold), Autn, Compt, Reltd
a. Fixed at the displayed value.
The examined results of the ordered logistic regression on this final data set of the
quantitative data reveals three outcomes informing the relationship between autonomy,
competence, and relatedness and teaching workload:
Autonomy score does not have a statistically significant effect on the prediction of high
teaching workload, Wald χ
2
(1) = 1.184, p =.277.
Competence score does not have a statistically significant effect on the prediction of high
teaching workload, Wald χ
2
(1) = .272, p =.602.
Relatedness score does not have a statistically significant effect on the prediction of high
teaching workload, Wald χ
2
(1) = .033, p =.856.
The next section of chapter four, will examine the second and final phase of the data
analysis; focusing exclusively on the qualitative data collected through the use of in-depth
ADJUNCT FACULTY ENGAGEMENT
76
interviews. Table 23 categorizes interviewed adjunct faculty by pseudonym and includes
selective participant demographics to include gender, level of education, campus teaching hours,
length of employment, and academic department affiliation.
Table 23
Qualitative Demographic Data- Adjunct Faculty Interview Participants
Pseudonym Demographics
AF Member 1
Gender: Female
Level of Education: Master’s Degree
Campus Teaching Hours: 11-20 hours/week*
Length of Employment: 4-6 years
Academic Department: HPE**
AF Member 2
Gender: Male
Level of Education: Master’s Degree
Campus Teaching Hours: 30+ hours/week*
Length of Employment: 7-12 Months
Academic Department: LA**
AF Member 3
Gender: Female
Level of Education: Master’s Degree
Campus Teaching Hours:11-20 hours/week*
Length of Employment: 1-3 years
Academic Department: HSS**
AF Member 4
Gender: Female
Level of Education: Master’s Degree
Campus Teaching Hours: 21-30 hours/week*
Length of Employment: 1-3 years
Academic Department: HSS**
AF Member 5
Gender: Female
Level of Education: Master’s Degree
Campus Teaching Hours: None*
Length of Employment: 4-6 years
Academic Department: BE**
AF Member 6
Gender: Male
Level of Education: Master’s Degree
Campus Teaching Hours: 11-20 hours/week*
Length of Employment: 10+ years
Academic Department: HSS**
AF Member 7
Gender: Male
Level of Education: Doctoral Degree
Campus Teaching Hours: 30+ hours/week*
Length of Employment: 1-3 years
Academic Department: SEM**
ADJUNCT FACULTY ENGAGEMENT
77
Qualitative Demographic Data- Adjunct Faculty Interview Participants
Pseudonym Demographics
AF Member 8
Gender: Female
Level of Education: Master’s Degree
Campus Teaching Hours: 1-10 hours/week*
Length of Employment: 4-6 years
Academic Department: HOC**
Note. Demographic data excludes race/ethnicity and age to minimize risk of multiple identifiers
for interview participants. *Hours spent teaching on campus, include both preparation and
grading time. None indicates teaching is done primarily online.
**Academic Department Key: (HPE) Health, Physical Education, Athletics & Dance; (LA)
Liberal Arts; (HSS) Humanities and Social Sciences; (BE) Business Education; (SEM) Science,
Engineering & Mathematics; (HOC) Health Occupations.
Phase II: Qualitative Research Questions
How do institutional practices within Union West Community College inform the
perceived work engagement and motivation of adjunct faculty?
Through the lens of competence, autonomy, and relatedness. A series of questions framed
within the context of SDT’s three components (competence, autonomy, and relatedness) were
asked of eight adjunct faculty members at Union West Community College, framed by the three
components of SDT (competence, autonomy, and relatedness). In this section, the researcher
sought to answer the research question presented in gaining the perspectives of the adjunct
faculty based on their responses to a series of questions framed within the context of
competency, autonomy, and relatedness affiliated with their personal experiences with the
institution as an employee and instructor. Additionally, the researcher sought to explore the
experiences that contributed to the perceived work engagement and motivation that emerged as a
result of these experiences from their perspectives as employee and instructor at Union West
Community College. Qualitative findings from the in-depth interviews are categorized by the
three elements of SDT (competence, autonomy, and relatedness). Emergent themes from the
interview findings are further subdivided within these three elements as such: Competence
ADJUNCT FACULTY ENGAGEMENT
78
(faculty assignments and teacher preparation, faculty evaluations, and professional
development), Autonomy (decision to teach and institutional selection, teacher motivation,
facilitating student engagement, and academic freedom), Relatedness (work climate, perceived
institutional support, involvement in strategic planning, and teacher recognition and awards).
Qualitative findings: Competence
The SDT element of competence provided a platform for several emergent themes within
the qualitative findings. Characterized by the need to feel confident and capable of completing a
specific task or skill, institutional practices in the realm of faculty assignments and teacher
preparation, faculty evaluations, and professional development had a wide range of influence on
the perceptions of engagement and motivation of GWCC adjunct faculty (Ryan & Deci, 2002).
Faculty assignments and teacher preparation. When asked how classes are assigned
at GWCC, all interviewed adjunct faculty; with the exception of one faculty member were not
aware of the actual policies and procedures for adjunct faculty teaching assignments. AF
Member 6 explained: “I’m not aware of the actual procedure, you know, like it’s not super
transparent.” I don’t see her (department chair) working on the schedule but she has told me that
the longer someone is there its basically seniority.” Three additional faculty members (AF
Member 1, 4, and 5) mentioned seniority playing a significant role in the assigning of faculty to
classes. AF Member 4 reveals:
Before the new contract went in, we basically would just get whatever was offered to us,
so the chair would just ask...We just got seniority rights, and so now it’s that the top
people get them first, like those who have been there longer have to be offered their three
classes first, and then it goes down the line, and if people deny it, then it comes back
through, and we get the option of getting more classes. She also does- I guess the school
ADJUNCT FACULTY ENGAGEMENT
79
does it- they send out availability, and so they have Monday through Sunday, and then
hour blocks from eight to eight, and you just check off which days and which times
you’re available, and then which classes you’ve taught before, which classes you’re open
to teaching, and so they’re pretty good, at least in my department, with making sure that
we’ve either taught the subject before, or that we’re open to teaching it before giving it to
us, and it’s always made very clear that we can say no to a class. It won’t be held against
us.
The response of AF Member 3 however, highlighted a clarity in understanding the scheduling
process in her response:
Our chair sets up and negotiates which classes are going to get assigned to which faculty
and which classes are going to be offered. Our chair negotiates with the dean and figures
out how many classes. In our department it's a little bit of showing previous numbers and
justifying the existence of each class. Based on people's subject areas in particular
interests and what you've taught before, they get assigned. I already know my
assignments for summer and fall. I think that was a conversation we had last month.
Although overall interview feedback reveals a lack of consistency in adjunct faculty assignment
and communication procedures, all interviewed adjunct faculty communicated that scheduling
occurred at least one to two months in advance, allowing adequate time to coordinate teacher
scheduling at other institutions and or with full-time work commitments outside of academia as
cited by AF Member 7: “Several years back I was working full time, kind of traditional hours in
the day so I could only do nights. I ended up with a Monday and Tuesday night class and my
chair kind of gives me the same thing every semester now. Those two classes.” Interviewed
adjunct faculty noted the institutional practice of advance faculty scheduling, positively
ADJUNCT FACULTY ENGAGEMENT
80
contributing to a sense of confidence in being able to prepare instruction and review curriculum,
well in advance of classroom instruction. AF Member 1 shares:
A lot of the materials that I need are often provided to me well in advance before the
semester even begins. I'm able to take that material and pretty much plan my semester
out. I've been teaching very similar classes. The material doesn't tend to change very
much. I use a lot of the same materials. I pretty much just update as new materials come
out or try to change activities or assignments that might not have been very useful for
students the prior semester. I try to change it just to keep up with time and the
information that's being updated. Let's say for example I prepare for a lecture or class I
try to make sure I review the material, even how I'm teaching it probably every semester,
depending on the class that I'm teaching.
In contrast AF Member 2 underlines similar sentiments given the opportunity to prepare in
advance, alongside presenting challenges when teaching assignments are provided at the last
minute:
I feel much more safe and happy and well prepared when I sit down and I plan
everything. So, I start with a book and from the book I sort of arrive at a syllabus, from
that syllabus I will plan as much as possible. I will plan each little activity if I can. I
stopped short of planning my semester down to the minute but I could really get to that
point a semester or two from now because I feel so much better that way. My first
semester I was not able to do any preparing. I was an emergency hire. It was very last
minute the classes that I got and I had no kind of material to back me up what so ever. I
would wake up at 3:00 a.m. every morning just because I knew I had to plan for all five
of my classes on a daily basis and not a lot of anything else. So, for me, just this last
ADJUNCT FACULTY ENGAGEMENT
81
winter I actually spent the entire winter break planning as much as I possibly could and
so far, I’m really enjoying it.
Further interview commentary suggests it can take adjunct faculty at least a two semesters to
develop a rhythm in teaching course content including but not limited to allotment for a thorough
review of course content, alignment of the syllabus with required curriculum, and
implementation of supporting activities to facilitate student learning and classroom engagement,
as supported by AF Member 5: “Over the years of all the teaching that I’ve done, the prep’s
always the hardest for the first two or three times you teach it.” AF Member 4 describes:
I generally will read the book first. First, before I even choose a book, I go online and I
see if I like the way that the book is organized. Then, I’ll order a couple of different
textbooks that I like. I’ll go through and skim them and see if anything stands out,
because nobody has time to read multiple textbooks. Then, whatever textbook I settled
on, I’ll read that textbook and take notes while I read, and I will make slides to go along
with the chapters. I think of activities that pop up as I’m reading that I’ve either done or
heard about and try to incorporate those in the class...Then, all throughout the semester,
I’m always thinking of new things that come up and changing and adapting, if I want to
add videos or whatever, throughout the semester.
Qualitative findings support the assertion that assignment of classes to adjunct faculty well in
advance of needed instruction is closely tied to feelings of confidence, preparedness, and allots
for flexibility and planning in both the personal and professional lives of adjunct faculty. The
next section highlights the shared experiences of adjunct faculty as they evaluate themselves and
in turn are evaluated by students and departmental leadership.
ADJUNCT FACULTY ENGAGEMENT
82
Faculty evaluations. Interviewed adjunct faculty members were asked to explain how
they evaluate their own instruction and in turn are evaluated by departmental leaders and
students. AF Member 7 embraces the authentic feedback provided by students as a means to
self-evaluate and comments “The students will tell me if something’s wrong or if I’m doing
something badly...usually, they just say, “Well, this is one of my favorite classes”, even if they’re
getting a C. A pretty good response.” AF Member 1 and 8 purport a formative approach and
prefer to self-evaluate during instruction as mentioned:
I usually try to evaluate my teaching effectiveness by the way that students respond to my
lectures. Usually I try to ask a couple times during my lectures or during class if students
understand or if they have any questions. I'm not going to say a lot of questions means
I'm not doing a good job. Maybe that means I'm doing a great job and they just want to
know more. Usually I try to go based off their verbal and non-verbal cues, if they're
engaged versus if they're falling asleep in class, if they're asking questions versus if
they're not, if they have a blank stare on their face maybe they don't understand type of
thing.
AF Member 8 reinforces this approach in their interview response:
I have weekly quizzes, I evaluate the quiz itself and see if the large percentage of the
class did not do well. Then, I look at either, am I not covering the right material in class,
or are these quiz questions worded in a way that is not conveying what the message is,
that I want to get back from students? So, I do a self-evaluation continuously to make
sure that the students are getting the most out of it, and a lot of it I detail by exams scores
or quiz scores, and also, the participation in class.
ADJUNCT FACULTY ENGAGEMENT
83
For adjunct faculty who teach primarily online, gauging teaching effectiveness from
aforementioned verbal and non-verbal cues can prove more challenging. AF Member 5 shares
their experience with online instruction, self-evaluation, and proclaims the role they play as an
educator:
I have a general philosophy in teaching, which is that it’s my job to teach the subject
matter regardless of the student. There’s always that A student in every class where
the assignments are done early. I always read them first because I know I can use them as
a benchmark to grade on, the whole thing. The reality is I’m an educator so I need to
make sure it’s clear for everybody. I do evaluate myself on that. Online learning is
difficult because you don’t get student reaction as much as you do in a classroom. One of
the things that is a challenge for me is that the classes I teach are in a fast track. They’re a
15-week class in 9 weeks. I have to stay on top of it and sometimes I don’t stay on top of
it and I’m hard on myself about that. If I’m expecting my students to meet deadlines, I
need to meet the deadlines.
AF Member 2 encourages student feedback both in and outside of the classroom as a means of
self-evaluation and has found this invitation for student feedback has concluded in a ripple effect
in which other students can participate. He shares:
First I look at the progression, sort of a large scale, I look at the progression of the essays
I am getting... as I see certain people improving I like to take some credit for that. If I see
what I think are consistent problems where it sorts of carries over from one essay to the
next I realize I think I might be doing something wrong. Then I think more specifically
what I really try to encourage my students to do is just give me feedback. I try to remind
them the only reason I’m showing up is because they’re showing up.
ADJUNCT FACULTY ENGAGEMENT
84
That’s the whole point and if they don’t tell me what’s going on I don’t know how I’m
supposed to know because I come into this with the assumption that I must be doing
things okay. It’s slow at first. Students I think are a little cautious of that approach
because I’m inviting them to challenge my authority but what I’ve noticed happened at
least last semester and I think a little bit this semester too is it only takes one or two
people to take that chance and then they do email you. They get like a positive result for
giving you some feedback.
All participating adjunct faculty mentioned the use of end of semester student evaluations as a
beneficial resource in self-evaluation. Furthermore, they shared such evaluations if taken
seriously, can serve as a starting point to implement needed change. According to AF Member 3
“We get feedback from students every year. I try to take that seriously.” AF Member 1 agrees:
...I also take the end of semester evaluations, student evaluations, very seriously when we
get those back. UWCC does a great job of getting those back to faculty members. Pretty
quickly after the semester, I sit and I see what kind of feedback I get from students and
take that. If there's something they recommend or suggest then I take that really close to
heart and try to make those changes for the following semester to be able to improve.
One adjunct faculty member discussed a lack of timeliness in student feedback, and identified a
gap in the feedback being returned to instructors and appropriate allotment of time for faculty to
review and implement change. AF Member 4 outlines:
There’s a few questions, like four or five, that are open-ended questions where the
students can make comments, and those are sent to us after the semester ends, pretty
much the start of the next semester, the following semester, we get those back, so I will
read them and see what students liked or didn’t like. Sometimes I will ask students how
ADJUNCT FACULTY ENGAGEMENT
85
they feel about things... generally we get evaluations at the start of the following
semester, so your class is kind of already set, but it’s good, because I guess the semester
after that, you could do something. It’s hard- I think it’s easier between spring and fall
semesters, because you’ll get the feedback, I guess, mid-June, but between fall and
spring, by the time you get the feedback mid-January, you’re already in the semester.
In addition to strategies for self-evaluation and the feedback provided by students, adjunct
faculty undergo evaluation by department leadership chairs and senior teaching faculty. Used
collaboratively, these three levels of feedback set the stage for improved instruction and
competence in the classroom. Experiences with departmental feedback varied across
interviewed adjunct faculty and were presented with regards to support and cause for anxiety.
The majority of the adjunct faculty observed were not made aware of the evaluation and simply
surmised they were being evaluated as their departmental chair or colleague joined their class
and observed from the back of the room. AF Member 4 shares their experience as an emergency
hire:
because I was an emergency hire, I had two evaluations from the full-time faculty, the
one from my chair, and then one from just another full-time faculty member who came
in, and they just sit in, take notes, participate sometimes in discussion, and then would
leave, and then I’d get back a huge packet of feedback, positive and negative- it’s not
even negative. It’s just like these are things that you could be working on, but these are
the things that were really well done.
AF Member 2 expressed anxiety about their evaluation experience:
Boy. I was very nervous. I had my evaluation in the fall and I had two different teachers
come in. One full time faculty member and one being a department co-chair. They both
ADJUNCT FACULTY ENGAGEMENT
86
observed my class for about the first 30 minutes of the period, took their notes, and I got
a report from them and then in addition I got my student evaluations at the end of the
semester. It’s hard to say because it was the first 30 minutes of class for each class that
came on separate days. So, in a sense I wonder if they really saw everything that they
needed to see but I got positive evaluations and so I guess I’m happy with that.
While AF Member 1 and 3 emphasize the routineness of department evaluations and its primary
cause to provide feedback and support for adjunct faculty instruction. AF Member 1 recounts:
In regards to department there's — I think it's once a year or once every two years where
either the department chair — I think it's mostly the department chair — would come in
and sit in one of my classes and grade to see the way I present information and the way
I'm teaching. Usually it's note-taking. They'll right down how I presented information, if
they think it's thorough, if they think it's effective. Then I'll see that a couple weeks later.
Then I'll have to sign off as my formal evaluation.
AF Member 3 verifies:
You get evaluated it in your first semester. Two people will come through from the
department and give you an evaluation. It's mostly just to offer support. I don't think I
know anyone who suffered consequences, even if they were teaching poorly. It was just
like, "Can we get you some books? How can we help you?"
Professional development. The final theme in this set of qualitative findings stems from
the question asked of interviewed participants: What opportunities for professional development
are provided to you? The response from this question varied across participants from non-
existent to more at UWCC than any other institution I have taught at. Within these two
ADJUNCT FACULTY ENGAGEMENT
87
parameters however exists insight to the challenges experienced by adjunct faculty in
participating in professional development. AF Member 2 emphasizes one outlook:
UWCC has been really pretty exceptional in the amount of professional development
opportunities they offer. Having worked in a couple different colleges now and by far I
have not seen more opportunities for development anywhere else than at UWCC.
AF Member 4 expresses an alternative perspective:
At Union West Community College, there really aren’t any. They do ask part-timers to
do a lot of free labor, so it’s a lot of “do you want to host a book club?”, “do you want to
show a film, be involved in a gender club”? You can present your work. There’s those
types of things, but as far as other schools that I know of that provide six hours a week of
professional development if you so choose to take it, or they’ll pay for conferences and
things, we don’t get that at UWCC. I do that on my own time, but not through the
school.…I wouldn’t- I mean, I know that they have trainings and centers that we can go
to, because we just got Canvas. We switched over to Canvas, so they’re doing training for
faculty, but the problem with adjuncts, I think, is that it’s hard for us to go to those types
of trainings, because if we’re on the campus, we’re generally teaching, and if we’re not
on that campus, it’s because we’re teaching at a different campus, so it’s hard,
sometimes, to use those resources, if it’s a class, particularly.
The majority of the adjunct faculty responses included some awareness of professional
development opportunities on their campus as communicated by email correspondence and or
their department chair. Commonplace for all participants who stated awareness of professional
development opportunities was a consensus that provided opportunities did not accommodate
ADJUNCT FACULTY ENGAGEMENT
88
their schedules. A consistent challenge was professional development sessions hosted during the
day as articulated by AF Member 1:
I get emails often about professional development opportunities, however, it's very
difficult since I am an adjunct faculty member. I work at three institutions. In making it
to the professional development training and offering, it's very difficult oftentimes. I
think since I've been teaching at UWCC, I've only been able to attend one because of all
the responsibilities that I have.
AF Member 5 concurs with limited options and availability “There are a few (professional
development opportunities) ...There’s not a lot at the community college level. Unfortunately,
some of them are done during the day, so because I have a full-time job that doesn’t work for
me.” Both AF Member 6 and 3 mention opportunities that are provided on campus and uphold
the opinion that department leaders strive to keep adjunct faculty informed of upcoming
professional development offerings. AF Member 6 reports:
Yes. Our department head is really good about keeping all the part timers in the loop and
offering us things like that. It seemed like there used to be more opportunities. You know
they used to be emailing them to us more often and really encouraging it more...I get
a weekly email talking about workshops coming up and it counts during lunch time and
stuff. You know I guess part time don’t really need the same as full timers do. You know
I get those emails all the time and I know we’re allowed to take them but that’s another
thing that I’ve kind of stopped doing but I used to do back when I first started.
AF Member 3 details:
They put on events pretty frequently, at least, I think, once every two weeks, where they
ADJUNCT FACULTY ENGAGEMENT
89
do different workshops and stuff. Most of them, I'd say, are different technological
resources and how to use them, such as how to use Canvas or understanding the
projectors or whatever. I think they try to get different stuff of about cracking your
teaching philosophy or different styles of assessment and stuff like that. So, they'll get
different people to come in and lead stuff from time to time.
Qualitative findings: Autonomy
The SDT element of autonomy is characterized within the context of adjunct faculty by
the need for internal control over one’s personal and professional outcomes as opposed to
external control (Ryan & Deci, 2002). Ryan and Deci (2002) suggest that efforts to undermine
autonomy in teachers negatively impacts the overall creativity, innovation, and energy with
which could be expressed by instructors to students. This section will highlight adjunct faculty
rationale for institutional selection and decision to teach (at GWCC), teacher motivation,
facilitating student engagement, and academic freedom.
Decision to teach and institutional selection. The decision to teach is influenced by
many factors as annotated by interviewed adjunct faculty members. In review of the shared
precursors to their decision to teach, adjunct faculty who were interviewed, revealed a
cornucopia of rationale from anticipated job losses to a desired change either in the classroom or
in the field as a practitioner. AF Member 2 said this when asked what influenced him to become
a teacher “I wish I could say that there was an influence to teach but really, I was just looking for
work. I think by the time I applied to UWCC I had already sent out maybe 50 or 60 different job
applications. I didn’t even officially apply. I sent an email to the dean of the department sort of
begging for a job.” Alternatively, some approached UWCC with prior teaching experiences,
such as AF Member 3 who taught high school seven years prior to joining the adjunct faculty
ADJUNCT FACULTY ENGAGEMENT
90
pool at UWCC. AF Member 3 shares:
I think my original thoughts of becoming a teacher were very much in the ballpark are
30-second decisions that needed to be made as I was coming to the end of my college
graduation years. I majored in physics in my undergrad. My intention was to become a
physicist. I was really interested in becoming a research scientist and going on to grad
school. At the same time, I was very interested in doing just a number of feminist things.
...I always felt that I would be a career scientist and an armchair feminist and just keep up
with things and be interested from a peripheral standpoint. As I got closer to the end of
those years, I realized I needed to flip that. I couldn't really be happy as a consumer in the
social justice world. As a scientist, I wasn't particularly creative. I was actually a better
consumer of science than a student of science. So, I decided to flip that model for myself.
AF Member 6 contemplated teaching elementary school kids after serving as a teacher’s aide, yet
eventually found himself wanting to work with adult learners. The journey to higher education
was driven by a personal choice to pursue a profession that would offer both meaning and
purpose. AF Member 6 shares his journey in the following account:
My senior year of college right before I was going to get my bachelors, I had this cancer
scare. You know there was a lump or something and it turned out to be nothing. I just
had this little scare and for a little bit I thought oh my god I’m going to die and
everything. At that moment, I realized that the thing that at that moment was making my
life most meaningful was the time I was spending with those little kids and I thought you
know maybe I ought to go into teaching. I enjoy teaching. I thought I might do
elementary and started to go that route but then I realized I actually liked teaching adults
better.
ADJUNCT FACULTY ENGAGEMENT
91
Other adjunct faculty members shared stories of working in professional industry and either
wanting to make a contribution to higher education or considering teaching as an alternative
career when facing imminent downsizing. AF Member 7 narrates:
Now, I’ve been doing research and spacecraft operations for 35 years. The way you
usually proceed in that environment is to find the next project to jump into if it looks like
yours is thinning out. I had successfully done that already a few times. As time happened
a little earlier than I expected and the two projects I was looking at to join were cancelled,
NASA budget being what it is. I had already started teaching a lab at Azusa Pacific. It’s
up by where I live. I found it to be surprisingly enjoyable since I hadn’t taught in about
35 years. I taught when I was a grad student because you have to. I was having fun there.
When I got riffed, that’s reduction in force, I thought, “Well, let’s see what’s out there”.
It turned out the only qualification you really need to teach in a community college is a
Ph.D., which I happened to have. That got me in a few places. I’ve just been doing it ever
since. Somebody asked me this today in fact. I find it more enjoyable than I thought I
would.
Some adjunct faculty join the community college from industry and maintain their full-time
employment while working part-time. The skills they utilize as a practitioner can prove
beneficial to student seeking both theory and practice in their given field of study. One such
adjunct faculty member (AF Member 5) shared her perspective:
I’ve considered myself an educator my whole life. I’ve been in the training profession in
multiple capacities. I’m also working administratively in continuing education to
universities. I train every day a little more. That’s what I do for a living. It just seemed
like a natural outgrowth to train in the community college. We’re connected with several
ADJUNCT FACULTY ENGAGEMENT
92
community colleges that we offer programs through. There are a lot of adjunct faculty
who are full-time in business.
Two faculty members expressed their motivation to teach stemmed from personal experiences.
AF Member 4 narrates an experience as a student in which she found herself sitting in a
classroom being taught by an instructor who seemed out of touch with the current events of the
day. Feeling disconnected, yet empowered, she vowed to be part of the solution and had this to
share:
I guess the main thing was that I was sitting in a class about social problems, and it was
the spring of 2012, and so Occupy Wall Street was going on, the Treyvon Martin murder
had happened, the 2012 elections were going on, so the whole war on women, and so all
of the stuff that we were reading in the book from a historical context, we were seeing
happen in modern times, but my professor, every time we brought those things up, she
would just tell us, “I have never heard of that,” or “I’m not familiar with it,” so we were
never talking about the stuff that was happening today, and so I just thought to myself,
you know what, I could teach this class, and I could teach this class better than she is. I’m
going to grad school anyways, and so it kind of just became an option, or like something
I wanted to do.
Comparatively, AF Member 8 shared a similar sentiment in wanting to be part of the solution.
Having worked in health care for over 20 years, she was appalled at the treatment she witnessed
a family member endure at the hands of a health care worker with lackluster bedside manner.
Following this experience, AF Member 8 vowed to offer her years of expertise to train up and
coming health care students with a focus on professionalism and respect for patient care. She
describes the experience that motivated her to teach as such:
ADJUNCT FACULTY ENGAGEMENT
93
I thought I can either ignore what happened, or I could choose to be a part of the solution.
And, coming from an industry where healthcare is really important, whether you’re
caring for someone or if it’s for yourself. At that point, I had not contemplated education
at all, but I though with 20 years of experience I have, I need to put forth the message that
I have, of how patients should be treated. At that point I think it was a very conscious
decision, I was still in the middle of the Master’s program, at that point I said “I need to
go in and change this, and inspire students to want to be, whether it’s healthcare,
whatever industry to go into, but to deliver care”. Actually, I had no teaching experience
prior to that, and then I started teaching for a pharmacy program. I’m actually engaged in
three campuses within the same healthcare field, for the same reason. So, that’s what
really inspired me to go into education six years ago.
Teacher motivation. Exploring the motivation to teach was an integral factor to
investigate amongst adjunct faculty members. Within this study, motivation is a key determinate
in assessing the overall perceived engagement of adjunct faculty at UWCC. To gain insight,
interviewed adjunct faculty were asked directly: What motivates you to teach? Responses were
thematically aligned as three of the faculty members pointed specifically to the feedback
provided from students. AF Member 1 expressed an awareness that was gained in that she has
the potential to serve as a role model for her students and in particular, students of color as she
specified:
It kind of hit me — my very first semester there at Union West College in teaching, the
response I got from a lot of the students — and kind of now going back to learning about
the community college and our responsibility as instructors and educators, I kind of
understand it a little bit more. A lot of it was — let's say for example the reaction that
ADJUNCT FACULTY ENGAGEMENT
94
you got from students, kind of understanding that as an educator I have a lot of power in
the impact that I could potentially have in somebody's life — or even as a Hispanic
woman the kind of example that I'm setting for others — not to say I'm the ultimate role
model, but just to see the connection — Let's say for example involvement of students of
color particularly or involvement of women especially in a profession that is very male-
dominated, not education but athletics, I think it just empowered me to see that I had the
potential to create change and to hopefully help students pursue education in the manner
that they'd like.
Not every student has the same experience. Maybe if they've had a negative experience
where they've not been validated or had negative experiences within higher education
maybe I can go back and help them change that...or assist them in navigating the higher
education pipeline or even within their campus — if there's a resource that maybe I'm
familiar with and they're not I can direct them to that. It's just kind of understanding my
role as an educator and the impact that I could have on a student's life. I think that's kind
of what pushed me to continue this path.
AF Member 4 affirms:
Well, some days, it’s harder than others, but a lot of it is the positive feedback that I get
from students. Even when it’s bad days, or you have students that are just special, for
lack of a better word, the positive feedback that I get from my students, it’s the cards that
they write me, it’s the emails that I get, it’s the positive that I get from the students that
makes me want to continue doing this.
Many adjunct faculty members work at multiple institutions and full-time within private
industry. Financial motivation can also serve as a driver to work at the community college as
ADJUNCT FACULTY ENGAGEMENT
95
adjunct faculty are not immune to the debt associated with the pursuit of higher education. AF
Member 2 references the desire to address graduate school debt and shares the financial gain as
one of his primary motivations in asserting:
I’d say it’s a combination of things, including money. Out on my own I have tons of
graduate school debt that I would love to pay off at some point and then I think the
other part of it there’s something intrinsically rewarding for me. When I was working as a
high school sub and doing my taxes I’d often forget about the W2. I really wasn’t making
anything as a sub. In my mind, they really didn’t have to pay me to show up. I just
enjoyed the opportunity to come in and talk with people and brighten people’s days.
…I had a class on Wednesday. At the end of class on Wednesday I had a student come up
to me. She’s a transfer student and she’s been all over the place. She’s an international
student actually and she was telling me “Oh. Mr. (AF Member 2) you’re such a great
teacher. You’re just like the one that I had over at the so and so they were also part time.
I don’t know what that’s about.” But I was like yeah!
AF Member 5 and 6 emphasized that they both just liked teaching. AF Member 5
acknowledged: “I just like it. I was going to say it’s like a hobby, meaning I do that for fun. I
love watching people learn. That’s always been something that I just truly, truly enjoy doing.”
AF Member 6 echoed:
Quite frankly I just really like it. You know and having a lot of friends in a lot of different
careers. So many of them really hate their jobs and I am really lucky that I really do like
it. You know like every job there are days that I don’t want to go in and things like that.
We have some problem students and this and that but compared to so many other jobs,
you know, and even the other jobs I’ve had in my life I really like it.
ADJUNCT FACULTY ENGAGEMENT
96
AF Member 7 is motivated by the opportunity to empower his students to be educated consumers
of their educational domain. He shares:
As I told my kids...You won’t fall for some of the things you hear about in the news or in
the tabloids especially. When someone says something to you, you’ll be able to say,
‘Hey, wait, no. That’s wrong. I know that’s wrong’. You’ll be able to educate people”. I
think that’s a very good thing. I keep telling them, “You’ll be smarter than other people
or at least you’ll have more accurate knowledge in the field”. I am trying to stamp out
public ignorance because there’s so much of it.
Facilitating student engagement. Engaging a diverse set of learners with varying
educational objectives is a task for any educator. Consideration for student engagement in the
planning of adjunct faculty members was sought as interviewed faculty were asked: How do you
promote students to participate in their own learning in the classroom environment? AF
Member 2 identified to concrete methods: accountability and assessments. Stressing that
accountability is for both the educator and student, he explains:
Well I think the first step is accountability and for me that comes in two ways. I try to
learn names as fast as possible. It’s difficult to really get students to really participate if I
can’t even figure out who they are. You know so what I’ll do is I’ll just call people out by
names. You know Helen what do you think of this? Then second, I’m a pretty strong
believer in just assessments along the way. Having little vocabulary quizzes that we do. I
had them in graduate school and I was sort of offended in graduate school. I thought to
myself I’m an English major why do I need vocab quizzes? What I quickly realized is
wow I could read a whole book and not even realize how many words I didn’t
understand. So, I really stressed to them that when they’re in the classroom and they see
ADJUNCT FACULTY ENGAGEMENT
97
something that doesn’t make sense to them they need to let me know. I’m happy to tell
them you know what is this new word that they’re encountering for the first time. Then I
tell them that if you’re not asking those questions it’s going to come back to bite you on
the little vocab quizzes that we do.
AF Member 1 expands upon this methodology alternatively in facilitating group work to foster
trust and comfort with the material and each other. Moreover a concerted effort is made to
minimize the influence of participation in the grading to allow for authentic and intrinsically
motivated participation. AF Member 1 outlines:
Initially it's very difficult to get the students to interact among each other. They have to
establish some kind of, I guess, trust or comfort level to be able to do — I try to start off
the semester with group assignments in class, a lot of participation, discussion, scenario-
based discussion as well. A lot of them apply skills to a certain trade or — for example
CPR if they had an emergency or something like that. All of those are ways that I try
to make them kind of participate. I know nowadays they say it's not optimal to include
— let's say for example attendance as part of the grade. I try to make participation a very
small portion of the grade to kind of push them to participate. Obviously you won't get
the same level of participation from every student. I think once they establish some kind
of comfort zone through the semester they're more willing to participate even if it's just
very little. It's still kind of a progression from the beginning of the semester.
AF Member 4 uses discussion-based teaching strategies alongside writing assignments to ensure
students have the opportunity to connect the content being learned in class to real world
situations. The basic class structure is described below:
ADJUNCT FACULTY ENGAGEMENT
98
My classes are all very much discussion-based classes, so even though I lecture in my
lower division classes a lot, I always ask the students for their own examples and their
perspectives, and if they understand the material, if they have questions, so it’s a constant
dialogue back and forth between us to make sure that they’re getting it, and then I also
make them do weekly writing assignments, where they have to explain something from
the chapter and then apply it to something in real life, and so it’s making them go out and
see the world.
Connecting classroom content beyond the classroom is a focus of AF Member 7 as he strives to
ensure his students can decipher myth from fact. In addition to engaging students in the
classroom physically, added effort is made to explain course related content that may show up
incorrectly in the public media. When asked how students are engaged, AF Member 7 shares:
“I show them things. I explain things. Things that the newspapers inevitably get wrong. I
physically engage with the students, whether they like it or not. I check to make sure they’re
taking notes rather than surfing the internet.
Academic freedom. The aforementioned strategies for student engagement at the
community college are undoubtedly influenced by the perception of academic freedom held by
adjunct faculty members at UWCC. All interviewed faculty were asked: “In your own words,
what does academic freedom mean to you?” Every one of the adjunct faculty interviewed
discussed the importance of building upon the established curriculum to make a greater impact
on student learning. AF Member 1 and 5 speak to the benefits of customization including but not
limited to visual aids, props, social media, and guest lecturers. AF Member 1 highlighted:
I feel like my experience with academic freedom has been pretty good. I mean for the
most part every class I teach has a designated curriculum I have to follow. In terms of the
ADJUNCT FACULTY ENGAGEMENT
99
way I present that material I've been very fortunate to have supervisors or deans and
department chairs who are very supportive of my creativity in providing this material.
I feel for the most part academic freedom in my definition is being able to be creative I
guess with the way that the information you provide to students is presented. I've been
very fortunate to be able to do that. Its’ being able to use, let's say for example,
anatomical models or videos online of injuries that occur, kind of those visual tools that I
have, kinesthetic tools bringing in where they can actually see and feel injuries or
different anatomical body parts working on each other, bringing in let's say for example
guest speakers who all work very deeply in the field. That kind of just gives students
different perspectives besides my own as well as a lot more expert knowledge that I may
not have. Just being able to do that and being supported by my administration in order to
do that falls very well within I think my ability to teach freely under all the academic
freedom they provide for me.
AF Member 5 summaries her perspective on academic freedom and provides examples of
alternative approaches to traditional classroom assignments:
That’s an interesting question. To me what that means is that within the parameters of the
curriculum that’s been assigned to me and the textbook that has been assigned and the
syllabus and the learning outcomes, I have the ability to customize things for the learners
that I think would be particularly useful. I can put some of my own individuality, I guess,
would be the best way to put it in there. If I want to change the assignment, if I want them
to do a YouTube video, if I want them to write papers rather than take tests, all those
things give me the ability to provide the learning in the way that I think is most
appropriate for, in this case, adult and online learning. I think academic freedom is very
ADJUNCT FACULTY ENGAGEMENT
100
important. I think it’s an interesting concept, though, because I will get questions from
other people who know I teach. Have some fun with it. I’ll do extra credit but maybe my
one extra-credit question is, who’s going to win the March Madness. It’s like silly things
for bonus points. It gives you anything from things like that to just papers that I think are
more interesting. I don’t like the assignment. I can change it.
AF Member 3 summarizes the responses of AF Member 1 and 5 in their rationale:
For me, academic freedom means that I will be able to critically engage with any subject
and not feel afraid to ask good questions and then I can't put out the information without
really being afraid of anything happening or getting in trouble or whatever the case may
be. Also, I think, it's having the resources to do that well and making sure that, when
students are going out to research something, they can get unbiased, relevant and
abundant enough sources so that they can make informed decisions from there. For me, I
think you'd be part of freedom of any kind is making sure that you have the resources and
agencies to act on that freedom. I think that, in general, education is really empowering. I
think, regardless of the subject matter, I believe very strongly in the potential of younger
folks to make significant changes in the world when they are armed with knowledge and
information. I think that is really powerful. I feel really motivated in my particular subject
area because I see that so much of gender-based discrimination and violence comes from
places of ignorance or an inability to really talk things through. Giving students the tools
to share their perspective more and articulately and to understand the bigger systems at
play can be really important just for their day-to-day survival.
ADJUNCT FACULTY ENGAGEMENT
101
One adjunct faculty member started teaching with the expectation that academic freedom would
be limited. In his experience thus far, AF Member 2 expressed having flexibility in content
delivery and decision making. AF Member 2 conveyed:
In the sort of I guess the semester and a half really that I’ve been teaching I don’t feel like
I’ve come up against a lot of restrictions in the classroom. If anything, I came into the
experience expecting more restrictions, expecting lots of guidelines. I can only use these
books. I have to teach these particular assignments and consistently I found that really
those restrictions were all in my head. When I talk to other teachers and I get more input
they’re like “No. No. You can teach whatever you want. Whatever you feel is effective.”
So, I guess if I had to give it a definition I would say academic freedom is pushing the
educator to make the decisions that they feel are most effective because certainly I think
I’ve appreciated that in the last semester and a half being able to make those decisions
myself.
Qualitative findings: Relatedness
The SDT element of relatedness asserts the need for individuals to engage in
relationships with others coupled with a desire for overall connectedness and support (Ryan &
Deci, 2002). Amongst adjunct faculty, the concluding element of relatedness aligns most with
the interview feedback provided by adjunct faculty on institutional issues associated with work
climate, perceived institutional support, involvement in strategic planning, and teacher
recognition and awards. Similar to adjunct faculty teaching motivation, the perceived connection
to the UWCC campus is influenced by institutional climate, support and recognition.
Work climate. AF Member 1 and 6 comment on the supportive work environment at
UWCC and the contributions of department leadership. AF Member 1 expressed:
ADJUNCT FACULTY ENGAGEMENT
102
I think it's a very supportive work climate. My administration within the department that I
work is very open, very supportive, very available and very approachable. A lot of the
times if I have any concerns in regards to the equipment I'm using, in regards to the
classroom I'm placed in I feel very comfortable discussing those with my department
chair and even my dean. Oftentimes when I walk into the department their office doors
are open. They're willing to be available to talk. If I email them or call them they're very
quick to respond. I feel like my work climate is very relaxed, very friendly. The people
that I work with are very supportive. I think it just makes my work experience a lot
better.
AF Member 6 has heard of less than positive work climates at other institutions and is very
grateful to work in an environment that she characterizes as good. When asked to describe her
work climate she articulated:
I would say that its very good. You know I’ve heard of some departments and some
schools where there is a real hostile work environment. You know half the faculty won’t
talk to the other half or something like that but our department head is friendly and she
does a pretty successful job.
Humorously shared, AF Member 7 admitted to teaching at three different institutions and is
“being run by women.” Across all three institutions, his department leaders are women and he
expressed satisfaction in the leadership they are providing. He had this to share:
I can’t think of any place where it’s negative. I’m getting along very well with my
colleagues and with my bosses, such as they are, the heads of the departments. They seem
to be mostly women too. I’m being run by women. What’s going on here? [laughter] At
my three community college campuses the heads of the departments are women.
ADJUNCT FACULTY ENGAGEMENT
103
Anyway, I get along quite well with them and with my colleagues. As nearly as I can tell,
no one’s said differently. It keeps it pretty fun and nice to work with. I don’t interact
with them a lot because I am a gypsy, but to the extent that we interact we seem to always
interact in a friendly manner, give each other tips and things to do and say, “Here, try
this”. I have actually given other people labs to do. I’ve said, “Hey, have you ever heard
of this?” “No”, and then I show them the lab and they say, “Wow, that’s pretty cool”. I
say, “Okay, here, have some copies”.
Another adjunct shared their experience of being initially disengaged from campus activities; as
they thought they would only be teaching at the institution temporarily. As their teaching has
continued at UWCC, AF Member 3 has altered his perspective and now desires to get involved.
AF Member 3 answered:
I think the work climate, as an adjunct, is a lot of how willing you are to dive in and get
engaged. For me, truthfully, for the last couple years that I've been at UWCC, I really just
put my head down because I was doing the school thing at the same time. I think I
initially saw it as something that was probably going to be relatively temporary. So, I was
like, " I'm going to teach my classes to the best of my ability. I'm going to be nice to
everyone, and I'm probably not going to go to a ton of after-school events or get super
involved.” I'm slowly trying to shift that because I'm probably going to be there for a
little bit longer, and it would be good to actually engage with the culture of the campus
and more. I do see other adjuncts that are really involved, facilitating clubs and putting
on events, and they knew each other. I think, for the most part, there's this core set of
full-time faculty that really drives the whole division. Everyone is really positive with
each other and super friendly and helpful.
ADJUNCT FACULTY ENGAGEMENT
104
Of all adjunct faculty members interviewed, one (AF Member 2) bravely voiced his frustration at
a recent “climate” issue he has faced in the current political mood of the United States. In his
words, he aired:
I would say it’s a very positive one. I think I remember a very similar question on the
questionnaire that I filled out. I think the only real hesitation that I have about the
working climate is sort of the political atmosphere at least within the last six months or so
has been kind of, I don’t know, tricky to navigate a little bit because it seems like the
institution as a whole anyway sort of leans a little bit to the left. Somewhat liberal and
Democratic I guess and so being, what I imagine as sort of a very rare Republican
professor, it gets a little tricky sometimes when my colleagues will suddenly start, you
know, bashing certain Republicans or different ideas. I just kind of sit there in the corner
like I am pretty sure I probably shouldn’t say anything.
A very different frustration was expressed by AF Member 4 who spoke to limited work space
and minimum privacy available for adjunct faculty members. AF Member 4 said:
Yes. Every day is really good, I would say. I really do appreciate that at UWCC, full-
timers and part-timers are all in the same space. The only negative is that the part-time
office has four desks, and there’s only two computers, and so it gets full fast, and so it
makes it a little hard to do work or meet with students. There’s no real privacy there, but
at the same time, we all kind of know each other, even though most of us don’t know
each other’s first or last names, but we all know each other by sight. We all talk and
laugh and talk about students and problems or positive things. It’s a very friendly
environment, I would say, among the faculty. When it comes to us versus the board,
ADJUNCT FACULTY ENGAGEMENT
105
that’s a whole different story, because I feel like we’re constantly in negotiations there,
but that’s a whole other can of worms, I guess.
Perceived institutional support. UWCC adjunct faculty underscore the four areas of
institutional support within this section. Sources of institutional support are labeled as received
from 1) academic leadership, 2) administrative leadership, 3) students, and 4) peers. Within this
commentary, adjunct faculty members reinforce these four entities as their main sources of
support and in particular; the academic and administrative leaders as a respite for help in
navigating through academic challenges.
Academic leadership. Repeatedly the adjunct faculty of UWCC referenced going to their
department chair and or dean for support. One faculty member uttered:
My chair and my department is super helpful, so any times that I’ve ever had questions or
I tell her, “Hey, I’m struggling with trying to get my students to understand this,” or “I’m
not sure if this is working,” she’s open and has an open-door policy, so we can go in and
ask her questions and just talk with her and kind of hash out ideas that we want. While
there’s nothing formally, so to speak, informally, she is a great support system, and a lot
of us just talk to each other.
AF Member 8 had a similar experience with her department chair and co-chair when assigned to
teach her first class:
Actually, when I started, I co-taught a class with the department chair, so he was able to
supervise me directly. Then, the second semester I took the course by myself, but at the
same time I sat with a co-chair, and we went over the curriculum, the textbook, the
material. Then, on a weekly basis we were trying to meet, so that way she made sure that
I had everything, and all the support that I needed to teach the class.
ADJUNCT FACULTY ENGAGEMENT
106
It’s evident that both AF Member 3 and 4 would go directly to their department chair if they
were experiencing a challenge or simply needed some additional support. The both narrate their
past experiences:
AF Member 3 recounts:
I would definitely ask my chair for support because she's just a powerhouse. She moves
all day getting stuff done, takes things really seriously and wants all of us to be really
successful. She is an incredibly encouragement and a helpful person. I definitely have
chatted with her in the past about issues, such as, "What do I do if I catch a student
cheating on an exam," or whatever sorts of things come up.
When asked: “If you were to experience a challenging academic situation in the classroom,
whom would you seek for support?” AF Member 4 details:
I would go straight to my chair, because I have had a lot of problems in my classroom
recently, and she’s always been a great person of support and somebody that I can ask
questions to, especially if it’s a situation that is abnormal, and not just like a disruptive
student, but like this disruptive student is making other students scared kind of thing, she
knows exactly where to go, who to talk to, how to handle it. Usually I go to her, and then
next would be one of my colleagues who I actually went to grad school with, so her and I
have been friends for a very long time, so she’s another person I go directly to. Those are
my top two people that I go to.
Administrative leadership. When asked to articulate the varying sources of support
received, departmental leadership emerged beyond the academic arena and was expressed in a
perceived sense of support by administrators. Two adjunct faculty perspectives are accentuated
below:
ADJUNCT FACULTY ENGAGEMENT
107
AF Member 1:
The department administration does a very good job of being inclusive. I get notes for
department meetings in my box all the time. I get included in emails that are sent out
department-wide. I get acknowledged for when I come into the office or whatever the
case may be. Again it's kind of that inclusive environment in which they make you feel
like you're a part of the campus even though you're only there a couple days a week for a
couple hours. They make you feel like you're a part of the team. I feel like that's very,
very awesome. [Crosstalk] In regards to my students it's very nice because we see
obviously students from all paths of life, different backgrounds, different experiences,
different ethnicities, and different languages.
AF Member 2:
Yeah. You know I really do (feel supported by the administration). I’m not sure I felt that
way at first but I think that that’s because I wasn’t really exposed to the culture very
much. When I worked last semester, I had 19 units and really didn’t have any free time
for anything. This semester I’m at 11 and so for the last three months I’ve been attending
our department meetings. I managed to be the only part time faculty member who
actually does that but in those three months that I’ve been attending meetings I’ve joined
two committees, I have some stuff planned for the fall, and I think now that I’ve gotten to
know my coworkers a little bit I do definitely feel very supported.
The final comments by AF Member 2, serves as a fitting segue-way to the support provided by
students to adjunct faculty at UWCC.
I think in a very similar way I feel supported by my students too. Actually, it was
especially nice last semester being my first semester how understanding all my students
ADJUNCT FACULTY ENGAGEMENT
108
were that I was really learning a lot of these things right along with them as they were
learning it. They were so accommodating.
Students. The support provided by students to the new or seasoned adjunct faculty
member can greatly impact their perceptions of competency and relatedness. Adjunct faculty
reported experiences of mutual respect and collaboration in their experiences with students. The
interview responses of three adjunct faculty strengthen the overall opinions of all interviewed.
AF Member 1:
I try to kind of put it out there from the beginning of the semester that communication is
really important. I was a student once. I tell my students all the time. I'm still a student. I
know life happens. I know things happen. If you communicate with me, we can make
things work. Even though my schedule's very, very tight I'm usually pretty open about
accommodating students if they need to meet during office hours, which UWCC does
offer for adjunct faculty members. If they still can't make office hours, I try to be as
accommodating as possible. I think a lot of students appreciate that. Getting to know
student’s kind of outside of the classroom content — I've had a lot of students stay after
class to talk to me about if they're involved in sports or if they have questions about
health, if they had experiences with maybe an emergency situation. If we just listen to
students they're more than likely to keep talking to you. I've learned that over time, just
validating what they have to say, listening to their experiences, giving them advice.
They're very receptive if you give them the opportunity to actually approach you and talk
to you. I feel very well-supported by students when I open myself up to grant them those
opportunities. They've paid off. I know students appreciate it.
AF Member 2:
ADJUNCT FACULTY ENGAGEMENT
109
My students remarked that my Rate My Professor was pretty high at the moment. So, I’d
like to think that I sort of see that reward and sort of that social capital that I’ve become
known as someone who is reliable and who can be trusted with more responsibilities.
AF Member 4:
Oh, yes. It’s really funny to get some of my evaluations back, because I’m very open
with my students that I am a part-time instructor, and I work on multiple campuses, and
what that means for faculty, especially when we get to socio-economic status. They’re
very aware of my situation, so I’ll get some evaluations back, and I think they think other
people read the evaluations, so there’s always things about how I am this great professor,
and I would be a great asset to the school, and they should hire me full time, so they’re
advocating for me. Because I had a really bad situation at another campus recently, and I
told my students about it, because it related to what we were talking about in class, and so
I kind of shared, and so they’ve constantly been checking in on me and asking how I’m
doing and how the situation has evolved, and so they are very supportive. That’s one
thing I’ve learned. When students like you, specifically on this campus, they like you,
and they will have your back, and they will take care of you. It’s really an interesting
dynamic.
Peers. The support provided by peers provides an avenue in which adjunct faculty can
vet teaching strategies, common challenges, and share ideas. All adjunct faculty members
expressed the importance of this viable network in providing a perceived competence in being
able to navigate their own teaching experiences. AF Member 3 shares their experience with
multiple peers in discussing best practices and teaching strategies:
AF Member 3:
ADJUNCT FACULTY ENGAGEMENT
110
There are a lot of us that teach the same 101 class. So, we're getting together and being
like, "What sorts of things are you doing," and "Let's try to plan together for this one
day." Three of us got together. I always have one dude in my class who's like, "Patriarchy
is not real. What are you talking about?" So, she was like, "Do you have this problem,"
and I was like, "I always have this problem." So we got together and talked about it. We
were like, "What do you do to deal with those students?" So, I do feel that, when I have a
problem, I have a lot of resources, like sometimes informally getting together with
colleagues or if something is actually quite serious, I know that my department chair will
not sleep that night before it's taken care of.
AF Member 1 speaks to the support that can be beneficial when it comes to campus
resources and supplies, especially to an adjunct faculty member who is on campus a limited
amount of time.
Usually my peers, the ones that — I don't get to see everybody because I'm an adjunct
faculty member. The ones I have most interaction with are very supportive when it comes
to maybe sharing the same classroom, sharing the same materials, making sure we
communicate with each other if something's missing, if something's broken, if something
needs to be replaced. I feel like communication for the most part tends to be an issue in a
lot of campuses. Within our department it seems to be pretty good. Not to say it's perfect
but I appreciate the increased level of communication that we have. It makes my job a lot
easier since I'm not always there if something's missing or if something's broken I know
that before coming in.
Involvement in strategic planning. Interviewed adjunct faculty spoke to a collective
awareness of strategic planning efforts and institutional communication geared towards keeping
ADJUNCT FACULTY ENGAGEMENT
111
them informed. The challenge experienced in this theme is the availability for adjunct to
participate due to their competing schedules. AF Member reinforces this issue when asked if
opportunities are provided for adjunct faculty to participate in strategic planning efforts:
AF Member 1
Personally not very much just because of time and scheduling conflicts. I do get emails
inviting me to the meetings —However often times I cannot attend.
AF Member 6 speaks to the awareness of these opportunities and the lack of pay for
participation of adjunct faculty members:
We’re invited to all of those meetings as part timers. Of course, we’re not required to go.
If we do they’re not able to pay us but a good portion of us show up to those meetings.
The final highlighted commentary in this section comes from AF Member 5 and 6 who attest to
the inclusiveness of communication of strategic planning efforts and follow-up provided for all
faculty who are unable to attend.
AF Member 5 stated:
No, but I’ve been given the opportunity. I don’t know what opportunity they may give
full-time faculty that I don’t see, but I’m given the opportunity to be part of different
planning and learning outcomes. I guess I can attend faculty-centered meetings if I chose.
We have regular communication.
AF Member 6 shared:
Yeah that started to become kind of a big thing, you know, around eight years ago or so
when we started to have to put them on our syllabus and including those made me rethink
the course a little and emphasize some things. They are inclusive in that sense where
they do send out information. A lot of the times they also send out updates if there's
ADJUNCT FACULTY ENGAGEMENT
112
anything significant that we might have missed, for people who did not attend the
meeting.
Teacher recognition and awards. Of all themes presented in this section, the
perception of teacher recognition and awards was consistent across all interviewed adjunct
faculty as an area of opportunity for change. Many acknowledged the lack of desire to be
acknowledged beyond student success, however the underling commentary spoke to an
awareness that full-time faculty members are recognized and they are collectively excluded from
formalized recognition and awards. Many adjunct faculty members corroborate efforts provided
by their department chair and or academic leaders although these efforts are not consistent across
departments and or part of the institutional culture. Participating adjunct faculty perceptions are
shared in their entirety below:
AF Member 1
Usually department wide I don't know if there are many efforts to reward or acknowledge
adjunct faculty. I know they do have employee of the month. That's only and strictly for
full-time employees, which — It's a bummer. I think a lot of our reward and
acknowledgment comes mostly — I mean if it's not a pat on the back or an email saying
"Thank you for all that you do" it's mostly from students. I feel like that's the best reward
I could get. I don't really care for a certificate or an acknowledgment from the
department. I'd rather see success in students.
AF Member 3
They do faculty awards and stuff like that. I think that's probably about it. With full-time
faculty, once a year, they pick one per division, I think, to get some kind of recognition.
ADJUNCT FACULTY ENGAGEMENT
113
Sometimes the union will be like, "We have pizza for your guys," or something. I think
those are the main ways they recognize faculty.
AF Member 4
I think a lot of it is, again, that informal stuff that goes one where, like with my chair,
She’ll tell us I hear great things from your students, or I have so and so, and they’re
always talking about you, so she lets us know we’re doing well, but there’s not a lot of
formal stuff in place beyond that if a student recognizes you thing.
AF Member 7
I feel, as an adjunct, I’m on the outside looking in. UWCC, at least, gives a lot of lip
service to appreciating and aiding adjuncts. They treat us like other faculty members
generally. It’s not a class system or anything like that.
AF Member 8
We are not. I feel like they feel that we’re very transient, so I never felt that we are
actually embraced into the culture of the campus. For some reason, I feel like they see us
like “okay, you’re an adjunct, you’ll get the job eventually somewhere else, you are
going to leave.” I don’t feel there was very much interaction, in terms of how they
rewarded us for anything.
Summary
Through the lens of Self-Determination Theory, this study sought to explore the
perceived need for competence, autonomy, and relatedness amongst adjunct faculty within the
community college setting. With the utilization of both a survey instrument and in-depth
interviews, participating adjunct faculty ranked their feelings of competence, autonomy, and
relatedness in the workplace with consideration to their roles as instructors and employees.
ADJUNCT FACULTY ENGAGEMENT
114
The study design incorporated the collection of both quantitative and qualitative data in two
phases, with the Basic Need Satisfaction at Work Scale questionnaire serving as the precursor to
the in-depth interviews. Central to the purpose of the study was an effort to capture the
perspectives of adjunct faculty and provide an outlet in which they could share their institutional
experiences in their own individual and collectives “voices.” Disaggregated survey data
revealed 71% of participating adjunct faculty opposed the statement “I do not feel competent at
work” while 36% responded with “very true” in regards to feeling like they can be themselves at
work. Similarly, 33% felt people at work cared about them. The results of the analysis of
variance conducted on phase one data, revealed statistically significant findings for competence,
autonomy, and relatedness scores by discipline. Indicating varying levels of perceived
competence, autonomy, and relatedness existed by discipline and or department affiliation.
When seeking to identify the existence of a relationship between perceived competence,
autonomy, and relatedness and teaching workload using a logistic regression, no significant
contribution existed. The same method and results occurred when applied to length of
employment. Chapter 5 will conclude with a summary of the results and findings from the
quantitative and qualitative study, implications, and study recommendations, followed with
conclusions by the researcher.
ADJUNCT FACULTY ENGAGEMENT
115
CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION
Community colleges will continue to serve as a gateway for educational access to the
communities they serve which often include, our most academically and socially vulnerable
students. Charged with the task of educating this complex group of learners with diverse
academic needs and socioeconomic challenges (Kadlec & Rowlett, 2014; Christensen, 2008),
adjunct faculty members are central to the academic workforce within the higher education
landscape. With a projected student growth of 12% (17.5 to 19.6 million) by 2024, seizing
opportunities to invest in the adjunct faculty members whom educate this population of students
is of the greatest importance to institutional outcomes and overall student learning and success
(NCES, 2013).
Current literature highlights the challenges of the adjunct faculty member experience to
include: extensive workloads, lack of resources, job security and training, limited academic
privileges, and an overall disconnect from their respective institutions (Kezar & Sam, 2010;
Eagan, Jaeger, & Grantham, 2015; Yakoboski, 2014; American Association of University
Professors [AAUP], 2013; Jolley, Cross, & Bryant, 2014; Meixner, Kruck, & Madden, 2010),
however the adjunct faculty interviewed and surveyed within this study provided additional
insight worthy of consideration for their specific institution and for adjunct faculty members at
large.
Overview of Study
This research study sought to explore adjunct faculty work engagement through the
theoretical lens of self-determination theory in examining their perceived competence,
autonomy, and relatedness in their roles as employees and instructors. The research interest was
largely focused on identifying institutional practices and teaching experiences that either fostered
ADJUNCT FACULTY ENGAGEMENT
116
or inhibited work engagement and motivation. Previous research suggests this population of
faculty is largely understudied and often overlooked in regards to their work experiences,
engagement, and motivation in the community college (Jolley et al., 2014), yet a gap in the
research literature exists in explaining their overall work experiences in their own “voice.” In
efforts to gain a greater understanding of how adjunct faculty members at the community college
perceive their own work engagement, a mixed methods approach was utilized at one suburban
community college (Union West Community College) to determine their perceived work
engagement through the use of The Basic Need Satisfaction at Work Scale (Kasser, Davey, &
Ryan, 1992). Data collected and analyzed from this questionnaire in conjunction with the shared
experiences gained through in-depth interviews, provided for a holistic view of the adjunct
faculty experience in adding to the richness of this study. Additionally, the insight provided has
the potential to serve as a primer for future research and or exploration. The guiding research
questions for this study are listed below.
Research Questions
1. To what extent, if any, do institutional teaching experiences within Union West
Community College influence adjunct faculty’s perceived need satisfaction for
autonomy, competence, and relatedness (using The Basic Need Satisfaction at
Work Scale [BNSW-S], Kasser, Davey, & Ryan, 1992) in the workplace?
a) Is there a difference in the perception of
autonomy/competence/relatedness based on discipline?
b) Is there a relationship between the perception of
autonomy/competence/relatedness and length of employment?
c) Is there a relationship between the perception of
ADJUNCT FACULTY ENGAGEMENT
117
autonomy/competence/relatedness and teaching workload?
2. How do institutional practices within Union West Community College
inform the perceived work engagement and motivation of adjunct faculty?
Summary of Results
Within this study, research findings on the adjunct faculty experience largely mirrored
the experiences and challenges highlighted in existing literature. Aligned with the aforesaid
literature, emergent challenges included: Limited resources and or professional development
opportunities, extensive workloads, minimal openings for long-term employment and lack of
recognition and or rewards. Although pertinent to the holistic discussion of the adjunct faculty
experience, the research interest of this study was to determine the perceived need satisfaction of
competence, autonomy, and relatedness of adjunct faculty using the BNSW-S survey instrument
while identifying if the institutional experiences referenced above impact their perceived needs
when discipline, teaching workload, and length of employment are accounted for.
Concluding results emerged from the BNSW-S survey instrument and insightful findings from
the in-depth interviews.
Research question one inquired: To what extent, if any, do institutional teaching
experiences within Union West Community College influence adjunct faculty’s perceived need
satisfaction for autonomy, competence, and relatedness (using The Basic Need Satisfaction at
Work Scale [BNSW-S], Kasser, Davey, & Ryan, 1992) in the workplace?
Results of the BNSW-S survey suggest that adjunct faculty feel some level of
competency at work. Framed by the introductory statement “When I am at work” ...responses to
the question, I do not feel very competent when I am a work yielded a 92% response rate of (not
at all true (1) through somewhat true (4)) on a 7 Point-Likert Scale. Similarly, 98% indicated
they felt a sense of accomplishment in their work. In compliment to the literature, many adjunct
ADJUNCT FACULTY ENGAGEMENT
118
faculty members serve as practitioners in their respective fields while teaching part-time at the
community college level, and bring with them a wide range of professional skills, competencies
and talents (Levin et al., 2006; Jacobs, 1998) to the workplace.
In response to the autonomy items, 63% of surveyed adjunct faculty implied they feel
they can make a lot of inputs to deciding how their job gets done. Two adjunct faculty members
replied not at all true to this statement, indicating they do not feel they have any autonomy in the
workplace. A challenge to the aforementioned decision making is often manifested in the lack of
shared governance within the community college setting by adjunct faculty members. Both Lau
(1996) and Amey et al. (2008) highlight the importance of such governance by administrators,
governing boards, and appointed faculty while emphasizing the deficit created when the adjunct
faculty voice is removed due to limited part-time faculty availability, union and collective
bargaining units and a lack of connection to their varying campuses. Contrastingly, when asked
to respond to There is not much opportunity for me to decide for myself how to go about my
work, 27% answered with a response of a 2 or 3 on the scale between not at all true and
somewhat true. Kezar (2004) advocates for campus leaders to frame a more inclusive
governance in an effort to facilitate environments of trust, positive faculty and staff relations, and
effective decision-making.
Within the final element of SDT, the BNSW-S addressed questions involving relatedness
and overall perceptions of connectedness to the workplace. Survey participants overwhelmingly
indicated (94%) that they get along with the people at work and feel people at work are pretty
friendly towards them (96%). Amidst the likelihood of carrying disproportionate teaching loads
and teaching at multiple institutions, participating adjunct faculty did not express the academic
and social disconnect repeatedly discussed in recent literature (Spaniel & Scott, 2013; AAUP,
ADJUNCT FACULTY ENGAGEMENT
119
2016). Overall BNSW-S survey results imply that the majority of adjunct faculty at UWCC
perceive they are competent in their work, have some level of autonomy in deciding how to go
about their work and that the workplace is an amiable environment.
The first sub-question asked: Is there a difference in the perception of
autonomy/competence/relatedness based on discipline? Using SPSS, an Analysis of Variance
(ANOVA) was used to determine if a statistically significant relationship existed between
perceived competence, autonomy, and relatedness by the discipline taught. ANOVA results
revealed a significant difference in scores across adjunct faculty by discipline.
The second sub-question asked: Is there a relationship between the perception of
autonomy/competence/relatedness and length of employment? Results of the ordered logistic
regression showed no significant contribution of competence, autonomy, or relatedness scores on
length of employment. Research suggests the uncertainty and inconsistency in employment
length, however, can limit adjunct faculty preparation, impact the quality of instruction, limit
professional development, and influence the overall perception of the adjunct faculty role within
institutions of higher education (Christensen, 2008; Kezar & Gehrke, 2013; Gappa & Leslie,
1993).
The third sub-question queried: Is there a relationship between perception of
autonomy/competence/relatedness and teaching workload? Results of an ordered logistic
regression showed no significant contribution of competence, autonomy, or relatedness scores on
teaching workload. Similar to length of employment, adjunct faculty with disproportionately
high teaching loads, are susceptible to experiencing a decrease in the ability to provide quality
instruction to all students; in particular, to those academically underprepared and needing extra
time and support (AAUP, 2016).
ADJUNCT FACULTY ENGAGEMENT
120
Research question two asked: How do institutional practices within Union West
Community College inform the perceived work engagement and motivation of adjunct faculty?
The qualitative outcomes of this study were aligned as they emerged from the in-depth
interviews. Although several themes were prominent in each element of SDT (competence,
autonomy, and relatedness), one theme from each category will be highlighted and discussed as a
response to the overarching question of the impact of UWCC’s institutional practices on adjunct
faculty’s perceived work engagement and motivation. The three emergent themes to be
discussed are: Faculty assignments and teacher preparation, teacher motivation, and perceived
institutional support.
The first theme centered on faculty assignments and teacher preparation. All
quantitative survey participants provided feedback on the timeliness of faculty assignments and
having ample time to prepare for classroom instruction, often months in advance. One adjunct
faculty member was an emergency hire and initially experienced the challenge of an extensive
learning curve, however study results highlight a lack of transparency in adjunct faculty
assignment and communication procedures. Similarly, the last-minute hiring of adjunct faculty
provides institutions with academic and financial flexibility, while such practices can manifest
unpleasant side effects in creating inconsistent teaching loads, limited prep time, and instability
in employment practices (Kezar & Gehrke, 2013)
The second theme targeted the driving perceptions behind teacher motivation. When
asked about their motivation to teach, each participating adjunct faculty member provided and
excerpt from their own personal experiences as motivations centered around personal
satisfaction, passion for teaching, enjoying seeing others learn and or the desire to supplement
their personal finances. Pugh and Dietz (2008) suggest that institutional leaders expand upon the
ADJUNCT FACULTY ENGAGEMENT
121
traditional measures of organizational outcomes to encompass the individual employee in
gauging organizational success. Indeed, a greater understanding of individual employee
motivations has the ability to influence the support and services created for employee
development initiatives. One adjunct faculty member shared their professional experience in
contract to colleagues outside of academia: “I just really like it. You know and having a lot of
friends in a lot of different careers. So many of them really hate their jobs and I am really lucky
that I really do like it.”
The final theme addressed adjunct faculty perceived institutional support.
Participating faculty shared varying sources of support received to include that of their
department chair, administrators, peers and students. Perceptions vary from both the external
and internal institutional environment. Inconsistencies in pay, professional development, and
limited participation in governance impact perceptions of the adjunct faculty member and their
perception of institutional support (Gappa & Leslie, 1993; Roney & Ulerick, 2013; Jaeger &
Eagan, 2009; Umbach, 2007; Kezar, 2013). Several adjuncts expressed they perceived support
from their department chair and would likely contact this individual if support was needed first.
Some adjunct preferred to vet their circumstances with their adjunct peers and or more senior
teaching faculty first. Overall, study results indicate a perceived sense of support was
acknowledged as a resource of which all had access to.
Implications for Practice
From the outset, the researcher communicated a desire to contribute to existing literature
and inform institutional practices at the institution surveyed. Both quantitative and qualitative
research methods were utilized in efforts to contribute to a growing body of research aimed at
capturing the perspective or “voice” of the adjunct faculty practitioner in the community college
setting. The quantitative study results are limited to, one local suburban community college and
ADJUNCT FACULTY ENGAGEMENT
122
its adjunct faculty and therefore are specific and limited to this institution. The qualitative
results, however, can be utilized more broadly to inform best practices in the support of adjunct
faculty work engagement and motivation. The survey results presented in the findings provide
insight on the perceived competence, autonomy, and relatedness needs of faculty at UWCC and
have the potential to serve as a primer for future studies by department as this was the only
variable found to have a statistically significant relationship amongst adjunct faculty members
perceived needs according to SDT.
Feedback provided by the interview participants applies to UWCC, yet has more global
implications for practice in academic environments where adjunct faculty members serve.
Present in the literature and findings, four significant implications for practice emerged:
1) Current literature and findings indicated that providing professional development to
accommodate the diverse scheduling needs of adjunct faculty could assist not only in the
participation of more adjunct faculty, but also increase awareness and perceptions of
institutional support. One adjunct faculty member stated: “There are a few (professional
development opportunities) ...There’s not a lot at the community college level.
Unfortunately, some of them are done during the day, so because I have a full-time job
that doesn’t work for me.”
2) Institutional practices should be tailored to meet the diverse instructional and professional
development needs of adjunct faculty members in an effort to improve adjunct faculty
participation, perception, and overall engagement in both the academic and social
community of their respective campuses.
3) The findings suggested that leadership efforts to support adjunct faculty should seek to
understand the institutional teaching experiences of adjunct faculty, which in large part
ADJUNCT FACULTY ENGAGEMENT
123
are linked with their intrinsic and extrinsic motivations to teach. One adjunct highlighted
their motivation as: “I just like it. I was going to say it’s like a hobby, meaning I do that
for fun. I love watching people learn. That’s always been something that I just truly, truly
enjoy doing.”
4) The findings suggested that institutional efforts to acknowledge and or reward adjunct
faculty should be inclusive and may require an adaptation of existing practices or the
incorporation of innovative ones such as the use of institutional websites, award
ceremonies, departmental meetings, and social media, in an effort to acknowledge and
undergird the potential student learning outcomes which can undoubtedly stem from an
engaged and motivated cohort of faculty. One adjunct faculty member provides a
summation of the recurring sentiment in saying: “I don't know if there are many efforts to
reward or acknowledge adjunct faculty. I know they do have employee of the
month...That's only and strictly for full-time employees, which — It's a bummer.”
Recommendations for Future Research
The construct of engagement is not a new phenomenon to the workplace. Existing
research links engaged employees to positive organizational outcomes, increased creativity, and
organizational longevity. An exploration of the perceived work engagement of adjunct faculty
through the lens of SDT was central to this study; however additional research is needed to fully
encapsulate the professional and psychosocial needs of adjunct faculty within the community
college setting. The researcher acknowledges the results of this study reflect one local suburban
community college and its adjunct faculty and therefore are specific and limited to this
institution. Future research is suggested to fully capture the “voices” of adjunct faculty members
across community colleges in an effort to combat against known challenges faced by this
multitude of faculty with reference to SDT’s postulates of competence, autonomy, and
ADJUNCT FACULTY ENGAGEMENT
124
relatedness. In response to a review of the pertinent literature and findings of this study, the
researcher recommends continued exploration through future studies:
1) A district-wide longitudinal study to follow adjunct faculty who teach at one or more
community colleges within a district. Current literature and anecdotal information
shared in this study attest to the reality that many adjunct faculty members teach at
multiple institutions at the same time. Additional research in the arena of work
engagement has the potential to inform institutional practices amongst community
colleges and improve upon existing mechanisms designed to support adjunct faculty
in navigating the community college landscape.
2) An examination of peer and professional support systems within and across academic
disciplines to identify existing formal and informal individual and institutional
practices as a means of support for adjunct faculty. As a result of this type of study,
gaps can be identified and addressed according to the self-identified needs of adjunct
faculty members.
3) A study across community colleges and partnering public and private institutions of
adjunct faculty members and transfer students from the community college to expand
upon previous research on adjunct faculty and their impact on student learning and
success.
Conclusion
Community colleges across the United States serve a multitude of learners with a diverse
set needs and aspirations. Within society, these academic hubs provide educational access to a
broad range of students and employ adjunct faculty members in record numbers. This research
study focused singularly on the experiences of the adjunct faculty member in an effort to explore
adjunct faculty work engagement and the institutional experiences both in and outside of the
ADJUNCT FACULTY ENGAGEMENT
125
classroom that either contribute to or inhibit their engagement. The results of this study
contribute locally to the institution surveyed and globally to the continued discussion on adjunct
faculty engagement and equitable place within the community college landscape. It is evident
from this study and previous research, a gap in adjunct faculty resources exist. Through the lens
of Self-Determination Theory, this study presented a statistically significant relationship exists in
the competence, autonomy, and relatedness scores of adjunct faculty by discipline and none of
these elements contribute significantly in the relationship when length of employment and
teaching workload are considered. Considered collaboratively, overall qualitative results suggest
the majority of adjunct faculty at the institution surveyed perceive they are competent in their
work, can contribute to their work, and are connected.
Having never worked in the community college environment, the researcher felt this
opportunity was a gift in affording an unbiased perspective of the adjunct faculty experience.
That being said, several interviewed adjunct faculty members admitted to teaching at multiple
institutions in addition to the community college which emphasizes the need to view adjunct
faculty engagement as an issue beyond the community college system and one that warrants
global support and initiatives across institutional types and classifications. Suggestions for
future research include the use of longitudinal studies across campuses and a review of formal
and informal systems of support. Adjunct faculty members have a longstanding history in
contributing a wealth of experiences, skillsets, flexibility, and diverse perspectives to academe.
This esteem and likelihood of continued need for adjunct faculty at the community college
warrants continued exploration of the adjunct faculty “voice” and a renewed focus on research
geared towards collective improvements, additional resources and renewed engagement.
ADJUNCT FACULTY ENGAGEMENT
126
REFERENCES
American Association of Community Colleges. (2012). Final report on the 21
st
-century initiative
listening tour. Washington DC: Author. Retrieved from
www.aacc.nche.edu/21stCenturyInitiative
American Association of Community Colleges. (2014). 2014 Fact Sheet. Retrieved from
http://www.aacc.nche.edu/AboutCC/Documents/FactSheet_2014_bw_r2.pdf
American Association of University Professors. (2013). Background facts on contingent faculty.
Retrieved from http://www.aaup.org/issues/contingency/background-facts
American Association of University Professors. (2016). Higher education at a crossroads: The
economic value of tenure and the security of the profession. Academe, 9–23.
American Federation of Teachers. (2009). The American academic: The state of higher
education workforce 1997-2007. Washington, D.C.: American Federation of Teachers.
Retrieved from http://www.aftface.org/storage/face/documents/ameracad_report_97-
07for_web.pdf
Amey, M. J., & VanDerLinden, K. E. (2002). The institutional context of community college
administration. Washington, D.C.: American Association of Community Colleges.
Bakker, A. B. (2005). Flow among music teachers and their students: The crossover of peak
experiences. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 66(1), 26–44.
Bakker, A.B., Schaufeli, W.B., Leiter, M.P., & Taris, T.W. (2008). Work engagement: An
emerging concept in occupational health psychology. Work & Stress, 22, 187-200.
Bettinger, E., & Long, B. T. (2004). Do college instructors matter? The effects of adjuncts and
graduate assistants on students’ interests and success. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau
of Economic Research. Retrieved from http://www.nber.org/papers/w10370.
ADJUNCT FACULTY ENGAGEMENT
127
Brewster, D. (2000). The use of part-time faculty in the community college. Inquiry,
5(1), 66–76. Retrieved from http://www.vccaedu.org/inquiry/inquiryspring2000/i-51-
brewster.html.
Brint, S., & Karabel. J. (1989). The diverted dream: Community colleges and the promise of
educational opportunity. New York: Oxford University Press.
Burns, R., & Burns. R. (2008). Business research methods and statistics using SPSS. London:
SAGE Publications.
California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office (2016). 2016 Long range master plan.
Sacramento, CA: California Community College Chancellor’s Office.
Carasco-Saul, M., Kim, W., & Kim, T. (2014). Leadership and employee engagement proposing
research agendas through a review of literature. Human Resource Development
Review, 1–26.
Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. (n.d.). The Carnegie classification of
institutions of higher education: About Carnegie classification. Retrieved from
http://classifications.carnegiefoundation.org/
Center for Community College Student Engagement (2014). Contingent commitments: Bringing
part-time faculty into focus. Austin, TX: Author.
Chirkov, V., Ryan, R. M., Kim, Y., & Kaplan, U. (2003). Differentiating autonomy from
individualism and independence: A self-determination perspective on internalization of
culture orientations, gender, and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 84, 97–110.
Christian, M. S., Garza, A. S., & Slaughter, J. E. (2011). Work engagement: A quantitative
review and test of its relations with task and contextual performance. Personnel
ADJUNCT FACULTY ENGAGEMENT
128
Psychology, 64(1), 89–136.
Christensen, C. (2008). The employment of part-time faculty at community colleges. New
Directions for Higher Education, 143, 29–36.
Coalition on the Academic Workforce. (2012). A portrait of part-time faculty members.
Retrieved from http://www.academicworkorce.org/survey.html.
Cohen, A. M., & Brawer, F. B. (2003). The American community college. (4th ed.) San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Creswell, J.W. (2014). Research Design Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods
Approaches (4
th
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Dailey-Hebert, A., Mandernach, B. J., Donnelli-Sallee, E., & Norris, V. R. (2014). Expectations,
motivations, and barriers to professional development: Perspectives from adjunct
instructors teaching online. The Journal of Faculty Development, 28(1), 67–82.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human
behavior. New York, NY: Plenum Press.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The ‘what’ and ‘why’ of goal pursuits: Human needs and the
self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227-268.
Deci, E. L., Ryan, R. M., Gagné, M., Leone, D. R., Usunov, J., & Kornazheva, B. P. (2001).
Need satisfaction, motivation, and wellbeing in the work organizations of a former
eastern bloc country: A cross-cultural study of self-determination. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 27, 930–942.
Drury, R. L. (2003). Community colleges in America: A historical perspective. Inquiry, 8(1),
1-6.
Eagan, K. M., & Jaeger, A. J. (2008). Closing the gate: Part-Time faculty instruction in
ADJUNCT FACULTY ENGAGEMENT
129
gatekeeper courses and first-year persistence. New Directions for Teaching & Learning,
115, 39–53.
Eagan, K. M., & Jaeger, A. J. (2009). Effects of exposure to part-time faculty on
community college transfer. Research in Higher Education, 50(1), 168–188.
Eagan, M. K., Jr., Jaeger, A. J., & Grantham, A. (2015). Supporting the Academic Majority:
Policies and Practices Related to Part-Time Faculty’s Job Satisfaction. Journal of Higher
Education, 86, 448-480.
Gallup. (2015). “Majority of U.S. employees not engaged despite gains in 2014.” January 28,
2015, [Survey report] Retrieved from
http://www.gallup.com/services/176708/state-american-workplace.aspx
Gappa, J., Leslie, D. (1993). The invisible faculty. improving the status of part-timers in
higher education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Gappa, J., Austin, A., & Trice, A. (2007). Rethinking faculty work: Higher education’s
strategic imperative. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Glaser, BG. & Strauss, AL. (1967). The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for
Qualitative Research. New York: Aldine De Gruyter.
Hair, J. F., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.l., & Black, W.C. (2006). Multivariate data analysis. New
Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Hamrick, F., Evans, N., & Schuh, J. (2002). Foundations of student affairs practice: How
philosophy, theory, and research strengthen educational outcomes. San Francisco: John
Wiley & Sons.
Jacobs, F. (1998). Using part-time faculty more effectively. New Directions for Higher
Education, 104, 9–18.
ADJUNCT FACULTY ENGAGEMENT
130
Jaeger, A. J., & Eagan, K. M. (2009). Unintended Consequences: Examining the effect of
part-time faculty members on Associate’s Degree completion. Community College
Review, 36(3), 167-194.
Jenkins, D., & Rodriguez, O. (2013). Access and success with less: Improving productivity in
broad-access postsecondary institutions. The Future of Children, 23(1), 187–209.
Johnson, R. B., & Turner, L.A. (2003). Data collection strategies in mixed methods research. In
A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral
research (p. 297-319). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Johnson, B. R., & Christensen, L. (2014). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and
mixed approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Jolley, M. R., Cross, E., & Bryant, M. (2014). A critical challenge: The engagement and
assessment of contingent, part-time adjunct faculty professors in United States
community colleges. Community College Journal of Research and Practice,
38(2), 218-230.
Kadlec, A., & Rowlett, I. (2014). What we’ve learned about supporting faculty, administrator,
and staff engagement. New Directions for Community Colleges, 167, 87–98.
Kahn, W. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work.
The Academy of Management Journal, 33, 692–724.
Kaplan, R.M. (1982) Psychological testing: principles, applications, and issues. Monterey, CA:
Brooks, Cole.
Kasser, T., Davey, J., & Ryan, R. M. (1992). Motivation and employee-supervisor discrepancies
in a psychiatric vocational rehabilitation setting. Rehabilitation Psychology, 37, 175-
188.
ADJUNCT FACULTY ENGAGEMENT
131
Kezar, A. (2004). What is more effective governance: Relationships, trust, and leadership or
structures and formal processes? In W. G. Tierney and V. M. Lachuga (eds.),
Restructuring shared governance in higher education. New Directions for Higher
Education, 127. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Kezar, A., & Sam, C. (2011). Understanding non-tenure track faculty: New assumptions and
theories for conceptualizing behavior. American Behavioral Scientist, 55(11),
1419–1442.
Kezar, A. & Maxey, D. (2012). The changing faculty and student success: National trends for
faculty composition over time. Pullias Center for Higher Education. Retrieved from
http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED532269.pdf
Kezar, A. (2013). Departmental cultures and non-tenure-track faculty: Willingness, capacity, and
opportunity to perform at four-year institutions. Journal of Higher Education, 84(2),
153–188.
Kuh, G. D. (2016). Making learning meaningful: Engaging students in ways that matter to
them: Making learning meaningful. New Directions for Teaching and Learning,
(145), 49–56.
Lau, R. (1996). “Shared Governance and Compton Community College District.” EDIM
710 Organizational Management & Governance, Pepperdine University Plaza. EE
396806
Levin, J. S. (1998). Making sense of organizational change. In J. S. Levin (Ed.), Organizational
change in the community college: A ripple or a sea change? San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Levin, J. S., Kater, S., & Wagoner, R. L. (2006). Community college faculty: At work in the new
ADJUNCT FACULTY ENGAGEMENT
132
economy. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
Macey, W. H., & Schneider, B. (2008). The meaning of employee engagement. Industrial and
Organizational Psychology, 1(1), 3–30.
Meixner, C., Kruck, S.E., & Madden, L.T. (2010). Inclusion of part-time faculty for the benefit
of faculty and students. College Teaching, 58(4), 141-147.
Menard, S. (1997). Applied Logistic Regression Analysis. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Merriam, B. S. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San Fran
cisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Meyer, J. P., & Gagne, M. (2008). Employee engagement from a self-determination theory
perspective. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 1(01), 60–62.
Morse, J. M. (1991). Approaches to qualitative-quantitative methodological triangulation.
Nursing Research, 40, 120–123.
Nair, K. K., & Gopal, R. R. (2010). Advocating Different Paradigms: Relevance of Workplace
Creativity. SIES Journal of Management, 7(2), 142-150.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2011). Digest of education statistics, 2011. Retrieved
from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d11/
National Center for Education Statistics. (2012). IPEDS, Digest of education statistics, Winter
2011–12, human resources component, fall staff section: Table 286 [data file]. Retrieved
from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d12/tables/dt12_286.asp
National Center for Education Statistics. (2014). Digest of education statistics, 2014. Retrieved
from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cha.asp
Obama, B. (2009, July 14). Investing in education: The American graduation initiative [Speech].
Retrieved from http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/Investing-in-Education-The-American-
ADJUNCT FACULTY ENGAGEMENT
133
Graduation-Initiative
Pascarella, E. T., & P. T. Terenzini. (2005). How College Affects Students: Vol. 2. A Third
Decade of Research. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Peterson, R. A. (1994) A Meta-Analysis of Cronbach's Coefficient Alpha. Journal of Consumer
Research, 21, 381-391.
Pugh, S. D., & Dietz, J. (2008). Employee Engagement at the Organizational Level of Analysis.
Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 1(1), 44–47.
Reevy, G., & Deason, G. (2014). Predictors of depression, stress, and anxiety among non-tenure
track faculty. Frontiers in Psychology. Retrieved from
http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.201.00701/full.
Rich, B. L., Lepine, J. A., & Crawford, E. R. (2010). Job engagement: Antecedents and effects
on job performance. The Academy of Management Journal, 53, 617–635.
Roney, K., & Ulerick, S. L. (2013). A roadmap to engaging part-time faculty in high-impact
practices. Peer Review, 15(3), 24–26.
Roueche, J., Roueche, S., & and Milliron, M. (1995). Strangers in their own land. Washington,
D.C.: Community College Press.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000a). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic
motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68–78
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2002). Overview of self-determination theory: An organismic
dialectical perspective. In E. L. Deci & R. M. Ryan (Eds.), Handbook of self-
determination research, 3–33. Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press.
Saks, A. M. (2006). Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement. Journal of
Managerial Psychology, 21(7), 600–619.
ADJUNCT FACULTY ENGAGEMENT
134
Schuster, J. H. & Finkelstein, M. J. (2006). American faculty: The restructuring of academic
work and careers. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Serrano, S., & Reichard, R. (2011). Leadership strategies for an engaged workforce. Consulting
Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 63(3), 176–189.
Shuck, B., & Wollard, K. (2010). Employee engagement and HRD: A seminar review of the
foundations. Human Resource Development Review, 9(1), 89–110.
Shuck, B., Rocco, T., & Albornoz, A. (2011). Exploring employee engagement from the
employee perspective: Implications for HRD. Journal of European Industrial Training,
35(4), 300–325.
Shuck, B., Ghosh, R., Zigarmi, D., & Nimon, K. (2013). The jingle jangle of employee
engagement further exploration of the emerging construct and implications for workplace
learning and performance. Human Resource Development Review, 12(1), 11–35.
Spaniel, S. H., & Scott, J. A. (2013). Community college adjunct faculty inclusion: Variations by
institution type. Research in Higher Education Journal, 21(1).
Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures
and Techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Swanson, R. A., & Holton, E. F. (2009). Foundations of human resource development (end ed.):
San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.
Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (2006). Validity issues in mixed methods research: Calling for an
integrative framework. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.
Thach, L. (1995). Using electronic mail to conduct survey research. Educational Technology,
35(2), 27–31.
ADJUNCT FACULTY ENGAGEMENT
135
The Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education (n.d.). About Carnegie
Classification. Retrieved from http://carnegieclassifications.iu.edu/.
Tierney, W. (1988). Organizational culture in higher education: Defining the essentials. Journal
of Higher Education, 59, 2-21.
Tollefson, T. A. (2009). Community college governance, funding, and accountability: A century
of issues and trends. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 33 (3-4),
386-402. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10668920802580481
Townsend, B., & Twombly, S. B. (2007). Community college faculty: Overlooked and
undervalued. ASHE Higher Education Report, no. 32. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Umbach, P. D. (2006). How effective are they? Exploring the impact of contingent faculty on
undergraduate education. The Review of Higher Education, 30(2), 91–123.
U.S. Department of Education. (2014). Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for
Education Statistics. [data file]. Retrieved from
https://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/datacenter/InstitutionProfile.aspx?unitId=acacacb3b3b2
Valadez, J. & Anthony, J. (2001). Job satisfaction and commitment of two-year college part-time
faculty. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 25, 97-108.
Vaughan, G. B. (2006). The community college story. Washington, DC: American Association of
Community Colleges, Community College Press.
Wagoner, R. L., Metcalfe, A. S., & Olaore, I. (2005). Fiscal reality and academic quality:
Part-time faculty and the challenge to organizational culture at community colleges.
Community College Journal of Research and Practices, 29, 25-44.
Watt, S., Simpson, C., McKillop, C., & Nunn, V. (2002). Electronic course surveys: Does
ADJUNCT FACULTY ENGAGEMENT
136
automating feedback and reporting give better results? Assessment & Evaluation in
Higher Education, 27, 325–337.
Weiss, R. S. (1995). Learning from strangers: The art and method of qualitative interview
studies. New York: Free Press.
Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods (5
th
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications.
ADJUNCT FACULTY ENGAGEMENT
137
APPENDIX A
The Basic Need Satisfaction at Work Scale (BNSW-S)
1
When I Am At Work
The following questions concern your feelings about your job during the last year. (If you have been on this job for
less than a year, this concerns the entire time you have been at this job.) Please indicate how true each of the
following statements is for you given your experiences on this job. Remember that your boss will never know how
you responded to the questions. Please use the following scale in responding to the items.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Not at all
True
Somewhat
True
Very
True
1. I feel like I can make a lot of inputs to deciding how my job gets done.
2. I really like the people I work with.
3. I do not feel very competent when I am at work.
4. People at work tell me I am good at what I do.
5. I feel pressured at work.
6. I get along with people at work.
7. I pretty much keep to myself when I am at work.
8. I am free to express my ideas and opinions on the job.
9. I consider the people I work with to be my friends.
10. I have been able to learn interesting new skills on my job.
11. When I am at work, I have to do what I am told.
12. Most days I feel a sense of accomplishment from working.
13. My feelings are taken into consideration at work.
14. On my job I do not get much of a chance to show how capable I am.
15. People at work care about me.
16. There are not many people at work that I am close to.
17. I feel like I can pretty much be myself at work.
18. The people I work with do not seem to like me much.
19. When I am working I often do not feel very capable.
20. There is not much opportunity for me to decide for myself how to go about my work.
21. People at work are pretty friendly towards me.
1
BNSW-S can be retrieved from the website, http://www.psych.rochester.edu/SDT/questionnaires.php (Deci & Ryan, 2016)
ADJUNCT FACULTY ENGAGEMENT
138
APPENDIX B
The Basic Need Satisfaction at Work Scale Scoring Guide
2
Form three subscale scores by averaging item responses for each subscale after reverse scoring the items that were
worded in the negative direction. Specifically, any item that has (R) after it in the code below should be reverse
scored by subtracting the person’s response from 8. The subscales are:
Autonomy: 1, 5(R), 8, 11(R), 13, 17, 20(R)
Competence: 3(R), 4, 10, 12, 14(R), 19(R)
Relatedness: 2, 6, 7(R), 9, 15, 16(R), 18(R), 21
Autonomy Items:
• I feel like I can make a lot of inputs to deciding how my job gets done.
• I feel pressured at work.
• I am free to express my ideas and opinions on the job.
• When I am at work, I have to do what I am told.
• My feelings are taken into consideration at work.
• I feel like I can pretty much be myself at work.
• There is not much opportunity for me to decide for myself how to go about my work.
Competence Items:
• I do not feel very competent when I am at work.
• People at work tell me I am good at what I do.
• I have been able to learn interesting new skills on my job.
• Most days I feel a sense of accomplishment from working.
• On my job I do not get much of a chance to show how capable I am.
• When I am working I often do not feel very capable.
Relatedness Items:
• I really like the people I work with.
• I get along with people at work.
• I pretty much keep to myself when I am at work.
• I consider the people I work with to be my friends.
• People at work care about me.
• There are not many people at work that I am close to.
• The people I work with do not seem to like me much.
• People at work are pretty friendly towards me.
2
BNSW-S scoring guide can be retrieved from the website, http://www.psych.rochester.edu/SDT/questionnaires.php (Deci & Ryan, 2016)
ADJUNCT FACULTY ENGAGEMENT
139
APPENDIX C
The Basic Need Satisfaction at Work Scale Addendum
Thank you for your participation in this research study. Prior to taking the Satisfaction-at-Work survey, please take
a moment to answer a few demographic questions:
1. Sex/Gender: 8. Academic department affiliation (select all that apply):
_Female _Business Education
_Male _Fine Arts & Communication
_Transgender _Health Occupations
_Prefer not to respond _Health, Phys. Ed., Athletics & Dance
_Humanities/Social Sciences
2. Race/Ethnicity: _Liberal Arts
_Asian/Pacific Islander _Science, Engineering & Mathematics
_African American/Black _Technology
_Hispanic/Latino
_Multiracial
_Native American/American Indian
_White
_Not Listed (please specify)
_Prefer not to respond
3. Age:
_21-29
_30-39
_40-49
_50-59
_60 or older
_Decline to state
4. Level of education:
_Bachelor’s Degree and work experience
_Master’s Degree
_Doctoral Degree
5. Hours spent teaching on campus:
_None
_1-10 hours/week
_11-20 hours/week
_21-30 hours/week
_More than 30 hours/week
6. Hours spent teaching online:
_None
_1-10 hours/week
_11-20 hours/week
_21-30 hours/week
_More than 30 hours/week
7. Length of employment at current institution:
_0-6 months
_7-12 months
_1-3 years
_4-6 years
_7-9 years
_10 or more years
ADJUNCT FACULTY ENGAGEMENT
140
APPENDIX D
Interview Protocol and Script
Institution (Pseudonym): ______________________
Interviewee (Title and Name): _____________________
Interviewer: ___________________________________
Date: ___________________
Location of interview: ___________________________
Adjunct Faculty Engagement and Motivation (text will be read to each participant prior to interviews)
Introduction
Good morning (afternoon/evening) XXXX. My name is Ursula Worsham, and I am a doctoral student at the
University of Southern California, Rossier School of Education. I understand how valuable your time is, and
appreciate you taking time out of your day to participate in this interview. I believe your shared experiences as an
adjunct faculty member at Union West Community College (UWCC-pseudonym) will provide valuable information
about adjunct faculty work engagement, perceived competence in the classroom, institutional support, and overall
connection to the campus.
Purpose
The purpose of my research is to learn about the institutional practices that inform adjunct faculty work engagement
and motivation within UWCC. You have been selected as a result of your expressed interest by means of the
Satisfaction-at-Work survey and the level of expertise you can share about your experiences both inside and outside
of the classroom. You will not be evaluated on your instruction and or experiences.
Consent
Explain consent form and have the participant sign and or acknowledge consent. [If granted, proceed with
confidentiality statement].
Confidentiality
I would like you to feel comfortable with sharing what you think and feel with the full knowledge that your
participation and commentary will remain completely confidential. Your participation is voluntary and you may
withdraw your participation at any time during this interview if you feel uncomfortable. Additionally, you have the
freedom to not answer questions, as you deem appropriate.
Logistics
I have planned this interview to last no longer than one hour. The interview will be semi-structured around a list of
open-ended questions. When you give your answer to the open-ended questions, feel free to elaborate on, or
illustrate them in any way you want. In an effort to capture everything you would like to share, I would like to audio
tape our conversation today. Do I have your permission to audio record our interview conversation? [Turn on
audio recorder if participant response is yes].
Transition to Interview Questions
Do you have any questions before we proceed with the interview...proceed with interview questions?
A. Interviewee Background
1. How long have you been teaching?
ADJUNCT FACULTY ENGAGEMENT
141
B. Autonomy
1. What influenced your decision …
___________ to become a teacher?
___________ at this institution?
2. What prior experiences do you have teaching?
3. How do you feel your teaching impacts student learning and success?
Probe: How do you define student success?
4. How do you promote students to participate in their own learning in the classroom environment?
Probes: Is it working- why or why not?
5. What motivates you to teach?
6. In your own words, what does the term academic freedom mean to you?
C. Competence
1. How are classes assigned to faculty at this institution?
Probe: When and how are you notified?
2. How do you prepare to teach a class?
3. What resources do you bring to the classroom that could be interpreted as out-of-the-box or innovative?
Probe: Do these techniques improve student learning? - How do you know?
4. How do you evaluate your own instruction?
5. How is your teaching evaluated…
___________ by department leaders?
___________________ by students?
ADJUNCT FACULTY ENGAGEMENT
142
6. What opportunities for professional development are provided to you?
D. Relatedness
1. What resources are available to faculty to improve classroom teaching?
2. Briefly describe your work climate.
3. If you were to experience a challenging academic situation in the classroom, whom would you seek for
support? Why?
4. How and to what extent do you feel supported by…
__________ your peers?
__________ department leadership?
__________ your students?
5. How and to what extent do you participate in the strategic planning efforts for student learning outcomes
in your department?
6. How are teachers recognized and or rewarded?
E. 1. Is there anything else you would like me to know that I have not asked?
Gratitude
XXXX. Thank you for your time and participation in this interview. This concludes our interview, and I
would like to remind you that your participation and feedback from today’s interview will remain completely
confidential. I would like to ask your permission to follow-up with you should I have any additional questions
regarding our conversation today.
ADJUNCT FACULTY ENGAGEMENT
143
APPENDIX E
Online Survey Participant Request
Email Subject Line: Adjunct Faculty Engagement at Union West Community College-Request for your
participation in online survey.
Dear Adjunct Faculty Member:
I am a doctoral candidate at the University of Southern California, conducting research as part of my
doctoral degree requirements. My research study is entitled, Adjunct Faculty Engagement at the
Community College: An exploration of Work Engagement and Perceived Motivational Factors through
the Lens of Self-Determination Theory. I am requesting your participation in this study, through a brief
survey about the perceptions of adjunct faculty related to work engagement, competence in the classroom,
and institutional support. Overall study outcomes seek to inform best practices in the support of adjunct
faculty work engagement and motivation within the community college setting.
The survey is brief and will take approximately 15 minutes to complete. The first screen of the
survey will include an informed consent agreement. At the end of the survey, participants will be invited
to participate in a follow-up, optional 60-minute audio taped interview at a location of their convenience.
Participation in the survey and or interview is completely voluntary, and you may choose not to
participate without fear of any negative employment consequences. All of your responses will be kept
confidential.
By agreeing to participate in the study, you will be giving your consent for the researcher to include your
responses in their data analysis. If you would like to participate, please click the survey link below to go
to the survey site or copy and paste the link into your preferred Internet browser. Your assistance in
agreeing to participate in this survey is vital to my research and will contribute to the current literature on
adjunct faculty engagement. If you have questions and or would like more information about this study,
an information letter can be obtained by contacting me at uworsham@usc.edu.
Survey link: https://usceducation.az1.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_9uWsARX2YosESOh
Thank you in advance for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Ursula Worsham
Doctoral Candidate
USC Rossier School of Education
ADJUNCT FACULTY ENGAGEMENT
144
APPENDIX F
Informed Consent Letter
You are invited to participate in a research study. Research studies include only people who voluntarily
choose to take part. This document explains information about this study. You should ask questions about
anything that is unclear to you.
Purpose of the Study:
The purpose of this research study is to gain part-time faculty members’ perceptions of their work
engagement, perceived competence in the classroom, institutional support, and overall connection to the
Union West Community College campus. The study seeks to discover institutional practices and teaching
experiences that either fosters or inhibits work engagement and motivation to inform best practices in the
support of adjunct faculty within the community college setting.
Participant Involvement:
If you agree to participate in this research study, you will be asked to complete an online survey, which is
anticipated to take about 15 minutes to complete. At the end of the online survey, participants will be
invited to participate in an optional 60-minute audio taped interview at a location of their convenience. If
you agree to interview, you do not have to answer any questions you don’t want to; if you don’t want to
be audio taped, handwritten notes will be taken.
Confidentiality:
All identifiable information obtained in this research study will remain confidential. Interview responses
will be coded with a false name (pseudonym) and maintained separately. The audiotapes will be
destroyed once they have been transcribed. All electronic data obtained in connection with this study will
be stored on a password-protected computer and handwritten notes in a locked file cabinet. Data will be
kept for a period of at least 3 years after the study has been completed and then destroyed. The members
of the research team and the University of Southern California’s Human Subjects Protection Program
(HSPP) may access the data. The HSPP reviews and monitors research studies to protect the rights and
welfare of research subjects. When the results of the research are published or discussed in conferences,
no identifiable information will be used.
Investigator Contact Information:
Principal Investigator: Ursula Tameka Worsham can be reached via email at uworsham@usc.edu or
phone at (562) XXX-XXXX or Faculty Advisor; Dr. Patricia Tobey at tobey@usc.edu.
IRB Contact Information:
University Park Institutional Review Board (UPIRB), 3720 South Flower Street #301, Los Angeles,
CA 90089-0702, (213) 821-5272 or upirb@usc.edu. Please reference Study ID: UP-17-00096.
ADJUNCT FACULTY ENGAGEMENT
145
APPENDIX G
Research Study Matrix
Research
Study
Matrix
Question
Research
Question
Theory
Methodology/Data
Analysis
Instrument/Question(s)
1
To
what
extent,
if
any,
do
institutional
teaching
experiences
within
Union
West
Community
College
influence
adjunct
faculty’s
perceived
need
satisfaction
for
autonomy,
competence,
and
relatedness
(using
The
Basic
Need
Satisfaction
at
Work
Scale
[BNSW-‐
S],
Kasser,
Davey,
&
Ryan,
1992)
in
the
workplace?
Self-‐
Determination
Theory
(Deci
&
Ryan,
1985;
Ryan
&
Deci,
2000a)
Mixed
Methods
Design
Primary-‐emphasis
sequential
design
(quan
→
QUAL)
Descriptive
Analysis
Aggregate data:
Mean, Mode,
Minimum and
maximum values
Disaggregate data:
-gender (Q1)
-ethnicity (Q2)
-age (Q3)
-level of education
(Q4)
-hours taught (Q5)
-length of
employment (Q7)
-department
affiliation (Q8)
Survey
Instrument:
*[BNSW-‐S]
Autonomy
Questions:
1,5,8,11,13,17,20
*[BNSW-‐S]
Competence
Questions:
3,4,10,12,14,19
*[BNSW-‐S]
Relatedness
Questions:
2,6,7,9,15,16,18,21
1a
Is
there
a
difference
in
the
perception
of
autonomy/competence/relatedness
based
on
discipline?
-‐
ANOVA-‐(α): .05
*[BNSW-‐S]
Questions:
1-‐21
*[BNSW-‐S]
Addendum
Question:
8
1b
Is
there
a
relationship
between
the
perception
of
autonomy/competence/relatedness
and
length
of
employment?
-‐
Ordered
Logic
Regression-‐
Continuous
*[BNSW-‐S]
Questions:
1-‐21
*[BNSW-‐S]
Addendum
Question:
7
1c
Is
there
a
relationship
between
the
perception
of
autonomy/competence/relatedness
and
teaching
workload?
-‐
Ordered
Logic
Regression-‐
Continuous
*[BNSW-‐S]
Questions:
1-‐21
*[BNSW-‐S]
Addendum
Question:
5
ADJUNCT FACULTY ENGAGEMENT
146
Research
Study
Matrix
Question
Research
Question
Theory
Methodology/Data
Analysis
Instrument/Question(s)
-‐
Demographic
Questions
-‐
-‐
Survey
Instrument:
*[BNSW-‐S]
Addendum
Survey
Questions:
1-‐8
2
How
do
institutional
practices
within
Union
West
Community
College
inform
the
perceived
work
engagement
and
motivation
of
adjunct
faculty?
Self-‐
Determination
Theory
(Deci
&
Ryan,
1985;
Ryan
&
Deci,
2000a)
Constant
Comparison
Method
-‐A
priori
codes
-‐Open
coding
-‐Axial
coding
-‐Selective
coding
Semi-‐structured
Interviews:
Autonomy
Questions:
(B)
1-‐6
Competence
Questions:
(C)
1-‐6
Relatedness
Questions:
(D)
1-‐6
Abstract (if available)
Abstract
U.S. institutions of higher education face internal and external pressures to stay both economically competitive and academically appealing in light of waning budgets at the local, state, and national levels. Each year community colleges enroll nearly fifty percent of all undergraduate students in the U.S., and disproportionally rely on part-time faculty members to facilitate instruction (American Association of Community Colleges, 2014). This constituency of faculty is limited in academic decision making and is often relegated to experience salary inequities, lack of institutional support and lack of professional development (Gappa & Leslie, 1993
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
An exploration of student experiences in a preparation program for online classes in the California community college system
PDF
Inclusion of adjunct faculty in the community college culture
PDF
Developmental education pathway success: a study on the intersection of adjunct faculty and teaching metacognition
PDF
Examining perspectives of academic autonomy in community college students: a quantitative study
PDF
The perceived barriers of nursing faculty presence in an asynchronous online learning environment: a case study
PDF
Part-time non-tenure track faculty, motivation, and departmental governance: a grounded theory approach
PDF
States of motivation: examining perceptions of accreditation through the framework of self-determination
PDF
Exploring faculty-student interactions in a comprehensive college transition program for low-income and first-generation college students
PDF
Examining the faculty implementation of intermediate algebra for statistics: An evaluation study
PDF
Self-perceptions of student identity in community college students with disabilities
PDF
An exploratory study on flipped learning and the use of self-regulation amongst undergraduate engineering students
PDF
The sport of learning: the effect of college athletes' perception of identity on approach to learning
PDF
The effect on teacher career choices: exploring teacher perceptions on the impact of non‐instructional workload on self‐efficacy and self‐determination
PDF
Student academic self‐efficacy, help seeking and goal orientation beliefs and behaviors in distance education and on-campus community college sociology courses
PDF
(Re)Imagining STEM instruction: an examination of culturally relevant andragogical practices to eradicate STEM inequities among racially minoritized students in community colleges
PDF
The impact of the mindful method Youth Empowerment Seminar (YES!) on students' self-efficacy, self-regulation, and academic performance for becoming college- and career-ready
PDF
Part-time faculty and their sense of belonging
PDF
Part-time and time faculty conceptualizations of academic community: a case study
PDF
What is the relationship between self-efficacy of community college mathematics faculty and effective instructional practice?
PDF
Enhancing homeless education and faculty engagement following the launch of the Grand Challenge to End Homelessness: an evaluation study
Asset Metadata
Creator
Worsham, Ursula Tameka
(author)
Core Title
Adjunct faculty engagement at the community college: an exploration of work engagement and perceived motivational factors through the lens of Self-Determination Theory
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Education (Leadership)
Publication Date
09/27/2017
Defense Date
07/17/2017
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
adjunct faculty,Autonomy,community college,competence,engagement,leadership,OAI-PMH Harvest,relatedness,self-determination theory,Urban
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Tobey, Patricia (
committee chair
), Hassan, Angela (
committee member
), Seli, Helena (
committee member
)
Creator Email
uworsham@gmail.com,uworsham@usc.edu
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c40-439070
Unique identifier
UC11265812
Identifier
etd-WorshamUrs-5789.pdf (filename),usctheses-c40-439070 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-WorshamUrs-5789.pdf
Dmrecord
439070
Document Type
Dissertation
Rights
Worsham, Ursula Tameka
Type
texts
Source
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Access Conditions
The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...
Repository Name
University of Southern California Digital Library
Repository Location
USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA
Tags
adjunct faculty
community college
competence
relatedness
self-determination theory