University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

How the departmental cultures experienced by part-time, non-tenure track faculty affect their ability to meet first-year college student needs

(USC Thesis Other)

How the departmental cultures experienced by part-time, non-tenure track faculty affect their ability to meet first-year college student needs

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content HOW THE DEPARTMENTAL CULTURES EXPERIENCED BY
PART-TIME, NON-TENURE TRACK FACULTY
AFFECT THEIR ABILITY TO MEET FIRST-YEAR COLLEGE STUDENT NEEDS
by
Gene G. Sandan
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
August 2024
Copyright 2024 Gene G. Sandan

ii
Dedication
To my partner, Chia, who tirelessly continues to “fight on” alongside me in our journey to finish
both of our doctorates, get in “good trouble,” and break the educational barrier for both of our
families. Thank you for your love, support, and sacrifices that have enabled me to get this done.
To my daughter, Meilani, who embodies the compassion, intelligence, judgment, and tenacity to
know when and how to “fight on” for what is right and just. Thank you for always showering me
with your love and kisses.
To my mom, Leonila, who taught me how to be open to God’s love and wisdom to guide me
through this educational journey and all of life’s challenges and opportunities. Thank you for
your love, continued prayers, and encouraging phone calls.
To my dad, Guillermo, who I wished could have seen me finish my doctorate. Thank you for
supporting me while up there in Heaven. I felt you hugging me on my graduation day.
To my sister, Zoe, who always knew how and when to check up on me to make sure I was still
moving forward. Thank you for always listening and offering ways for me to take it easy.
To Dr. Marcedes Butler and Dr. Janet Vera for challenging and supporting me to continue to
“fight on” to degree completion. I am ready to join both of you as USC Rossier School of
Education Ed.D. alums.

iii
Acknowledgments
I would like to first thank Dr. Patricia Tobey for believing in me and serving as my
committee chair. Your kindness, wisdom, and keep it simple philosophy kept me motivated and
on-track to complete this dissertation in one year. I also want to thank Dr. Esther Kim and Dr.
Cathy Krop for your advice and suggestions to scale down my original dissertation proposal to
something more manageable.
Lastly, I would like to thank Dr. Adrianna Kezar for guiding and working with me as my
first committee chair. Although life circumstances prevented me from finishing this dissertation
with you, I continue to be grateful for the wisdom and guidance you offered me in my
dissertation journey.

iv
Table of Contents
Dedication.......................................................................................................................................ii
Acknowledgments..........................................................................................................................iii
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. vi
List of Figures............................................................................................................................... vii
Abstract........................................................................................................................................viii
Chapter 1: Overview of the Study .................................................................................................. 1
Background of the Problem ................................................................................................ 4
Statement of the Problem.................................................................................................... 5
Purpose of the Study and Research Questions.................................................................... 8
Overview of the Conceptual Framework and Methodologies............................................ 9
Importance of the Study.................................................................................................... 10
Definition of Terms........................................................................................................... 12
Organization of the Dissertation ....................................................................................... 13
Chapter 2: Review of the Literature.............................................................................................. 15
Working Conditions of Part-Time, Non-Tenure Track Faculty ....................................... 16
Departmental Cultures Experienced by Part-Time, Non-Tenure Track Faculty .............. 28
Departmental Culture and Students of Part-Time, Non-Tenure Track Faculty................ 32
Importance of Studying the Impact of Departmental Culture on First-Year
Students............................................................................................................................. 37
Academic Needs of First-Year College Students in Urban Universities.......................... 39
Conceptual Framework..................................................................................................... 56
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 57
Chapter 3: Methodology ............................................................................................................... 61
Research Questions........................................................................................................... 61
Overview of Design .......................................................................................................... 62
Research Setting................................................................................................................ 63
Participant Recruitment .................................................................................................... 65
Interviews as the Data Source........................................................................................... 67
Data Collection Procedures............................................................................................... 70
Data Analysis.................................................................................................................... 70
Credibility and Trustworthiness........................................................................................ 73
Ethics................................................................................................................................. 74
The Researcher.................................................................................................................. 76
Limitations and Delimitations........................................................................................... 76
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 77

v
Chapter 4: Findings....................................................................................................................... 80
Description of the Participants.......................................................................................... 81
Research Question 1 Findings .......................................................................................... 86
Research Question 2 Findings ........................................................................................ 102
Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 119
Chapter 5: Discussion and Recommendations............................................................................ 120
Discussion of the Possible Impact of Participants’ Prior Roles on Findings.................. 121
Discussion of Research Question 1 Findings.................................................................. 123
Discussion of Research Question 2 Findings.................................................................. 130
Summary of Major Findings........................................................................................... 140
Recommendations for Practice ....................................................................................... 143
Recommendations for Future Research .......................................................................... 153
Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 155
References................................................................................................................................... 158
Appendices.................................................................................................................................. 168
Appendix A: Study Information Sheet ........................................................................... 168
Appendix B: Social Media Recruitment Posting Text.................................................... 169
Appendix C: Survey to Screen Possible Study Participants........................................... 170
Appendix D: Semi-Structured Interview Protocol for Study Participants...................... 172
Appendix E: Coding Table ............................................................................................. 177

vi
List of Tables
Table 1: Demographics of Part-Time, Non-Tenure Track Faculty Study Participants ................ 82
Appendix E: Coding Table ......................................................................................................... 177

vii
List of Figures
Figure 1: Conceptual Framework ................................................................................................. 56
Figure 2: Major Findings with Conceptual Framework ............................................................. 141

viii
Abstract
Research on first-year college students (FYCS) indicate that faculty, including part-time, nontenure track faculty (PTNTTF), play a vital role in meeting the academic needs of FYCS to
facilitate their academic success. However, the literature on PTNTTF suggests that the
departmental culture they experience may impact their ability to meet students’ needs. This
qualitative study used the validation and institutional agency frameworks to describe how
departmental cultures support or limit PTNTTF in meeting the academic needs of FYCS at
public, urban universities. Through interviews, this study examined the experiences of nine
PTNTTF to understand their perceptions on how they meet the academic needs of FYCS and
how the departmental cultures they experience affect their ability to meet FYCS’ academic
needs. This study first found that PTNTTF perceive that they meet the needs of FYCS by being
approachable and understanding, structuring their classes for student success, and helping
students understand campus resources and college expectations. Secondly, this study found that
departmental cultures support the ability of PTNTTF to meet FYCS’ needs by providing
PTNTTF with professional treatment, course materials, and collegiality. This study also found
that departmental cultures limit the ability of PTNTTF to meet FYCS’ needs with poor hiring
practices and inequitable pay, little to no training or departmental support, and little to no
opportunities for PTNTTF to provide curricular input or build community with one another.
Lastly, this study found that PTNTTF are guided by their knowledge and experiences in previous
roles in meeting the academic needs of FYCS.
Keywords: first-year college students, part-time non tenure track faculty, four-year public
universities, urban universities, working conditions, departmental culture, validation,
institutional agents

1
Chapter 1: Overview of the Study
On a hot mid-summer day, Andrew was fretting about their family’s bills given the rising
costs of living in Los Angeles. Although Andrew completed their doctorate in mathematics five
years ago, Andrew has been unable to secure a full-time, tenure track faculty position at any of
the region’s universities, including the university from which they earned a doctorate. In order to
financially survive, Andrew cobbles together work as a part-time, non-tenure track faculty
member teaching mathematics wherever possible in the region’s universities and community
colleges. However, Andrew’s teaching appointments have never been consistent. There are times
in which Andrew has only taught two courses, one at a community college and the other at
Andrew’s doctoral alma mater that is over 10 miles away from the community college. At other
times, Andrew has taught five courses spread out over two different community colleges and one
public university.
Due to enrollment declines as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, Andrew has recently
only taught two courses per term, one in the same department and university from which they
earned their doctorate and the other at a community college seven miles away. This summer,
Andrew only has a confirmed teaching appointment for one first-semester calculus course in the
fall at a local community college. As such, Andrew’s family of three now needs to apply for
public assistance to survive financially.
However, one week before the start of classes at Andrew’s doctoral alma mater, Andrew
received an email from the mathematics department asking them to teach two sections of
developmental mathematics for first-year students and one section of linear algebra. Although
Andrew was relieved that a teaching offer came through from a university and department they
knew well, Andrew was worried as they have never taught a developmental mathematics course

2
before. Most of their teaching experience has focused on calculus courses for science and
engineering majors. Looking at the past-due bills on their desk, Andrew felt the weight of their
family’s livelihood on their shoulders. Reluctantly, Andrew replied to the mathematics
department coordinator accepting the offer to teach the three courses at the university.
The clock was ticking for Andrew to prepare for their four courses. Andrew felt prepared
for the first semester calculus course at the community college as they have refined their syllabus
and course materials for the course over time. For the linear algebra course at the university,
Andrew modified the syllabus and course materials they previously used for a linear algebra
course at the community college. However, Andrew was lost and stressed about the two
developmental mathematics sections. Andrew frantically called the department coordinator and
the mathematics department chair who was Andrew’s faculty advisor when they were a doctoral
student a few years ago. Andrew outreached to them to see if they had syllabi and course
materials other faculty have used to teach the developmental mathematics course in the past.
Unfortunately, both did not have any of these materials as the previous instructor for the course
unexpectedly went on medical leave. Although Andrew had connections with departmental
faculty as their former doctoral student, Andrew was reluctant to ask for their help as Andrew
overheard passive-aggressive comments about part-time faculty made by tenured faculty during
the last departmental faculty meeting. Instead, Andrew spent the next few days reviewing the
standard textbook for the course and researching pedagogical strategies for developmental
mathematics courses. Andrew was overwhelmed but was able to hastily put together a course
syllabus and first week lesson plans.
On the first day of classes, Andrew felt confident that their developmental mathematics
sections would go well since Andrew’s linear algebra course and first semester calculus course

3
went well earlier in the day. For Andrew’s first developmental mathematics section, Andrew
arrived in the classroom early to greet students as they entered the classroom. Andrew
understood the importance of this simple gesture to being perceived as approachable with
students given their prior experiences with the campus’ diverse student population as a graduate
teaching assistant. The students felt Andrew’s genuine welcome. As class began, Andrew
reviewed the syllabus with the class and proceeded to begin lecturing as they hastily planned just
days earlier. As the class session proceeded, Andrew noticed that students were not paying
attention. Andrew stopped for a few moments to ask the class if they were going too fast.
Everyone nodded “yes.” Andrew returned to content they covered a few minutes prior. Andrew
looked at the class again and everyone still looked puzzled and increasingly deflated. As Andrew
was asking the class for feedback on which concept to return, the class session was over. The
class gathered their belongings and left the classroom feeling lost and frustrated. Andrew also
gathered their belongings, left the classroom, and took a few minutes to sit down on a nearby
bench to reflect on what had occurred.
Andrew was frustrated and slightly angry at themself for accepting a class in which they
had no expertise to teach. Andrew began to take reflective notes to brainstorm how the second
class session could be taught differently. Andrew realized that they did not have enough time to
modify interactive class activities or community building activities that were well received by
students in the calculus courses they previously taught at the university. As soon as Andrew
started to write something, Andrew realized that their next developmental mathematics course
section was across campus and that they were already late. Andrew started to run to their next
class with trepidation that their second section of developmental mathematics would turn out the
same way as their first.

4
Background of the Problem
Andrew’s story is a fictional, composite narrative based on actual experiences, thoughts,
and feelings of faculty members hired by higher education institutions on a part-time basis and
outside of the track to earn tenure. Called part-time, non-tenure track faculty (PTNTTF), Andrew
is among the 48% of our nation’s faculty who are PTNTTF (Colby, 2023). Faculty in such parttime, non-tenure track roles are either drawn to or forced into these faculty appointments for
varied reasons (Gappa & Leslie, 1993; Pryor, 2020). Some are employed full-time as a
practitioner in their respective fields looking to supplement their income or contribute back to
their profession as a part-time teacher, while others like Andrew are forced into piecing together
multiple part-time faculty positions at different institutions to financially survive due to a lack of
full-time, tenure-track faculty openings in their academic disciplines (Gappa & Leslie, 1993;
Pryor, 2020).
Public higher education institutions across the country rely on hiring PTNTTF to fill unstaffed teaching assignments because of decreased state funding (Cross & Goldenberg, 2009;
Gappa & Leslie, 1993) and last-minute enrollment demands (Baldwin & Chronister, 2001;
Gappa & Leslie, 1993; Jacobs, 1998; Kezar, 2013; Murphy Nutting, 2003). Due to the ad-hoc
nature of their teaching assignments, PTNTTF are often hired within the 30 days before classes
begin and some as late as the first few days of the term (Baldwin & Chronister, 2001; Gappa &
Leslie, 1993; Jacobs, 1998; Kezar, 2013). In many instances, PTNTTF are relied upon heavily to
teach undergraduate courses (Benjamin, 2002; Gappa & Leslie, 1993; Gehrke & Kezar, 2015;
Modern Language Association, 2008; National Education Association Research Center, 2007)
including courses taken during students’ first year in college.

5
Meanwhile, enrollment at our nation’s colleges and universities in the post-COVID-19
pandemic era is slowly increasing, including at public, four-year universities in urban settings
(Berg et al., 2024). At public, urban universities nationwide, 49% of students are students of
color, 18% are adult learners, and 41% are Pell Grant eligible students (Coalition of Urban
Serving Universities, 2022). Especially for students entering these public, urban universities, it is
a moral imperative for higher education institutions to fully support students by meeting their
academic needs inside and outside the classroom. Previous studies found that faculty play an
integral role in meeting the academic needs of college students, especially those who identify as
minoritized or marginalized, with respect to pedagogical approaches (Frankel & Smith, 2022;
McMurray & Sorrells, 2009), validation inside and outside the classroom (Beard, 2021; CastilloMontoya, 2017; DeFreitas & Rinn, 2013; Hagler et al., 2023; Holcombe & Kezar, 2020;
Jehangir, 2010; Linares & Muñoz, 2011; McCallen & Johnson, 2020; McMurray & Sorrells,
2009; Museus & Quaye, 2009; Rendón, 1994; Sarcedo, 2022; Schademan & Thompson, 2016;
Smith & Lucena, 2016; Yosso, 2005) , and the scaffolding of funds of knowledge by an
institutional agent (McCallen & Johnson, 2020; Smith & Lucena, 2016; Stanton-Salazar, 1997;
Wang, 2014).
Statement of the Problem
However, for students who are enrolled in courses taught by PTNTTF, including those in
their first year of college, the literature has found that such students experience negative student
outcomes (Baldwin & Wawrzynski, 2011; Eagan & Jaeger, 2008; Ehrenberg & Zhang, 2005;
Ehrenberg & Zhang, 2004; Harrington & Schibik, 2001; Jacoby, 2006; Jaeger, 2008; Jaeger &
Eagan, 2011; Jaeger & Eagan, 2009; Jaeger & Hinz, 2008; Ran & Xu, 2019; Umbach, 2007).
The literature suggests that the root problem of these negative impacts to student outcomes is not

6
the pedagogical strategies used by PTNTTF in the classroom, but rather the academic
departmental culture PTNTTF experience on their campuses (Kezar, 2013).
The literature has described the norms in departmental cultures experienced by PTNTTF
as being hired last-minute with unpredictable contracts (American Federation of Teachers, 2022;
Baldwin & Chronister, 2001; Berry, 2005; Democratic House Committee on Education and the
Workforce, 2014; Gappa & Leslie, 1993; Jacobs, 1998; Kezar, 2013) and inequitable pay
(American Association of University Professors, 2023; American Federation of Teachers, 2022;
Coalition on the Academic Workforce, 2012; Democratic House Committee on Education and
the Workforce, 2014); not being offered institutional support through an orientation (American
Federation of Teachers, 2022; Gappa & Leslie, 1993; Haeger, 1998; Kezar, 2013; Kezar et al.,
2019; Ran & Sanders, 2020; Street et al., 2012), a private office (American Federation of
Teachers, 2022; Baldwin & Chronister, 2001; Gappa & Leslie, 1993; Haeger, 1998; Jacobs,
1998; Kezar, 2013; Ran & Sanders, 2020; Spinrad & Relles, 2022; Street et al., 2012; Tillyer,
2005), technological resources (Haeger, 1998; Kezar, 2013; Murphy Nutting, 2003; Street et al.,
2012; Tillyer, 2005), and administrative staff support (Democratic House Committee on
Education and the Workforce, 2014; Eagan et al., 2015; Gappa & Leslie, 1993; Kezar, 2013; Ran
& Sanders, 2020; Rhoades, 2020; Spinrad & Relles, 2022; Wilson, 2009); being offered little to
no opportunities for professional development (Gappa & Leslie, 1993; Kezar, 2013; Murphy
Nutting, 2003; Thompson, 2003; Umbach, 2007); not being provided valuable teaching feedback
(Kezar, 2013; Spinrad & Relles, 2022; Umbach, 2007; Witt & Gearin, 2021); and not being
respected as a faculty colleague to be included in department meetings and events (American
Federation of Teachers, 2022; Culver et al., 2020; Jones et al., 2017; Kimmel & Fairchild, 2017;
Meixner et al., 2010; Rhoades, 2020; Witt & Gearin, 2021) or be allowed to make decisions

7
within their own classes (Meixner et al., 2010; Spinrad & Relles, 2022). Although researchers
have implied that departmental cultures may limit the ability of PTNTTF to be the most effective
teachers, advisors, and mentors (McCallen & Johnson, 2020), there is a gap in the literature in
examining the departmental cultures experienced by PTNTTF and their possible impact on the
educational experiences of specific student populations (Davis & Kezar, 2017; Kezar, 2013),
such as first-year college students (FYCS).
For many FYCS, the likelihood of taking an undergraduate course with a PTNTTF
faculty member is great due to the increasing amount of PTNTTF (48% in 2021) in our nation’s
colleges and universities (Colby, 2023). As part of a first-year college student’s usual course
load, introductory and survey level courses are either taken to fulfill general education
requirements or lower-division major requirements. Given a recent finding that students who
have taken introductory courses with non-tenure track faculty have a lower chance of succeeding
in subsequent courses in the same subject area (Ran & Xu, 2019), there is an increased urgency
to further study how the departmental cultures experienced by PTNTTF impact their ability to
meet the needs of FYCS.
The literature indicates that students, including FYCS, have specific academic needs
faculty members can meet by providing a comprehensive course orientation (Bennett et al.,
2016; College Transition Collaborative, 2022; Tevis & Britton, 2020); understanding the student
demographics on their campus (College Transition Collaborative, 2022; Kezar, 2013; McMurray
& Sorrells, 2009; Natalicio & Smith, 2005) and their competing commitments (Franklin et al.,
2002l; Jacoby, 1990; NASPA & Uwill, 2023); being available outside of class (Hagler et al.,
2023; Schwartz et al., 2018; Strayhorn, 2017; Vetter et al., 2019); encouraging interaction in
class (Bennett et al., 2016; Dwyer, 2017; Frankel & Smith, 2022; McMurray & Sorrells, 2009);

8
academically and interpersonally validating students’ identities, prior knowledge, and
experiences (Beard, 2021; Castillo-Montoya, 2017; DeFreitas & Rinn, 2013; Hagler et al., 2023;
Holcombe & Kezar, 2020; Jehangir, 2010; Linares & Muñoz, 2011; McCallen & Johnson, 2020;
McMurray & Sorrells, 2009; Museus & Quaye, 2009; Rendón, 1994; Sarcedo, 2022; Schademan
& Thompson, 2016; Smith & Lucena, 2016; Yosso, 2005); and scaffolding FYCS in funds of
knowledge specific to academia as an institutional agent (McCallen & Johnson, 2020; Smith &
Lucena, 2016; Stanton-Salazar, 1997; Wang, 2014). However, there is an absence of literature
that examines how the departmental cultures experienced by PTNTTF support or limit their
ability to meet these specific academic needs of FYCS. The composite narrative at the beginning
of this chapter provided a preview of how PTNTTF like Andrew understand and truly desire to
meet the academic needs of their FYCS, but struggle to do so given the departmental culture they
experience.
Purpose of the Study and Research Questions
The purpose of this qualitative study was to examine how the departmental cultures
experienced by PTNTTF support or limit their ability to meet the academic needs of FYCS at
four-year public, urban universities. This study aimed to answer the following research
questions:
1. How do part-time, non-tenure track faculty perceive they meet the academic needs of
first-year college students at four-year public, urban universities?
2. How do the departmental cultures experienced by part-time, non-tenure track faculty
support or limit their ability to meet the academic needs of first-year college students
at four-year public, urban universities?

9
Overview of the Conceptual Framework and Methodologies
To guide this study in answering these research questions, a conceptual framework was
developed based on findings from my comprehensive literature review. The data collection
instruments and the lens that guided this study’s data analysis were based on the conceptual
framework I briefly explain in this section.
In order for faculty to meet a major academic need of FYCS in scaffolding the funds of
knowledge specific to academia as an institutional agent (Stanton-Salazar, 1997), PTNTTF must
first optimize their instructional methods to foster a culture of success by academically and
interpersonally validating FYCS’ prior knowledge and experiences inside and outside the
classroom (Rendón, 1994).
However, the degree to which PTNTTF can academically and interpersonally validate
their students inside and outside the classroom (Rendón, 1994) and scaffold funds of knowledge
specific to academia as an institutional agent (Stanton-Salazar, 1997) may be impacted by the
departmental cultures experienced by PTNTTF. In answering this study’s research questions, this
study aimed to examine how the departmental cultures experienced by PTNTTF (Kezar, 2013),
support or limit the ability of PTNTTF to meet the academic needs of their FYCS.
Given the main purpose and research questions of this study, I structured this study using
qualitative research methods. I used interviews to examine the lived experiences and
perspectives of PTNTTF with respect to their experiences in their departmental culture. During
the data analysis phase of this study, I applied a theoretical thematic analysis approach (Braun &
Clarke, 2006) to construct and report on themes and patterns from the data through the lens of
this study’s conceptual framework.

10
Importance of the Study
The urgency of addressing the ability of PTNTTF to meet the academic needs of FYCS is
great. The most significant stakeholders of this study are students themselves. Especially for
students enrolled in public, urban universities who are often minoritized and marginalized by
educational systems, the attainment of a college degree is the major vehicle for students to climb
the socioeconomic ladder (Saenz et al., 2007). As such, it is imperative for higher education
leaders in urban settings to ensure that their institutions are willing and fully ready to support
students from admissions to graduation. When higher education leaders improve the
departmental cultures that PTNTTF experience, FYCS in public, urban universities can fully
enjoy the advice, mentoring, and advocacy their PTNTTF are so eager to offer them.
As faculty members play a vital role in meeting the academic needs of FYCS, institutions
must assess how PTNTTF currently meet the academic needs of their FYCS. In answering this
study’s research questions, this study informs the work of college and university administrators
in assessing how their decisions regarding PTNTTF are impacting the departmental culture
PTNTTF experience and how that culture is ultimately impacting PTNTTF in meeting the
academic needs of FYCS. This is increasingly important if PTNTTF are continually relied upon
to teach students, especially FYCS, in undergraduate courses (Benjamin, 2002; Gappa & Leslie,
1993; Gehrke & Kezar, 2015; Modern Language Association, 2008; National Education
Association Research Center, 2007).
Perhaps those who are in positions to influence faculty recruitment can find this study
informative as they consider the benefits and concerns of hiring PTNTTF members to teach
lower-division courses. The literature has suggested that these campus policymakers consider
appointing PTNTTF to courses that are upper-division and more practitioner-oriented (Bettinger

11
& Long, 2010; Eagan & Jaeger, 2008). In addition, this study provides instructional development
centers ideas in enhancing professional development for all faculty members to improve their
teaching methodologies and instructional materials to best encourage and support the academic
engagement of students, especially those who are FYCS in public, urban universities.
As PTNTTF may not be invited to new faculty orientations (American Federation of
Teachers, 2022; Gappa & Leslie, 1993; Haeger, 1998; Kezar, 2013; Kezar et al., 2019; Ran &
Sanders, 2020; Street et al., 2012) or professional development opportunities (Gappa & Leslie,
1993; Kezar, 2013; Murphy Nutting, 2003; Thompson, 2003; Umbach, 2007), this study helps
provide PTNTTF a better understanding of how they can best support the academic needs of
FYCS. Since faculty members may have the closest and most frequent exposure to FYCS
through their classes, it is vital for them to understand the current research and the results of this
study to be more effective instructors (Frankel & Smith, 2022; McMurray & Sorrells, 2009) and
institutional agents (McCallen & Johnson, 2020; Smith & Lucena, 2016; Stanton-Salazar, 1997;
Wang, 2014) for their FYCS. By improving the effectiveness of their instruction to FYCS to
include validating classroom experiences (Beard, 2021; DeFreitas & Rinn, 2013; Hagler et al.,
2023; Jehangir, 2010; Museus & Quaye, 2009; Rendón, 1994; Smith & Lucena, 2016; Yosso,
2005), PTNTTF can further earn the trust of their FYCS by extending validating experiences
outside of the classroom (McMurray & Sorrells, 2009; Rendón, 1994). Such interactions not only
benefit students, but also PTNTTF who may earn more positive teaching evaluations and the
increased chance of receiving a contract renewal as a PTNTTF member (Davis & Kezar, 2017;
Spinrad & Relles, 2022).
Lastly, this study is valuable for student affairs professionals who develop programs and
services targeting FYCS. This study provides these professionals additional background and

12
context on how PTNTTF are supporting the academic needs of FYCS given the departmental
cultures they experience. As this study found that the departmental culture PTNTTF experience
is affecting their ability to effectively meet the academic needs of FYCS, student affairs
professionals can develop programs and services to address unmet needs.
Definition of Terms
There are key terms used throughout this study that are important to understanding this
study. This bulleted section provides a brief definition for the following key terms:
• Academic needs of first-year college students refer to a set of expressed academic
needs of first-year college students with respect to faculty providing a comprehensive
course orientation (Bennett et al., 2016; College Transition Collaborative, 2022; Tevis
& Britton, 2020); understanding the student demographics on their campus (College
Transition Collaborative, 2022; Kezar, 2013; McMurray & Sorrells, 2009; Natalicio
& Smith, 2005) and their competing commitments (Franklin et al., 2002l; Jacoby,
1990; NASPA & Uwill, 2023); being available outside of class (Hagler et al., 2023;
Schwartz et al., 2018; Strayhorn, 2017; Vetter et al., 2019); encouraging interaction in
class (Bennett et al., 2016; Dwyer, 2017; Frankel & Smith, 2022; McMurray &
Sorrells, 2009); academically and interpersonally validating students’ identities, prior
knowledge, and experiences (Beard, 2021; Castillo-Montoya, 2017; DeFreitas &
Rinn, 2013; Hagler et al., 2023; Holcombe & Kezar, 2020; Jehangir, 2010; Linares &
Muñoz, 2011; McCallen & Johnson, 2020; McMurray & Sorrells, 2009; Museus &
Quaye, 2009; Rendón, 1994; Sarcedo, 2022; Schademan & Thompson, 2016; Smith
& Lucena, 2016; Yosso, 2005); and scaffolding FYCS in funds of knowledge specific

13
to academia as an institutional agent (McCallen & Johnson, 2020; Smith & Lucena,
2016; Stanton-Salazar, 1997; Wang, 2014).
• Departmental culture refers to the values, norms, and expectations perceived,
experienced, and reproduced by individuals who are a part of an academic department
in a university setting (Kezar, 2013).
• Funds of knowledge refer to seven types of knowledge that college students need in
order to navigate higher education’s structure, culture, and discourses (StantonSalazar, 1997).
• Institutional agents are “those individuals who have the capacity and commitment to
transmit directly, or negotiate the transmission of, institutional resources and
opportunities” (Stanton-Salazar, 1997, p. 6).
• Part-time, non-tenure track faculty are faculty members who have part-time faculty
appointments that are ineligible for tenure review (Kezar & Sam, 2010).
• Urban universities are four-year universities dedicated to serve residents in a specific
geographic region “for whom the institution may represent the only opportunity for
professional and personal growth and development” (Natalicio & Smith, 2005, p.
156).
• Validation is “an enabling, confirming and supportive process initiated by in- and outof-class agents that foster academic and interpersonal development” (Rendón, 1994,
p. 44).
Organization of the Dissertation
In the next chapter, my review of related literature synthesizes the previous work of
researchers that have examined the working conditions of PTNTTF, the departmental cultures

14
experienced by PTNTTF, the impact of these departmental cultures on students, the importance
of assessing the impact of departmental cultures on FYCS, the academic needs of FYCS, and the
conceptual framework of this study. The second chapter serves to describe the gap in the current
literature on PTNTTF that justified this study.
In chapter three, I describe the methodology that was used in this study. I described the
research setting, participant sampling, inclusion criteria, participant recruitment, screening
surveys, interview data source and protocols, data collection procedures, data analysis,
credibility and trustworthiness, ethics, the researcher, limitations, and delimitations. This third
chapter describes and justifies the methodological choices I made in conducting this research
study.
The fourth chapter reports this research study’s findings by describing the themes and
sub-themes that answer this study’s research questions with relevant evidence from the interview
data. The chapter also includes a description of this study’s participants. This fourth chapter
solely focuses on reporting the qualitative data organized into themes and sub-themes.
The last chapter discusses this study’s major findings while situating them within the
context of prior literature. The fifth chapter also includes recommendations for practice and
recommendations for future research.
The next section contains a list of references used throughout this study so that the reader
may easily find the cited works that have been used in this study.
Lastly, included in the appendices are this study’s information sheet, text used to recruit
study participants via social media, the survey used to screen study participants, this study’s
interview protocol aligned to this study’s research questions and conceptual framework, and a
table of the codes that were generated from this study’s qualitative data.

15
Chapter 2: Review of the Literature
In this qualitative study, my main goal was to examine how the departmental cultures
experienced by part-time, non-tenure track faculty (PTNTTF) (Kezar, 2013), impact the ability
of PTNTTF to meet the academic needs of their first-year college students (FYCS) at four-year
public, urban universities. This study was informed by the following research questions
underlying this qualitative study:
1. How do part-time, non-tenure track faculty perceive they meet the academic needs of
first-year college students at four-year public, urban universities?
2. How do the departmental cultures experienced by part-time, non-tenure track faculty
support or limit their ability to meet the academic needs of first-year college students
at four-year public, urban universities?
In order for this study to effectively answer these research questions, I first examined the
literature on the working conditions and departmental cultures experienced by PTNTTF and the
academic needs of FYCS. Such a synthesized review of recent and related research formed a
foundation for this study.
The first section of this literature review focuses on the working conditions of PTNTTF.
The second section describes the working conditions of PTNTTF within the four types of
departmental cultures (Kezar, 2013) experienced by non-tenure track faculty. The third section
describes previous studies on how the working conditions of non-tenure track faculty have
impacted student learning and outcomes. The fourth section describes the importance of
assessing the impact of departmental cultures experienced by PTNTTF on FYCS. The fifth
section explores the academic needs of FYCS, including instructional approaches and
institutional agency provided by their faculty members. Lastly, this chapter describes the

16
conceptual framework guiding this study in answering this study’s research questions.
Throughout the review, I draw conclusions on the possible impact of departmental cultures
experienced by PTNTTF on their ability to meet the academic needs of FYCS based on the
literature.
Working Conditions of Part-Time, Non-Tenure Track Faculty
Nationally, the percentages of PTNTTF in colleges and universities have increased from
33% in 1987 to 48% in 2021 (Colby, 2023). Due to student enrollment decreases during the
COVID-19 pandemic, “the number of part-time faculty members decreased by about 50,260
(8.3%) from fall 2019 to fall 2020 and recovered by only about 20% in fall 2021” (American
Association of University Professors, 2023, p. 11). More specifically, the percentage of PTNTTF
faculty members at Carnegie classified doctoral and master’s level institutions are 52% and 54%,
respectively (American Association of University Professors, 2023). As of 2021, 54% of
PTNTTF nationally are women, while about 50% of PTNTTF are underrepresented minorities
(Colby, 2023).
Researchers have also found that PTNTTF are either drawn to or forced into part-time,
non-tenure track faculty appointments for a wide variety of reasons. Gappa and Leslie (1993)
described different types of PTNTTF based on their motivations to accept such roles: careerenders who are retired or transitioning to retirement, freelancers who are employed in a variety
of roles, individuals aspiring to be full-time faculty on the tenure-track but cannot secure a fulltime faculty role, and practitioners and professionals augmenting their full-time employment
with a part-time teaching appointment related to their full-time employment. For example, those
who are employed as full-time student services professionals on college campuses sometimes
serve as PTNTTF (Scott & Kezar, 2019) which allows them to leverage their student

17
development knowledge and practitioner experiences to being more student-centered in meeting
their students’ academic needs (Guillaume et al., 2020). Although there is no national data
describing the percentages of PTNTTF in each of Gappa and Leslie’s (1993) categories, what is
known is the widespread preference of PTNTTF to be employed in a full-time faculty role. In a
2022 national survey of non-tenure track faculty, more than 63% of PTNTTF survey respondents
expressed their preference to be in a full-time faculty role (American Federation of Teachers,
2022).
Especially for PTNTTF who cannot secure a full-time faculty role and are forced into
PTNTTF roles, they are more likely to report their dissatisfaction with their compensation and
job security and their overall poor working conditions (Maynard & Joseph, 2008). With about
half of the nation’s higher education faculty workforce as part-time, the working conditions of
PTNTTF are being increasingly reported in the media and have even caught the attention of
Congress (Democratic House Committee on Education and the Workforce, 2014). PTNTTF are
not only sounding the alarm to improve their working conditions, but also to bring awareness to
how improving their working conditions will facilitate better student learning outcomes.
According to the literature on PTNTTF, two major areas of concern may impact the ability of
PTNTTF to meet the academic needs of FYCS: last-minute hiring and contracts of PTNTTF and
lack of institutional support offered to PTNTTF.
Last-Minute Hiring and Contracts of PTNTTF
As state expenditures for public higher education continue to decline, institutions have
increased their reliance on PTNTTF to teach undergraduate courses (Benjamin, 2002; Gappa &
Leslie, 1993; Gehrke & Kezar, 2015; Modern Language Association, 2008; National Education
Association Research Center, 2007). To meet last-minute enrollment demands at some

18
institutions, academic departments monitor student enrollments and hire PTNTTF as needed
(Baldwin & Chronister, 2001; Gappa & Leslie, 1993; Jacobs, 1998; Kezar, 2013; Murphy
Nutting, 2003). Some PTNTTF members are hired within the 30 days preceding an academic
term, and some as late as the first few days of the term (Baldwin & Chronister, 2001; Gappa &
Leslie, 1993; Jacobs, 1998; Kezar, 2013). In fact, a 2022 survey of non-tenure track faculty
members found that 42.9% of survey respondents reported being hired four weeks or less prior to
the start of instruction (American Federation of Teachers, 2022). The last-minute hiring of
PTNTTF also impacts their ability to prepare for their courses. Respondents to a 2011 survey
noted having less than two weeks to order textbooks and prepare syllabi (Street et al., 2012).
Unpredictability of Contract Renewals
Term after term, PTNTTF experience being hired at the last minute as a result of the
unpredictable renewals of their contracts. In fact, more than 75% of non-tenure track faculty
survey respondents in 2022 indicated that they had contracts that lasted only one term (American
Federation of Teachers, 2022). With no guarantee for re-appointment or permanency, PTNTTF
members anxiously await contract renewals each term (American Federation of Teachers, 2022;
Baldwin & Chronister, 2001; Gappa & Leslie, 1993) depending on institutional resources and
enrollment demands (Baldwin & Chronister, 2001; Gappa & Leslie, 1993; Gehrke & Kezar,
2015; Jacobs, 1998; Murphy Nutting, 2003). Although the literature indicates that most PTNTTF
members are re-appointed (Conley & Leslie, 2002; Gappa & Leslie, 1993), recent studies
indicate that PTNTTF experience unpredictable renewals of their contracts (American Federation
of Teachers, 2022; Berry, 2005; Democratic House Committee on Education and the Workforce,
2014; Kezar, 2013). One PTNTTF member described:

19
I am an excellent and well-credentialed teacher in good standing in the department, but I
was told that next quarter instead of the 20 credits I thought I was going to teach, I will
only get 10, a $6,000 pay cut. (Democratic House Committee on Education and the
Workforce, 2014, p. 22)
Another faculty member reported a grimmer picture: “I taught four course[s] in the fall, but was
not told until the day before spring semester started that I wouldn’t have any classes for the
spring. I was unemployed with no notice” (Democratic House Committee on Education and the
Workforce, 2014, p. 22). Cancellation of employment contracts due to low student enrollment is
unfortunately common, with 57.2% of non-tenure track faculty experiencing this type of
cancellation, with 40.7% of them receiving less than one week notice of employment
cancellation (American Federation of Teachers, 2022). The tenuous nature of PTNTTF contract
renewals can certainly limit PTNTTF members’ ability to develop meaningful relationships with
their students if they are unsure if they will be invited back as an instructor.
Low Compensation
Because of the unpredictable nature of their reappointment, PTNTTF find it difficult to
financially rely on their teaching positions. While PTNTTF nationally earned an average of
$3,874 per three-unit course in 2021 (American Association of University Professors, 2023),
about 32% of PTNTTF survey respondents reported earning less than $50,000 a year and another
28% of PTNTTF respondents reported earning less than $26,500 annually (American Federation
of Teachers, 2022). Their earnings are so dire that 35.8% of PTNTTF survey respondents applied
for public assistance programs (American Federation of Teachers, 2022).
For many PTNTTF who do not hold full-time employment outside of teaching, seeking
teaching appointments at more than one campus becomes a financial necessity. According to

20
national surveys, 22% of PTNTTF teach at more than one school (Coalition on the Academic
Workforce, 2012). One PTNTTF survey respondent explained:
During this, we lost our home. We could no longer afford to make the payments on my
poverty wages and my domestic partner’s wages from her job. We moved in with a friend
and now had to commute an hour each way and a half hour between schools. I was
driving three hours a day and teaching five days a week switching colleges during the
day. (Democratic House Committee on Education and the Workforce, 2014, p. 18)
PTNTTF who can relate to this respondent spend considerable time commuting from
campus to campus, leaving little time for them to be available to their students outside of class
(Eagan & Jaeger, 2008; Kezar, 2013; Murphy Nutting, 2003; Thompson, 2003; Umbach, 2007).
With their limited time and availability due to their late-hiring, unpredictable contracts, and low
compensation, it becomes increasingly difficult for PTNTTF to get to know their students,
develop trusting relationships, or offer sustained academic support for those who need the most
assistance (Davis & Kezar, 2017; Kezar et al., 2019).
Lack of Institutional Support
Another major theme identified in the literature as an obstacle for PTNTTF was the lack
of support from their institution. When hired by a college or university, PTNTTF find themselves
without many of the resources and support systems available to those on the tenure track (Culver
et al., 2020; Eagan et al., 2015; Gehrke & Kezar, 2015; Kezar & Sam, 2010). Unfortunately, the
lack of institutional support becomes apparent as early as the onboarding of a new PTNTTF
member.

21
Lack of an Orientation
Although most institutions do not offer PTNTTF an orientation to be adequately aware
of campus resources (American Federation of Teachers, 2022; Gappa & Leslie, 1993; Haeger,
1998; Kezar, 2013; Kezar et al., 2019; Ran & Sanders, 2020; Street et al., 2012), PTNTTF often
do not even have enough time to attend an orientation if one is offered because of their lastminute hiring (American Federation of Teachers, 2022; Baldwin & Chronister, 2001; Berry,
2005; Democratic House Committee on Education and the Workforce, 2014; Gappa & Leslie,
1993; Jacobs, 1998; Kezar, 2013). With 94% of respondents to a 2011 faculty survey reporting
that they did not receive a campus or department orientation (Street et al., 2012), non-tenure
track faculty members may not be fully aware of the resources and support available to them and
their students. For example, in a more recent 2022 survey of non-tenure track faculty, only
44.1% of respondents were trained how to direct students to resources for depression and other
mental health issues and 36.1% were trained how to direct students to resources who experience
bias or intolerance (American Federation of Teachers, 2022). As 93% of the nation’s higher
education leaders observed the increased openness of students to discuss their mental health
concerns (NAPSA & Uwill, 2023), it is increasingly important for faculty and staff who interact
with first-year college students to promote mental health awareness and resources (Wyatt et al.,
2017). However, without vital information learned from an orientation or faculty training
sessions, faculty members may find it difficult to advise and refer students to appropriate campus
resources (Gappa, 2008; Haeger, 1998; Kezar, 2013; Kezar et al., 2019; Ran & Sanders, 2020;
Thompson, 2003) or understand the student population in their classrooms and the wider
institution (College Transition Collaborative, 2022; Kezar, 2013; McMurray & Sorrells, 2009).
Dedicated PTNTTF who have a desire to learn about campus resources or the student population

22
on their campus sacrifice time to do so themselves, often without being paid for such efforts
(Kezar et al., 2019).
With last-minute hiring and the lack of an adequate orientation from their institutions,
PTNTTF struggle to prepare for their courses (Street et al., 2012) and be knowledgeable about
campus resources to be a source of institutional support for their students (Gappa, 2008; Haeger,
1998; Kezar, 2013; Kezar et al., 2019; Ran & Sanders, 2020; Thompson, 2003). Ultimately
students are negatively impacted by the last-minute hiring of their PTNTTF and the decisions by
college administrators to not offer an orientation for their PTNTTF. Students may not know the
context of the working conditions of their PTNTTF and may instead think that their PTNTTF do
not care about optimizing their classes for students’ learning. This may deter students from
developing a positive trust and rapport with their PTNTTF if feel like their instructor does not
care about their learning or have the time and knowledge to assist them with campus navigation
matters.
Lack of a Private Office
When students do need to meet with their PTNTTF, they may be surprised that their
PTNTTF does not have a private office. Many PTNTTF do not have a private office to prepare
for their classes, meet with students, or connect with other faculty members (American
Federation of Teachers, 2022; Baldwin & Chronister, 2001; Gappa & Leslie, 1993; Haeger,
1998; Jacobs, 1998; Kezar, 2013; Ran & Sanders, 2020; Spinrad & Relles, 2022; Street et al.,
2012; Tillyer, 2005). An American Federation of Teachers (2022) survey noted that only 34.4%
of their PTNTTF respondents reported having a private space to meet with students and
colleagues. Without a private office, PTNTTF improvise by offering office hours in shared or

23
public spaces, such as cubicles, coffee shops, campus parking lots, or even a janitorial closet
(Gappa & Leslie, 1993; Kezar, 2013). In Spinrad and Relles (2022), one faculty member noted:
“I don’t have an office. I really don’t have space. I don’t have a phone number.” The
cumulative effect of contingency status meant less pressure: “I just go dump the
knowledge in the students, and see you later … It doesn’t even matter what campus I’m
on.” (p. 844)
While PTNTTF may use makeshift venues to clarify course concepts with students, such spaces
may not be appropriate to discuss privacy protected concerns about grades, academic and career
advice, or accommodations for a disability.
Lack of Access to Instructional and Support Resources
With or without an office, many PTNTTF are also not provided with computers to use in
developing course materials or uploading grades into the institution’s student information system
(Haeger, 1998; Kezar, 2013; Street et al., 2012; Tillyer, 2005). As many PTNTTF are appointed
at the last minute, it is also not surprising that they do not have access to the institution’s email
system or the library to put textbooks on reserve for students (Kezar, 2013; Murphy Nutting,
2003; Street et al., 2012). Many PTNTTF reported that they do not have any access to
administrative support to assist them with printing, photocopying, and ordering textbooks
(Democratic House Committee on Education and the Workforce, 2014; Eagan et al., 2015;
Gappa & Leslie, 1993; Kezar, 2013; Ran & Sanders, 2020; Rhoades, 2020; Spinrad & Relles,
2022; Wilson, 2009). Without access to these most basic supplies and institutional resources,
PTNTTF must spend additional time and resources for which they not compensated (American
Federation of Teachers, 2022; Kezar, 2013; Street et al., 2012). It is also possible that the

24
additional time needed for PTNTTF to complete administrative tasks takes away from their time
to meet with students or further enhance their lesson plans. One survey respondent noted:
People often labor under the misapprehension that adjuncts only work during their class
hours. In fact, adjuncts work many more hours than those in the class. Because I teach
developmental reading, I give gradable homework in almost every class. That means I am
grading papers as many as five hours a day depending on the assignment. I am also
preparing lessons on a regular basis. I am constantly looking for connections to the
readings to which students can respond. I don’t have an office; much to my husband’s
chagrin, I am usually surrounded by stacks of papers. Although there are copy machines
available on campus, I have no access to secretarial help and so must not only write but
also duplicate the worksheets I give my students. Without an office, I must find other
time and space to meet with students. (Democratic House Committee on Education and the
Workforce, 2014, p. 12)
Inadequate or No Access to Professional Development
While the primary focus of PTNTTF is to teach, it is vital for PTNTTF to be offered the
opportunity to participate in professional development to help them improve their teaching skills
and remain current in their field (Gappa & Leslie, 1993; Kezar, 2013; Murphy Nutting, 2003;
Thompson, 2003; Umbach, 2007). More specifically, PTNTTF expressed needs related to
culturally responsive teaching (Keehn & Martinez, 2007), “technology usage, developing syllabi,
keeping up with changes in the field, pacing one’s class, incorporating active learning strategies,
creating fair tests, developing grading scales, and dealing with academic integrity” (Meixner et
al., 2010, p. 145). However, studies indicated that PTNTTF are not afforded access to either inhouse or external professional development resources (Gappa & Leslie, 1993; Kezar, 2013;

25
Murphy Nutting, 2003; Thompson, 2003; Umbach, 2007). In addition, PTNTTF are not given
the time and resources to be able to attend academic conferences in their field (Baldwin &
Chronister, 2001; Gappa & Leslie, 1993). These conferences are vital to keeping their knowledge
base in their field up to date with the latest trends and research to integrate into their teaching.
This integration will better prepare students for more advanced courses in the discipline and offer
students a better understanding of how their courses provide a practical context for the issues
they are likely to encounter in their field.
There have been many advances to expand funding for PTNTTF professional
development, however such funding is limited, competitive, and do not focus on efforts to
provide on-going professional development programs to improve teaching (Rhoades, 2020).
Even if they were able to access these resources, PTNTTF members are often hired too late
(American Federation of Teachers, 2022; Baldwin & Chronister, 2001; Berry, 2005; Democratic
House Committee on Education and the Workforce, 2014; Gappa & Leslie, 1993; Jacobs, 1998;
Kezar, 2013) to be able to effectively utilize such resources on their campuses or externally.
Lack of Feedback and Mentorship from Colleagues
It has also been noted that PTNTTF members rarely have the opportunity to connect with
their colleagues, whether on the tenure track or not (Kezar, 2013; Meixner et al., 2010; Murphy
Nutting, 2003; Thompson, 2003). These informal peer interactions allow PTNTTF to get ideas
and feedback on their textbooks, lesson plans, or course materials (Kezar, 2013; Umbach, 2007;
Witt & Gearin, 2021). In Witt and Gearin (2021), one PTNTTF noted:
There’s not a system in place, at least for the schools I’ve worked at ... of any kind ...
for coaching or mentoring or how to even put a class together. I guess they just assume

26
you have a degree you should be able to do it ... I feel fortunate, but at the same time I
feel exploited, to some extent. (p. 32)
Further, PTNTTF have reported that no one observes or evaluates their classroom
teaching to provide any feedback on how they can improve their teaching (Kezar, 2013; Spinrad
& Relles, 2022; Umbach, 2007; Witt & Gearin, 2021). Such feedback is not only necessary to
facilitate more effective student learning, but also helps PTNTTF earn higher student evaluation
scores due to more engaged and effective teaching. Without peer observations and opportunities
to improve their teaching, many PTNTTF feel that student evaluations are unfair (Kimmel &
Fairchild, 2017) as PTNTTF fear how poor student evaluations or student complaints may
impact their contracts and re-appointments (Davis & Kezar, 2017; Spinrad & Relles, 2022).
PTNTTF also expressed the need and desire to have informal mentors in their department
(Kezar, 2013; Meixner et al., 2010) not only for teaching development and feedback, but also to
foster a more positive working environment in which they feel connected to their colleagues,
department, and larger campus.
Feelings of Disconnection and Disrespect
Without frequent and intentional interactions with faculty colleagues, PTNTTF have
increasingly felt isolated and worse yet, ignored and disrespected by their colleagues and wider
campus communities. The literature indicates that PTNTTF feel disconnected to their campuses
due to their exclusion from meetings, campus events, and substantive opportunities to be
involved while being compensated (American Federation of Teachers, 2022; Culver et al., 2020;
Jones et al., 2017; Kimmel & Fairchild, 2017; Meixner et al., 2010; Rhoades, 2020; Witt &
Gearin, 2021). It is a lost opportunity for college administrators to tap into the unique
knowledge, skills, and experiences of PTNTTF to improve and update curricula as PTNTTF

27
might be active or former practitioners in their respective fields (Bettinger & Long, 2010).
Similarly, as college administrators consider policy and fiscal decisions, they are missing the
voices of PTNTTF who can share their perspectives of students’ needs by way of having
sustained interactions with students inside and outside the classroom (Student Experience
Project, 2022).
Like faculty on the tenure track, PTNTTF identify being a faculty member as their key
identity and seek collegial and respectful treatment from their tenured faculty colleagues and
campus communities (Ott & Dippold, 2018). Especially for faculty who teach first-year courses,
meaningful engagement with faculty colleagues to build community in sharing ideas and best
practices is important (Barefoot et al., 2010; Student Experience Project, 2022). However, in the
American Federation of Teachers’ (2022) survey, 40.2% of PTNTTF survey respondents felt
disrespected by their own faculty colleagues, and 55.3% reported that they do not feel respected
by campus administrators. This is evident as PTNTTF feel like they are not “real teachers” and
not trusted to make decisions even within their own classrooms (Meixner et al., 2010; Spinrad &
Relles, 2022). The distrust of PTNTTF among tenure track faculty can be best described by a
PTNTTF response in Spinrad and Relles (2022):
You use this syllabus. You have to send the coordinator your exams. He has to approve
them. And you have to send him your final grades, and he has to approve it before you
can post it for students. (p. 845)
Combined with the level of disrespect that PTNTTF feel, the working conditions
described in this section have contributed to PTNTTF burnout and frustration. One faculty
member captured this sentiment: “How much can we push the envelope with innovative and
creative projects when you’re not really respected or you don’t have an authoritative title behind

28
you, and you’re not making the [any money]?” (Witt & Gearin, 2021, p. 30). Many PTNTTF
share this view and have thoughts to leave the profession altogether. Among PTNTTF surveyed
in 2022 (American Federation of Teachers, 2022), 66.7% of respondents thought about leaving
academia. It is clear that the impact of these working conditions on PTNTTF are significant
enough for two-thirds of PTNTTF to be considering leaving the profession and their academic
identity behind. Considering higher education’s reliance on PTNTTF to teach undergraduate
courses (Benjamin, 2002; Gappa & Leslie, 1993; Gehrke & Kezar, 2015; Modern Language
Association, 2008; National Education Association Research Center, 2007), higher education
leaders cannot afford to lose their PTNTTF workforce. Ultimately, campus administrators must
find ways to improve PTNTTF working conditions and foster a positive organizational culture to
not only retain their PTNTTF workforce, but to also support and advance their ability to be
effective teachers, advisors, mentors, and advocates for their students.
Departmental Cultures Experienced by Part-Time, Non-Tenure Track Faculty
The working conditions of PTNTTF do not exist in a vacuum, but rather occur as a result
of the culture in an academic department and the wider institution. Higher education leaders have
the potential to shape organizational culture in which PTNTTF feel respected, equitably
employed, and supported for their contributions to student learning and their respective fields
(Gappa et al., 2007). More specifically, the culture within academic departments is the most
salient to PTNTTF as many of their institutional interactions occur in their respective academic
departments (Austin, 1990; Culver et al., 2020; Meixner et al., 2010). Department chairs and
tenure track faculty shape the culture within their departments by way of their power,
positionality, resources, and institutional networks (Gappa et al., 2007). The decisions academic
departments and institutions make with respect to PTNTTF working conditions impact the type

29
of culture PTNTTF experience in their respective departments. Kezar (2013) developed a
typology of four types of departmental cultures experienced by PTNTTF: destructive, neutral,
inclusive, and learning.
Destructive Culture
Among the NTTF who are in a destructive departmental culture, PTNTTF in particular
have experienced the worst in destructive cultures (Kezar, 2013). In a destructive culture,
PTNTTF are excluded from meetings, events, and governance and often feel disrespected and
intimidated as they experience hostility from faculty and staff (Kezar, 2013). Additionally,
PTNTTF feel like they are treated grossly inequitably with respect to their compensation and
other forms of institutional support afforded to faculty on the tenure track (Kezar, 2013). Hiring
practices at destructive culture departments are often illegal or unprincipled and there is no
professional development or training to support teaching or advising duties (Kezar, 2013).
Campus administrators intentionally limit courses assigned to PTNTTF to make them ineligible
for benefits, make assignments without any consideration to the outside commitments of
PTNTTF, and provide only days or weeks notice of their assignments (Kezar, 2013). When
PTNTTF arrive on campus for their assignments, they are not offered an office space, supplies,
equipment, and teaching materials (Kezar, 2013). There are no faculty orientations and no
evaluations to help PTNTTF improve their teaching (Kezar, 2013). PTNTTF in destructive
departmental cultures do not have any autonomy to select their own textbooks, nor can they
provide curricular input to their department (Kezar, 2013).
Neutral Culture
PTNTTF in a neutral culture do not experience disrespect on their campuses, but rather
experience no respect as they are just ignored by faculty and staff and perceived as temporary

30
(Kezar, 2013). Similar to a destructive departmental culture, a neutral departmental culture does
not include PTNTTF in meetings, events, and governance and their salary and benefits remain
inequitable (Kezar, 2013). Hiring practices in neutral cultures are inconsistently intentional and
assignments are made weeks or months in advance and course assignments do not take into any
consideration of outside PTNTTF commitments (Kezar, 2013). While faculty orientations and
training to advise students are still largely absent in a neutral culture, a basic office, supplies,
equipment, and teaching materials are usually available (Kezar, 2013). PTNTTF usually do not
have access to professional development, nor are evaluations consistently offered to improve
their teaching (Kezar, 2013). In a slight improvement over destructive cultures, PTNTTF in
neutral cultures sometimes have input regarding textbooks and the overall curriculum (Kezar,
2013).
Inclusive Culture
In a significant improvement over destructive and neutral cultures, PTNTTF in inclusive
departmental cultures enjoy respect and inclusion as they are perceived as professionals and
equals to tenure track faculty by faculty and staff (Kezar, 2013). In fact, Kezar (2013) found that
PTNTTF in inclusive cultures are often more inclined to go the extra mile for students. PTNTTF
are also invited to meetings, events, and governance (Kezar, 2013) in inclusive cultures.
Departments with inclusive cultures are intentional about hiring practices, attempt to bring equity
to PTNTTF salaries and benefits, find ways to move PTNTTF to full-time, assign courses one or
more terms in advance, collaborate with their PTNTTF on their teaching schedules, and offer
PTNTTF a basic office, supplies, equipment, and teaching materials (Kezar, 2013). Professional
development is often limited to on-campus opportunities and evaluations are not consistently
provided to PTNTTF in inclusive cultures (Kezar, 2013). Similar to neutral cultures, PTNTTF in

31
inclusive cultures are not offered an orientation or training to advise students and sometimes
have input on textbooks and the curriculum (Kezar, 2013).
Learning Culture
PTNTTF in learning cultures enjoy similar conditions found in inclusive cultures.
However, as the name suggests, learning cultures improve on inclusive cultures by offering
PTNTTF opportunities to learn and advance in their teaching and profession. Learning cultures
embrace providing PTNTTF professional development outside of campus, mentoring, and
evaluations to help PTNTTF enhance their teaching (Kezar, 2013). PTNTTF in learning cultures
also enjoy having supplies and teaching materials proactively provided to them (Kezar, 2013).
PTNTTF offices in learning cultures are even purposefully assigned so that PTNTTF teaching
similar courses are grouped together for peer learning and community building (Kezar, 2013).
PTNTTF are also provided training and support to serve as advisors for their students (Kezar,
2013). Departments with learning cultures also seek to learn from their PTNTTF by actively
seeking their input on textbooks, curriculum, and involvement on campus committees (Kezar,
2013). Especially for PTNTTF, opportunities to serve on committees and governance convey
institutional support (Culver et al., 2020),
Adopting PTNTTF policies and practices that are in alignment with a learning
departmental culture can certainly be an initiative for department and institutional leaders to
improve PTNTTF working conditions and departmental culture (Culver et al., 2020). Doing so
not only supports the retention of PTNTTF, but also advances the capacity and opportunity for
PTNTTF to better support student learning (Kezar, 2013).

32
Departmental Culture and Students of Part-Time, Non-Tenure Track Faculty
Although it could be assumed that the negative working conditions and departmental
cultures experienced by PTNTTF may negatively impact their commitment to their students and
institutions, the literature suggests otherwise. Many PTNTTF feel that their everyday efforts to
facilitate and inspire the learning of their students are making a positive difference on students
and the institution itself (Kimmel & Fairchild, 2017). Many go the extra-mile for their students
(Kezar, 2013) and their efforts are often uncompensated by their institutions (American
Federation of Teachers, 2022). The uncompensated time and resources PTNTTF sacrifice for
their students is rooted in the love and passion they feel in teaching and engaging with students
(Meixner et al., 2010). In fact, PTNTTF are so driven that many studies have found that if
PTNTTF are given the paid opportunity to enhance their teaching and campus involvement with
peer mentoring (Meixner et al., 2010), professional development and training (Bolitzer, 2019;
Dailey-Herbert et al., 2014; Guthrie et al., 2019; Keehn & Martinez, 2007; Kezar, 2013; Kezar et
al., 2019; Kimmel & Fairchild, 2017; Meixner et al., 2010; Ott & Dippold, 2018; Ran & Sanders,
2020), curricular development (Spinrad & Relles, 2022), and shared governance (Culver et al.,
2020; Scott et al., 2019; Spinrad & Relles, 2022), they would eagerly participate as they feel that
their continued learning and contributions on their respective campuses would ultimately
improve students’ learning and their wider college experience.
Although the literature describes how PTNTTF remain committed to the success of their
students and institutions despite the departmental cultures they experience, various studies have
found that students in PTNTTF classrooms are also impacted by the departmental culture
experienced by PTNTTF with respect to students’ classroom experiences and their overall
outcomes. The following two sections describe findings from the literature focusing on the

33
impact of higher education’s rising reliance of non-tenure track faculty (NTTF) on instructional
quality and student retention and graduation rates.
Instructional Quality
A major trend in the literature on NTTF focused on the quality of instruction provided by
NTTF. Baldwin and Wawrzynski (2011) found that NTTF on a national scale tend to teach and
assess their students from a subject-centered approach. Such an approach focuses student
learning passively using lectures and multiple-choice exams (Baldwin & Wawrzynski, 2011;
Umbach, 2007). This contrasts with the techniques used by many tenure track faculty members
which emphasize active learning and inquiry using papers, group assignments, and peer review
(Baldwin & Wawrzynski, 2011). For many PTNTTF, teaching students via passive learning and
assessment may be the only way to efficiently assess student learning due to their limited time
(American Federation of Teachers, 2022; Eagan & Jaeger, 2008; Kezar, 2013; Murphy Nutting,
2003; Thompson, 2003; Umbach, 2007). In addition, NTTF in destructive, neutral, and inclusive
cultures do not have the institutional support to pursue outside professional development to
enhance their teaching and keep current on the latest research in their field (Gappa & Leslie,
1993; Kezar, 2013; Murphy Nutting, 2003; Thompson, 2003; Umbach, 2007), nor are they
provided any feedback on their teaching (Kezar, 2013; Spinrad & Relles, 2022; Umbach, 2007;
Witt & Gearin, 2021). These conditions are major obstacles for NTTF to enhance their lesson
plans and improve the learning experience for their students. One PTNTTF noted that:
These conditions make it impossible to dedicate my full attention to the success of my
students because I spend almost as much time driving from institution and looking for
jobs elsewhere as I do prepping lectures grading assignments, developing curriculum, etc.
(Democratic House Committee on Education and the Workforce, 2014, p. 27)

34
The ability of faculty members to adequately prepare for their courses and develop
engaging lesson plans may determine if students experience a positive learning environment
conducive to their learning (Prince, 2004). A positive and engaging classroom environment may
also form a foundation for students to develop a trust and rapport with their instructors (Beard,
2021; Bennett et al., 2016; Dwyer, 2017; Kaufka, 2010; Rendón, 1994; Sarcedo, 2022). With a
level of trust and rapport with their faculty members, students can feel comfortable interacting
with their faculty members outside of class. These interactions outside the classroom may
become seeds for a mentoring and advocacy relationship between a student and faculty member.
These relationships are especially crucial for marginalized and minoritized students who may
need faculty mentors and allies to help them successfully navigate an unfamiliar educational
environment (Beard, 2021; Bennett et al., 2016; Franklin et al., 2002; McCallen & Johnson,
2020; Smith & Lucena, 2016; Stanton-Salazar, 1997; Strayhorn, 2017; Wang, 2014).
Student Retention and Graduation Rates
As the numbers of NTTF have increased on college campuses in recent decades,
researchers and administrators have been increasingly interested in the impact of their reliance
on NTTF on student retention. Several studies found that campuses relying on NTTF
experienced a negative impact to their student retention (Eagan & Jaeger, 2008; Ehrenberg &
Zhang, 2005; Harrington & Schibik, 2001; Jacoby, 2006; Jaeger, 2008; Jaeger & Eagan, 2011;
Jaeger & Hinz, 2008; Ran & Xu, 2019) and graduation rates (Ehrenberg & Zhang, 2004; Jaeger
& Eagan, 2009). A more recent study found that students who have taken introductory courses
with NTTF have a lower probability of attempting another course in the same academic area
(Ran & Xu, 2019). For those students who took further courses in the same academic area as
their introductory courses taught by a NTTF, they had a lower chance of passing subsequent

35
courses (Ran & Xu, 2019). Ran and Xu (2019) postulated that these negative impacts to students
enrolled in classes with NTTF may be attributed to an “uninspiring experience in an introductory
course” (p. 1106).
If students do not have an engaging classroom experience, they may be unwilling or
unmotivated to develop relationships with their instructor outside the classroom (Dwyer, 2017;
Hagler et al., 2023). As Tinto (1993) noted, student and faculty interactions outside of class play
a significant role in a student’s ability to integrate into the academic culture and expectations of
the institution. Without academically engaging students outside of the classroom, students may
feel isolated from the academic life of the institution and possibly depart from the institution
(Tinto, 1993). This is especially concerning for students who take courses with PTNTTF as
Eagan and Jaeger (2008) found that students’ ability to persist into their second year was
negatively associated with the number of classes taken with PTNTTF during their first year. Ran
and Xu (2019) further found that students who take courses with NTTF with short contracts have
an increased chance of dropping out of their degree program when compared to students taking
courses with faculty on longer term contracts. These findings could be contributed to the fact that
PTNTTF have limited time and availability to connect with students outside the classroom
(American Federation of Teachers, 2022; Eagan & Jaeger, 2008; Kezar, 2013; Murphy Nutting,
2003; Thompson, 2003; Umbach, 2007). In fact, only 65.8% of PTNTTF in an American
Federation of Teachers (2022) reported holding office hours, and of those who offered office
hours, only 56.9% of them were compensated for holding office hours. For students either
seeking out of classroom assistance with course concepts, advisement, or mentorship from their
PTNTTF, they may be disappointed to learn that their instructor is not available outside of class
to support them.

36
Since PTNTTF are not physically on-campus as often as full-time faculty, students who
take courses with PTNTTF may have a difficult time making connections with their instructors
outside of class meetings, thus affecting their ability to academically integrate and persist in their
college education. As Kezar et al. (2019) noted, the limited availability of PTNTTF outside of
class in first-year and developmental courses may unintentionally communicate to students that
their instructor was either unsupportive or unapproachable. The impact of this impression on
students continued to be present in subsequent courses, regardless of the tenure status of the
faculty member (Kezar et al., 2019). Especially for marginalized and minoritized students who
need their faculty members to be available and present (Hagler et al., 2023, McCallen &
Johnson, 2020; Museus & Quaye, 2009; Sarcedo, 2022; Strayhorn, 2017; Vetter et al., 2019), the
findings of Kezar et al. (2019) underscore the importance of faculty availability inside and
outside the classroom in key first-year and developmental courses.
While much of the literature focused on the negative impact of higher education’s
reliance on NTTF on student retention and graduation rates, the literature also documented how
NTTF make a positive impact on a student’s decision to persist. Bettinger and Long (2010) found
that NTTF in professional disciplines (e.g. education and engineering) have positive impacts on
student retention. The researchers suggested that some disciplines can be more effectively taught
by NTTF who are active practitioners in their field. Bettinger and Long (2010) noted that NTTF
bring concreteness to abstract concepts by using examples from their professional practice.
Eagan and Jaeger’s (2008) findings expanded this idea by proposing that NTTF would be
stronger in teaching advanced courses in which students have made a commitment to the
academic discipline. Students would then be able to connect their prior knowledge learned in
introductory courses to practical applications that are more tangible in the real world (Kaufka,

37
2010; Vetter et al., 2019). Seeing these real-world connections may further motivate students to
work more closely with faculty members outside of class to engage in further academic discourse
or possibly work on a collaborative project with their instructor (McCallen & Johnson, 2020).
Through these close interactions, positive rapport between a student and faculty member
naturally develops, leading to a student’s academic integration to the institution (Tinto, 1993).
However, PTNTTF members may simply not have enough time to closely work with students
over a long period of time (American Federation of Teachers, 2022; Eagan & Jaeger, 2008;
Kezar, 2013; Murphy Nutting, 2003; Thompson, 2003; Umbach, 2007), especially in destructive
departmental cultures where PTNTTF turnover is high (Kezar, 2013).
Importance of Studying the Impact of Departmental Culture on First-Year Students
As noted in the literature described in the previous section, the classroom experiences and
overall outcomes of students in PTNTTF classrooms are impacted by the departmental culture
experienced by PTNTTF. Previous studies, albeit quantitative in focus, have reported the
negative impact of courses taught by NTTF on the student outcomes for FYCS (Eagan & Jaeger,
2008) and students in introductory courses (Ran & Xu, 2019). However, studies specifically
focusing on how the departmental cultures experienced by PTNTTF impact the educational
experiences of specific student populations, including first-year college students, is quite limited
(Davis & Kezar, 2017; Kezar, 2013). Although researchers have postulated how PTNTTF
working conditions and departmental cultures impact FYCS (Kezar et al., 2019; Ran & Zu,
2019), there is a gap in the literature that specifically examines how these departmental cultures
impact FYCS’ educational experiences.
Before describing the literature with respect to first-year college students, it is important
to first understand undergraduate enrollment trends as reported by researchers at the National

38
Student Clearinghouse Research Center. As of Fall 2023, post-pandemic undergraduate
enrollment in all higher education sectors rose to 14.9 million students, an increase of 1.2% over
the previous year (Berg et al., 2024). At public, four-year universities, enrollment in Fall 2023
was at 6.1 million undergraduates nationally, which represents an increase of 0.6% over the
previous year (Berg et al., 2024). With respect to age, first-year students who are 25 years and
older entering a four-year public university in Fall 2023 represented the largest percentage
enrollment increase at 12.9% over the previous year (Berg et al., 2024). In Fall 2022, enrollment
of first-year students identifying as Multiracial, Native American, Asian, Hispanic, Native
Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, and Black in public, four-year universities increased over the previous
year by 18%, 10.3%, 7.2%, 6.6%, 5.1%, and 2.6% respectively (Berg et al., 2024).
Of the 6.1 million students enrolled in public, four-year universities nationwide in Fall
2023, 5.1 million, or 84%, were enrolled in a public, four-year university in an urban setting
(Berg et al., 2024). Enrollment in these public, urban universities increased 2.1% in Fall 2023
over the previous year (Berg et al., 2024). Most public, urban universities nationally have a
primary mission “to offer quality higher education to residents of a particular geographic region,
for whom the institution may represent the only opportunity for professional and personal growth
and development” (Natalicio & Smith, 2005, p. 156). As such, many undergraduate adult
learners, or students over the age of 25, students of color, and first-generation college students
are enrolling in four-year public universities in urban settings (Caret, 2019; Pacheco, 1994). At
four-year public, urban universities nationwide, 49% of students are students of color, 18% are
adult learners, and 41% are Pell Grant eligible students (Coalition of Urban Serving Universities,
2022). Given the diverse student population in public, urban universities, the large percentage of
four-year public university students attending campuses in urban settings, and the relative student

39
enrollment increases in these institutions, it is increasingly important to the mission of public,
urban universities for their faculty members to understand their role in meeting the academic
needs of their diverse students, especially students in their first year of college.
Academic Needs of First-Year College Students in Urban Universities
As faculty members are the most frequent institutional representatives FYCS encounter
by way of their classes, faculty members are uniquely positioned to meet FYCS’ academic needs
in creating an optimal learning environment for them to succeed in public, urban universities. As
the scope of this study focuses on the departmental cultures experienced by PTNTTF and how
those cultures support or limit their ability to meet the academic needs of FYCS in public, urban
universities, it is important to first describe findings from previous studies on the academic needs
of FYCS. This section describes the following academic needs of FYCS as found in the
literature: faculty who provide a comprehensive course orientation, faculty who are available and
understand students’ competing demands, faculty who encourage interaction in class, faculty
who nurture validating experiences inside and outside the classroom, and faculty who can serve
as institutional agents to scaffold seven funds of knowledge.
Faculty Who Provide a Comprehensive Course Orientation
Even before an academic term begins, the most important resource in which faculty must
spend time structuring is the syllabus for the class (College Transition Collaborative, 2022).
By ensuring that the messages, policies, and practices included in course syllabi
communicate a growth mindset about student potential, and promote a sense of
belonging, course instructors have a powerful opportunity to support student
achievement, foster well-being, and contribute to equity in education. (College Transition
Collaborative, 2022, para 2)

40
Syllabi that are structured from an equity, asset-based, and student-centered lens communicate a
faculty member’s belief that each student belongs in college and has the potential to learn and
succeed (College Transition Collaborative, 2022).
Once the academic term begins, it is important for faculty members, especially those
teaching introductory courses with many first-year college students, to spend quality time
reviewing the syllabus and defining terms during the first few class sessions and regularly
referring to it throughout the class term (College Transition Collaborative, 2022). For FYCS who
may be taking their first college course, it is also important for faculty to review key documents
and resources to teach students how to succeed in their course and to utilize key resources, such
as the library, online learning management systems, tutoring and writing centers, accessibility
resource centers, and academic advising offices (Bennett et al., 2016).
While frequent references to the course syllabus assist students in locating key
assignment details and due dates, it is also important to make sure that the assignment prompts,
whether located on the syllabus, handouts, or other means, are as specific as possible to ensure
students understand the instructor’s expectations (College Transition Collaborative, 2022; Tevis
& Britton, 2020). As some FYCS may not be familiar with academic terms, such as citation
styles and primary sources, faculty members can make sure they go over these details in class
and provide additional written guides for students to reference and provide appropriate referrals
to campus resources (College Transition Collaborative, 2022). Faculty members can arrange for
guest speakers from the campus library or writing center to review these content areas during
class. Lastly, it is important for instructors to normalize students contacting them to ask questions
about an assignment or review ideas on how to address the assignment (College Transition
Collaborative, 2022). As Yee (2016) found, FYCS were not aware of the opportunity and benefits

41
of reaching out to their faculty members for clarification on assignments or gaining their
feedback on how they would complete the assignment.
Unfortunately, PTNTTF are hired last-minute (American Federation of Teachers, 2022;
Baldwin & Chronister, 2001; Berry, 2005; Democratic House Committee on Education and the
Workforce, 2014; Gappa & Leslie, 1993; Jacobs, 1998; Kezar, 2013) and may not have enough
time before classes begin to assemble a clear, accessible, and easy-to-understand syllabus and
optimize course materials. In addition, without a departmental or institutional orientation
(American Federation of Teachers, 2022; Gappa & Leslie, 1993; Haeger, 1998; Kezar, 2013;
Kezar et al., 2019; Ran & Sanders, 2020; Street et al., 2012) or peer feedback (Kezar, 2013;
Spinrad & Relles, 2022; Umbach, 2007; Witt & Gearin, 2021), PTNTTF may not be aware of
campus resources or have the connections to arrange for campus guest speakers to orient students
to helpful resources, such as a research librarian. Lastly due to the limited time and availability
of PTNTTF, they may not be able to connect with students outside the classroom to clarify
students’ questions on assignments or gain feedback on how to approach an assignment
(American Federation of Teachers, 2022; Eagan & Jaeger, 2008; Kezar, 2013; Murphy Nutting,
2003; Thompson, 2003; Umbach, 2007).
Faculty Who are Available and Understand Students’ Competing Demands
Researchers have also noted the importance of faculty taking the time to understand the
student demographics of their classrooms and their institutions more broadly (College Transition
Collaborative, 2022; Kezar, 2013; McMurray & Sorrells, 2009; Natalicio & Smith, 2005) to
better structure a learning environment that appropriately engages students where they are (Vetter
et al., 2019). In public, urban universities, faculty must understand that their students’ time is
very limited due to competing work, family, and life commitments outside of school (Jacoby,

42
1990); transportation challenges (Franklin et al., 2002); and mental health and wellness struggles
(NASPA & Uwill, 2023). In fact, Bennett et al. (2016) found that only 27% of first-year students
in their study utilized office hours, while half of their participants engaged with faculty
immediately following their classes. This suggests that although it is ideal for FYCS to interact
with their faculty members outside of class, FYCS at public, urban universities may just not have
enough time to do so.
With FYCS’ limited time to devote to academic commitments, faculty members need to
be understanding and flexible to maximize their out-of-class availability for their students
(Hagler et al., 2023; Schwartz et al., 2018; Strayhorn, 2017; Vetter et al., 2019). As one FYCS
noted about their instructor’s availability, “their office hours are always during times when I have
class … or on days when I’m not here. It’s like, we can’t meet up” (Hagler et al., 2023, p. 10).
Another FYCS noted “It’s not that they’re not willing, they’re always willing to help you, it’s
just the times they pick, I couldn’t deal with it, I couldn’t work with it” (Schwartz et al., 2018, p.
174). Faculty who offer flexibility in arranging a meeting time that works for their students,
especially FYCS with limited time, communicate care and concern and ultimately impact the
student’s willingness to reach out for help from anyone at the institution (Hagler et al., 2023).
Being available and displaying care and concern for one’s students is the prerequisite to a
trusting relationship between faculty members and their FYCS.
For FYCS in classes taught by PTNTTF, they may have difficulty accessing their
instructors outside of the classroom due to their instructor’s limited time and availability
(American Federation of Teachers, 2022; Eagan & Jaeger, 2008; Kezar, 2013; Murphy Nutting,
2003; Thompson, 2003; Umbach, 2007). PTNTTF may not understand that their FYCS at public,
urban universities may not have much flexibility in their schedules to meet them during their

43
scheduled office hours. Especially for PTNTTF teaching FYCS, orientations or training sessions
to better understand the students in their classrooms and wider institution (Kezar, 2013;
McMurray & Sorrells, 2009; Natalicio & Smith, 2005) are helpful for PTNTTF to understand
and be empathetic to the out of classroom needs of their students.
Faculty Who Encourage Interaction in Class
In order to set the conditions for an optimal learning environment for FYCS, the literature
indicates that faculty members must design their courses to be as interactive and engaging as
possible (Dwyer, 2017; McMurray & Sorrells, 2009). Faculty members can integrate classroom
opportunities for peer interaction and encourage student contributions and questions to facilitate
a meaningful academic discourse (Frankel & Smith, 2022). In addition, assignments that allow
students to partner with other students may help FYCS develop support networks with one
another (Bennett et al., 2016). Incorporating group, project-based assignments (Frankel & Smith,
2022) and humor into instruction (McMurray & Sorrells, 2009) were found to be effective
instructional methods to scaffold deeper learning for FYCS. Furthermore, creating a classroom
environment that is engaging and positive may also form a foundation for students to develop a
trust and rapport with their instructors (Beard, 2021; Bennett et al., 2016; Dwyer, 2017; Kaufka,
2010; Rendón, 1994; Sarcedo, 2022)
For FYCS taking courses with PTNTTF, they may unfortunately have an experience that
does not include many of these interactive and engaging course elements. As described earlier,
researchers have found that PTNTTF tend to use lecture formatted instruction with assessments
that are more subject-oriented, such as multiple-choice exams that are easier to grade (Baldwin
& Wawrzynski, 2011; Umbach, 2007). These are pedagogical choices PTNTTF must make due
to their limited time (Eagan & Jaeger, 2008; Kezar, 2013; Murphy Nutting, 2003; Thompson,

44
2003; Umbach, 2007), limited to no access to professional development to enhance their
teaching (Gappa & Leslie, 1993; Kezar, 2013; Murphy Nutting, 2003; Thompson, 2003;
Umbach, 2007), and no peer feedback to improve teaching (Kezar, 2013; Spinrad & Relles,
2022; Umbach, 2007; Witt & Gearin, 2021).
Faculty Who Nurture Validating Experiences Inside and Outside the Classroom
As public, urban universities, have large percentages of first-generation college students
and students identifying as minoritized or marginalized (Caret, 2019), it is increasingly important
to also consider instructional approaches that meet the academic needs of their diverse FYCS.
Especially in public, urban universities, it is important that faculty members first develop a solid
trust and rapport with their FYCS. Rendón (1994) conceptualized a specific form of relationship
building with culturally diverse students called validation. Validation is “an enabling, confirming
and supportive process initiated by in- and out-of-class agents that foster academic and
interpersonal development” (Rendón, 1994, p. 44). Faculty members can engage in the two types
of validation, academic and interpersonal, by taking an active role to reach out to their
marginalized and minoritized students inside and outside the classroom (Beard, 2021; DeFreitas
& Rinn, 2013; Hagler et al., 2023; Jehangir, 2010; Museus & Quaye, 2009; Rendón, 1994; Smith
& Lucena, 2016).
As most student contacts with faculty are inside the classroom, it is important for faculty
members to cultivate an academically validating classroom environment in which their FYCS
feel included, valued, and academically capable in the classroom (Rendón, 1994). Researchers
have noted the importance of recognizing the past experiences and backgrounds of students as a
source of knowledge and strength as opposed to ignoring their histories and treating them as
empty vessels to fill with knowledge from the dominant cultural perspective (Castillo-Montoya,

45
2017; DeFreitas & Rinn, 2013; Hagler et al., 2023; Jehangir, 2010; McMurray & Sorrells, 2009;
Museus & Quaye, 2009; Rendón, 1994; Smith & Lucena, 2016; Yosso, 2005). Through this
recognition, FYCS take the role of a teacher and share their prior knowledge and experiences
with their faculty members and fellow classmates through academic discourse. Faculty members
can facilitate these class discussions to scaffold their students’ application of abstract course
concepts to understand past experiences (Ambrose et al., 2010; Castillo-Montoya, 2017;
DeFreitas & Rinn, 2013; Harackiewicz et al., 2014; McCallen & Johnson, 2020; Rendón, 1994;
Smith & Lucena 2016). As their past experiences are validated in the classroom, self-worth and
self-efficacy increase, resulting in students truly feeling that they are academically capable of
succeeding (Rendón, 1994). All these examples of academic validation can help facilitate a
mutual level of trust and genuine care between culturally diverse students and their faculty
members to hopefully encourage interaction outside of the classroom.
Faculty members can also scaffold the learning of new or complex concepts with familiar
cultural contexts and examples that tap into students’ cultural backgrounds and prior knowledge
and experiences (Ambrose et al., 2010; Castillo-Montoya, 2017; DeFreitas & Rinn, 2013; Hagler
et al., 2023; Jehangir, 2010; McCallen & Johnson, 2020; McMurray & Sorrells, 2009; Museus &
Quaye, 2009; Rendón, 1994). This is especially crucial for first-year, first-generation college
students as Soria and Stebelton (2012) reported in their study that they have difficulty integrating
course content with concepts from previous courses.
Rendón (1994) found that faculty also provide interpersonal validation outside the
classroom through their interactions with students that support student development and social
adjustment. Faculty taking the time to meet with their students in their spaces (e.g. student
lounges, dining halls, coffee shops, student events) (McMurray & Sorrells, 2009; Rendón, 1994)

46
or mentor a student one-on-one are all examples of how faculty make a concerted effort to
interpersonally validate their students outside of the classroom (Linares & Muñoz, 2011;
Rendón, 1994). Through this type of validation, faculty can show how they genuinely care about
their students and their personal histories (Holcombe & Kezar 2020; McCallen & Johnson, 2020;
Sarcedo, 2022; Schademan & Thompson, 2016). Learning is taken outside of the classroom
context where faculty can guide their students to optimize their study strategies, form study
groups with one another, or get involved in student activities and organizations (Rendón, 1994).
Throughout their interactions, faculty can continue to reinforce their students’ self-worth while
celebrating their students’ successes.
Rendón (1994) recommended institutions to train and support their faculty to engage in
academic and interpersonal validation inside and outside the classroom. Other researchers agreed
with Rendón (1994) and recommended orientations and training programs to teach faculty how
to understand the needs and strengths of their diverse students (Holcombe & Kezar, 2020; Keehn
& Martinez, 2007; Kezar, 2013; Kitchen et al., 2021; McMurray & Sorrells, 2009). Yet,
opportunities such as these may not reach PTNTTF as their institutions and departments may not
invite them to attend such orientations and professional development sessions (American
Federation of Teachers, 2022; Gappa & Leslie, 1993; Haeger, 1998; Kezar, 2013; Kezar et al.,
2019; Ran & Sanders, 2020; Street et al., 2012).
Even if PTNTTF members were invited to faculty development trainings to learn how to
integrate validating activities and approaches into their classroom, PTNTTF may not have the
time (American Federation of Teachers, 2022; Eagan & Jaeger, 2008; Kezar, 2013; Murphy
Nutting, 2003; Thompson, 2003; Umbach, 2007) to develop strong relationships with their
students to fully engage in validation outside the classroom. Despite how PTNTTF have a

47
profound love for their profession and the students they teach to go the extra mile to meet
students’ needs (Kezar, 2013; Kimmel & Fairchild, 2017; Meixner et al., 2010), the departmental
cultures PTNTTF experience may ultimately limit how PTNTTF can be effective in validating
their students inside and outside the classroom. As Kezar et al. (2019) found, the inaccessibility
of PTNTTF or lack of classroom engagement communicates to students that they are
unsupportive or unapproachable. For diverse FYCS in public, urban universities who already feel
marginalized and minoritized by the educational system, it is especially problematic as they may
have difficulties forming validating and trusting relationships with their PTNTTF members to
encourage and help them realize that they can succeed in college.
Administrators must develop and nurture a departmental culture to allow all their faculty
members, including PTNTTF, to create and maintain a culture of academic and interpersonal
validation, especially when working with marginalized and minoritized students, such as FYCS
in public, urban universities. Rendón (1994) reminds us that the more students feel validated, the
more students will have a richer academic experience with faculty who genuinely care them.
This was found in Sarcedo (2022) as two students “felt more at ease with faculty members who
were ‘encouraging’ and ‘personable,’ which made them more likely to engage with their
professors during class” (p. 135). Fostering rich experiences like these are vital for faculty to
develop and nurture strong, trusting relationships with their FYCS while increasing their in-class
engagement (Beard, 2021; Delaney, 2008). With these relationships in place between FYCS and
their faculty members, faculty members have a unique opportunity to share with FYCS how their
prior knowledge and experiences can be a source of strength (Rendón, 1994; Yosso, 2005) to feel
academically and socially connected to the campus community.

48
Faculty Who Can Serve as Institutional Agents to Scaffold Seven Funds of Knowledge
With institutional support in the form of professional development or training, PTNTTF
can be trained to apply academic and interpersonal validation techniques inside and outside the
classroom (Rendón, 1994) in meeting the academic needs of marginalized and minoritized
students, such as FYCS in public, urban universities (Holcombe & Kezar, 2020; Keehn &
Martinez, 2007; Kezar, 2013; Kitchen et al., 2021; McMurray & Sorrells, 2009). As faculty
members have been socialized in the academy for many years, PTNTTF can also scaffold for
students the cultural and social knowledge of the academy to succeed in higher education’s
complex system and hierarchy (McCallen & Johnson, 2020; Smith & Lucena, 2016; StantonSalazar, 1997).
Faculty members can serve as an institutional agent, or “those individuals who have the
capacity and commitment to transmit directly, or negotiate the transmission of, institutional
resources and opportunities” (Stanton-Salazar, 1997, p. 6). In a higher educational setting,
institutional agents can be campus staff and faculty, including PTNTTF, who provide
institutional support to marginalized and minoritized students by “provision[ing] ... various funds
of knowledge” (Stanton-Salazar, 1997, p. 11) to help them navigate and thrive in their
educational setting (Beard, 2021; Kaufka, 2010; McCallen & Johnson, 2020; Smith & Lucena,
2016; Stanton-Salazar, 1997; Wang, 2014).
Stanton-Salazar (1997) further defined seven key funds of knowledge that institutional
agents can scaffold to socialize marginalized and minoritized students into the mainstream
structure, culture, and discourses of educational institutions: institutionally sanctioned
discourses, academic task-specific knowledge, organizational/bureaucratic funds of knowledge,
network development, technical funds of knowledge, knowledge of labor and educational

49
markets, and problem solving knowledge. Stanton-Salazar (1997) acknowledged that the ability
of institutional agents to develop trust and rapport with their marginalized and minoritized
students and socialize them within these seven funds of knowledge is often constrained by
institutional policies, priorities, and conditions. As the focus of this study is the departmental
cultures of PTNTTF, the following sections describe Stanton-Salazar’s (1997) seven funds of
knowledge within the context of the departmental cultures PTNTTF experience either supporting
or limiting the ability of PTNTTF members to meet the academic needs of their FYCS.
Institutionally Sanctioned Discourses
Institutionally sanctioned discourses are “socially acceptable ways of using language and
communicating” (Stanton-Salazar, 1997, p. 11). In a college setting, such discourses can include
communicating with faculty and college administrators to establish or maintain a positive
working relationship. As found by Yee (2016), FYCS are reluctant to ask for help from faculty
and staff as they are not sure how to engage in “small talk” with them or not confident they are
prepared enough to effectively engage with faculty and staff.
As FYCS start their postsecondary education, they may be interacting with college
faculty and administrators for the first time. Institutional faculty and staff can individually work
with FYCS in validating their prior knowledge and experiences as assets (Rendón, 1994) while
scaffolding for them discourses specific to academia (Stanton-Salazar, 1997). Faculty and staff
who desire to work with diverse FYCS in this capacity must be willing and available to devote
quality time and continual close interaction to develop trust and rapport with marginalized and
minoritized students like FYCS in public, urban universities (Museus & Quaye, 2009; StantonSalazar, 1997).

50
PTNTTF who may have an interest and passion for empowering their FYCS to develop
skills in academic discourse may be limited in their ability to do so due to their limited
availability (American Federation of Teachers, 2022; Eagan & Jaeger, 2008; Kezar, 2013;
Murphy Nutting, 2003; Thompson, 2003; Umbach, 2007) and lack of a private office (American
Federation of Teachers, 2022; Baldwin & Chronister, 2001; Gappa & Leslie, 1993; Haeger,
1998; Jacobs, 1998; Kezar, 2013; Ran & Sanders, 2020; Spinrad & Relles, 2022; Street et al.,
2012; Tillyer, 2005). Without time to sustain meaningful interactions with marginalized and
minoritized students such as FYCS in public, urban universities, PTNTTF may find it difficult to
develop trust and rapport with their FYCS. In addition, the lack of a private office (American
Federation of Teachers, 2022; Baldwin & Chronister, 2001; Gappa & Leslie, 1993; Haeger,
1998; Jacobs, 1998; Kezar, 2013; Ran & Sanders, 2020; Spinrad & Relles, 2022; Street et al.,
2012; Tillyer, 2005) may not allow FYCS the ability to be forthcoming and honest with their
PTNTTF in describing and obtaining feedback on their interactions with faculty members,
campus administrators, or fellow classmates.
Academic Task-Specific Knowledge
As defined by Stanton-Salazar (1997), academic task-specific knowledge are funds of
knowledge in a specific academic area. Examples of this may be knowing how to calculate a
derivative in a calculus course, read musical notes in the bass clef, or use base pairing rules in a
genetics course. This fund of knowledge can also be the latest techniques used in many science,
technology, engineering, and mathematics fields.
The literature has noted that PTNTTF are rarely offered the opportunity to participate in
professional development activities in their field which may aid them in teaching their students
new innovations in their field (Gappa & Leslie, 1993; Kezar, 2013; Murphy Nutting, 2003;

51
Thompson, 2003; Umbach, 2007). If PTNTTF can share with their FYCS these new innovations
and research in their field, FYCS can increase their knowledge base in the field to perform well
in advanced courses.
Organizational/Bureaucratic Funds of Knowledge
Stanton-Salazar (1997) recognized the importance of making sure marginalized and
minoritized students are familiar with how to succeed in a complex bureaucratic organization
such as a college campus. Especially in large, public colleges and universities, students may feel
frustrated in seeking out assistance in a decentralized and bureaucratic system. FYCS may need
school agents to validate their prior knowledge and experiences as assets (Rendón, 1994) in
understanding the structure, hierarchy, and resources of their local campus (Beard, 2021; Kaufka,
2010; McCallen & Johnson, 2020; Smith & Lucena, 2016; Stanton-Salazar, 1997; Wang, 2014).
As faculty gain the trust and rapport of their FYCS, faculty members can serve as an institutional
agent to assist FYCS in understanding the campus culture, system, and its resources.
However, for PTNTTF in departmental cultures where an orientation is not offered
(American Federation of Teachers, 2022; Gappa & Leslie, 1993; Haeger, 1998; Kezar, 2013;
Kezar et al., 2019; Ran & Sanders, 2020; Street et al., 2012), they may not be familiar with the
specific structure and resources available to their students. As such, FYCS who seek out referral
assistance from these PTNTTF may feel frustrated that their instructors are unclear of the
specific campus resources that may help them address their concern.
Network Development
Stanton-Salazar (1997) described network development as the skills necessary to network
and interact with those with power or social and cultural capital. In order for students to
strengthen their social and cultural capital with networks specific to their new educational

52
environment, they must use institutionally sanctioned discourses (Stanton-Salazar, 1997) in their
interactions with faculty, staff, and fellow classmates. Faculty members can validate FYCS’ prior
knowledge and experiences as assets (Rendón, 1994) while strengthening their communication
skills in academic discourse to develop strong institutional networks. Additionally, faculty
members can also access their own networks to help FYCS expand their own networks, but their
effectiveness may depend on the strength and diversity of the faculty member’s academic and
professional networks (Stanton-Salazar, 2011). In Hagler et al. (2023), FYCS were mindful of
the perceived strength and diversity of their faculty members’ professional networks and
subsequently made choices to develop relationships with faculty based on their positionality and
diverse experiences.
For PTNTTF, the ability to have strong and diverse academic networks can be limited by
the fact that many PTNTTF do not receive a campus or departmental orientation (American
Federation of Teachers, 2022; Gappa & Leslie, 1993; Haeger, 1998; Kezar, 2013; Kezar et al.,
2019; Ran & Sanders, 2020; Street et al., 2012) and have limited opportunities to attend
professional development or academic conferences to strengthen their networks with colleagues
(Gappa & Leslie, 1993; Kezar, 2013; Murphy Nutting, 2003; Thompson, 2003; Umbach, 2007).
Many PTNTTF also report that due to their limited time and availability, there are even unable to
connect with colleagues on their campus (American Federation of Teachers, 2022; Eagan &
Jaeger, 2008; Kezar, 2013; Murphy Nutting, 2003; Thompson, 2003; Umbach, 2007). As a result
of these departmental cultures, FYCS who have PTNTTF instructors may receive assistance with
network development, but not at the same level that tenure track faculty members are able to
provide due to their level of campus integration and diverse academic and professional networks.

53
Technical Funds of Knowledge
Stanton-Salazar (1997) described technical funds of knowledge to include the specific
skills that may be necessary for academic success, such as study skills and time management.
For many students entering college, the skills necessary for success at the college level may be
significantly different than the strategies they used at their previous educational institutions.
FYCS may not have been exposed to specific tools and resources that are commonly used in the
college environment. For example, an instructor may assign a research paper to be written using
the American Psychological Association’s (APA) citation styles with sources from peer-reviewed
journals. For a FYCS who may not know how to use academic databases to find journal articles
or use the APA guidelines to cite a researcher’s work, producing such a research paper can be an
onerous and stressful task. While institutions may have research librarians or writing centers to
assist students, FYCS may not have the organizational/bureaucratic funds of knowledge
(Stanton-Salazar, 1997) to realize such resources exist.
While faculty members can use office hours to assist students individually with the
technical skills to produce a research paper, PTNTTF who have limited availability (American
Federation of Teachers, 2022; Eagan & Jaeger, 2008; Kezar, 2013; Murphy Nutting, 2003;
Thompson, 2003; Umbach, 2007) and no private office space (American Federation of Teachers,
2022; Baldwin & Chronister, 2001; Gappa & Leslie, 1993; Haeger, 1998; Jacobs, 1998; Kezar,
2013; Ran & Sanders, 2020; Spinrad & Relles, 2022; Street et al., 2012; Tillyer, 2005) may find
it difficult to have focused time and privacy to work with these students. In addition, PTNTTF
may not even have access to any computers (Haeger, 1998; Kezar, 2013; Street et al., 2012;
Tillyer, 2005) or library resources (Kezar, 2013; Murphy Nutting, 2003; Spinrad & Relles, 2022;
Street et al., 2012) to show students how to use these resources in person. Consequently, FYCS

54
taking courses with PTNTTF may not receive the academic support they need to develop
technical funds of knowledge given the departmental culture experienced by their PTNTTF.
Knowledge of Labor and Educational Markets
Stanton-Salazar (1997) stressed the importance of marginalized and minoritized students
having a knowledge of labor and educational markets to prepare themselves for careers after
completing their degree program. This knowledge base could include understanding the
occupational outlook of their intended career, education needed to pursue their intended career,
and the specific skills to be career ready for an entry-level position in the field after graduation.
The networks of marginalized and minoritized students, such as FYCS in public, urban
universities, may not include individuals in their intended career fields to help them understand
the job market and optimize their preparation for their intended career fields. To meet students’
needs in this fund of knowledge, faculty can assist students with network development (StantonSalazar, 1997) and connect course concepts to current and emerging real-world applications
(DeFreitas & Rinn, 2013; Hagler et al., 2023; McCallen & Johnson, 2020; McMurray & Sorrells,
2009).
PTNTTF who are also full-time practitioners are valuable resources for students to learn
more about their specific discipline. Since these PTNTTF/full-time practitioners are in the field
daily, they have an intimate knowledge of their field from both the practitioner and academic
perspectives (Bettinger & Long, 2010). Unfortunately, PTNTTF are usually not invited to share
their knowledge and expertise in making sure curricula are up to date (Bettinger & Long, 2010;
Kezar, 2013; Rhoades, 2020). In addition, PTNTTF time and availability is limited (American
Federation of Teachers, 2022; Eagan & Jaeger, 2008; Kezar, 2013; Murphy Nutting, 2003;
Thompson, 2003; Umbach, 2007) to meet with students outside the classroom to share their

55
knowledge of their field’s labor market. Given that time, trust, and rapport are requirements to
sustaining quality interactions with marginalized and minoritized students (Museus & Quaye,
2009; Stanton-Salazar, 1997), the limited availability of PTNTTF who are also full-time
practitioners may affect their ability to work with FYCS over an extended period of time to help
them prepare for careers in their field.
Problem Solving Knowledge
Stanton-Salazar (1997) described the last fund of knowledge as problem solving
knowledge which uses all the funds of knowledge from the institutional agency framework.
Marginalized and minoritized students like FYCS in public, urban universities, may need
institutional support to assess a problem they are experiencing and connect with key individuals
who have the power and resources to help them resolve the problem (Stanton-Salazar, 1997).
Such problems can be as delicate as appealing a course grade using institutionally sanctioned
discourses and organizational/bureaucratic funds of knowledge, or leveraging networks and
knowledge of labor and educational markets to prepare for a job or apply for graduate study
(Stanton-Salazar, 1997).
As an outcome of the application of their prior knowledge and experiences (Rendón,
1994) and Stanton-Salazar’s (1997) funds of knowledge, marginalized and minoritized students
are empowered by institutional agents to self-advocate using “knowledge and skills related to
human relations in politicized contexts (ranging from deference to diplomacy) and … knowledge
and skills most easily associated with rational problem-solving within impersonal bureaucracies”
(Stanton-Salazar, 1997, p. 16), such as a college campus. While Stanton-Salazar (1997)
described how institutional agents, such as faculty, can help marginalized and minoritized

56
students integrate the various funds of knowledge for problem solving, the ability of PTNTTF to
serve as an institutional agent may be ultimately affected by departmental culture.
Conceptual Framework
In this review of the literature, it was uncovered that PTNTTF can meet the academic
needs of FYCS in public, urban universities by academically and interpersonally validating
FYCS’ prior knowledge and experiences as assets and creating a culture of success (Rendón,
1994), while scaffolding the learning of FYCS in funds of knowledge specific to academia as an
institutional agent (Stanton-Salazar, 1997). This study examined how the departmental cultures
experienced by PTNTTF support or limit their ability to meet these academic needs of FYCS in
public, urban universities.
To better explain departmental culture and how it supports or limits how PTNTTF meet
the academic needs of their FYCS, I developed a conceptual framework which guided this study.
Figure 1 illustrates this conceptual framework. The following section describes this framework.
Figure 1
Conceptual Framework

57
In order to serve as an institutional agent (Stanton-Salazar, 1997) for FYCS in public,
urban universities, PTNTTF must engage in academic and interpersonal validation inside and
outside of the classroom (Rendón, 1994). With academic and interpersonal validation occurring
inside and outside the classroom, PTNTTF can then serve as an institutional agent for their
FYCS by scaffolding the learning of FYCS in seven key funds of knowledge: institutionally
sanctioned discourses, academic task-specific knowledge, organizational/bureaucratic funds of
knowledge, network development, technical funds of knowledge, knowledge of labor and
educational markets, and problem solving knowledge.
However, the degree to which PTNTTF are able to academically and interpersonally
validate their FYCS and serve as an institutional agent depends on how the culture in their
academic department (Kezar, 2013) either supports or limits their ability to do so.
Conclusion
As our nation’s colleges and universities continue to rely on PTNTTF in meeting their
institution’s needs, it is important to learn more about how the departmental cultures experienced
by PTNTTF impact student learning and outcomes (Davis & Kezar, 2017; Kezar, 2013). It is not
to say that the pedagogical strategies employed by PTNTTF are ineffective, but rather the culture
in their academic department may limit their ability to be effective teachers, mentors, and
institutional agents (Kezar, 2013; McCallen & Johnson, 2020).
Given the literature describing the norms in departmental cultures experienced by
PTNTTF as being hired last-minute with unpredictable contracts (American Federation of
Teachers, 2022; Baldwin & Chronister, 2001; Berry, 2005; Democratic House Committee on
Education and the Workforce, 2014; Gappa & Leslie, 1993; Jacobs, 1998; Kezar, 2013) and
inequitable pay (American Association of University Professors, 2023; American Federation of

58
Teachers, 2022; Coalition on the Academic Workforce, 2012; Democratic House Committee on
Education and the Workforce, 2014); not being offered institutional support through an
orientation (American Federation of Teachers, 2022; Gappa & Leslie, 1993; Haeger, 1998;
Kezar, 2013; Kezar et al., 2019; Ran & Sanders, 2020; Street et al., 2012), a private office
(American Federation of Teachers, 2022; Baldwin & Chronister, 2001; Gappa & Leslie, 1993;
Haeger, 1998; Jacobs, 1998; Kezar, 2013; Ran & Sanders, 2020; Spinrad & Relles, 2022; Street
et al., 2012; Tillyer, 2005), technological resources (Haeger, 1998; Kezar, 2013; Murphy Nutting,
2003; Street et al., 2012; Tillyer, 2005), and administrative staff support (Democratic House
Committee on Education and the Workforce, 2014; Eagan et al., 2015; Gappa & Leslie, 1993;
Kezar, 2013; Ran & Sanders, 2020; Rhoades, 2020; Spinrad & Relles, 2022; Wilson, 2009);
being offered little to no opportunities for professional development (Gappa & Leslie, 1993;
Kezar, 2013; Murphy Nutting, 2003; Thompson, 2003; Umbach, 2007); not being provided
valuable teaching feedback (Kezar, 2013; Spinrad & Relles, 2022; Umbach, 2007; Witt &
Gearin, 2021); and not being respected as a faculty colleague to be included in department
meetings and events (American Federation of Teachers, 2022; Culver et al., 2020; Jones et al.,
2017; Kimmel & Fairchild, 2017; Meixner et al., 2010; Rhoades, 2020; Witt & Gearin, 2021) or
be allowed to make decisions within their own classes (Meixner et al., 2010; Spinrad & Relles,
2022), what remains to be investigated are the possible impacts of departmental culture
experienced by PTNTTF on specific student populations (Davis & Kezar, 2017; Kezar, 2013),
such as FYCS in public, urban universities.
FYCS in public, urban universities have specific academic needs faculty members can
meet by providing a comprehensive course orientation (Bennett et al., 2016; College Transition
Collaborative, 2022; Tevis & Britton, 2020); understanding the student demographics on their

59
campus (College Transition Collaborative, 2022; Kezar, 2013; McMurray & Sorrells, 2009;
Natalicio & Smith, 2005) and their competing commitments (Franklin et al., 2002l; Jacoby,
1990; NASPA & Uwill, 2023); being available outside of class (Hagler et al., 2023; Schwartz et
al., 2018; Strayhorn, 2017; Vetter et al., 2019); encouraging interaction in class (Bennett et al.,
2016; Dwyer, 2017; Frankel & Smith, 2022; McMurray & Sorrells, 2009); academically and
interpersonally validating students’ identities, prior knowledge, and experiences (Beard, 2021;
Castillo-Montoya, 2017; DeFreitas & Rinn, 2013; Hagler et al., 2023; Holcombe & Kezar, 2020;
Jehangir, 2010; Linares & Muñoz, 2011; McCallen & Johnson, 2020; McMurray & Sorrells,
2009; Museus & Quaye, 2009; Rendón, 1994; Sarcedo, 2022; Schademan & Thompson, 2016;
Smith & Lucena, 2016; Yosso, 2005); and scaffolding FYCS in funds of knowledge specific to
academia as an institutional agent (McCallen & Johnson, 2020; Smith & Lucena, 2016; StantonSalazar, 1997; Wang, 2014).
As PTNTTF engage in academic validation inside the classroom (Rendón, 1994), FYCS
feel comfortable engaging their PTNTTF outside of the classroom where interpersonal validation
can also occur. In turn, FYCS engagement inside the classroom increases as a result of both
academic and interpersonal validation inside and outside the classroom (Beard, 2021; Sarcedo,
2022). With academic and interpersonal validation occurring both inside and outside the
classroom (Rendón, 1994), it becomes possible for PTNTTF to scaffold the learning of FYCS in
funds of knowledge specific to academia as an institutional agent (Stanton-Salazar, 1997).
However, the ability of PTNTTF to engage in validation (Rendón, 1994) and serve as an
institutional agent (Stanton-Salazar, 1997) for FYCS is dependent on how their departmental
culture either supports or limits their ability to do so.

60
This study contributed to literature as it focused on describing how departmental cultures
impact the ability of PTNTTF to meet the academic needs of FYCS in public, urban universities.
The following chapter describes the research design and methods that were used to answer this
study’s research questions.

61
Chapter 3: Methodology
This qualitative study was designed to examine how the departmental cultures
experienced by part-time, non-tenure track faculty (PTNTTF) (Kezar, 2013), impact the ability
of PTNTTF to meet the academic needs of their first-year college students (FYCS) at four-year
public, urban universities. A conceptual framework was created to guide this study’s exploration
of departmental culture and how it supports or limits PTNTTF in meeting the academic needs of
their FYCS. The framework suggests that PTNTTF need to first create a culture of success by
academically and interpersonally validating FYCS’ prior knowledge and experiences inside and
outside the classroom to enable them to meet an academic need of FYCS in scaffolding specific
funds of knowledge to academia as an institutional agent (Stanton-Salazar, 1997). However, the
degree to which PTNTTF can academically and interpersonally validate their FYCS students
inside and outside the classroom (Rendón, 1994) and serve as an institutional agent (StantonSalazar, 1997) may be impacted by the PTNTTF’s departmental culture (Kezar, 2013).
Research Questions
Through the qualitative methodological approaches to collecting and analyzing data
described in this chapter, this study aimed to answer the following research questions:
1. How do part-time, non-tenure track faculty perceive they meet the academic needs of
first-year college students at four-year public, urban universities?
2. How do the departmental cultures experienced by part-time, non-tenure track faculty
support or limit their ability to meet the academic needs of first-year college students
at four-year public, urban universities?
The sections of this chapter describe the overall methodological design, research setting
and participants, data sources and collection, data collection procedures, data analysis, credibility

62
and trustworthiness, ethics, the researcher, limitations, and delimitations of this study.
Throughout this chapter, the methodological decisions are explained to give readers a better
understanding of how this study’s methodology facilitated the answering of the research
questions.
Overview of Design
Since this study focused specifically on the departmental cultures experienced by
PTNTTF in supporting or limiting their ability to meet the academic needs of FYCS, it is
important to learn about the lived experiences and perspectives of these faculty members with
respect to their experiences in their departmental cultures. I selected a qualitative approach to
this study as qualitative research methods helped me understand how PTNTTF “interpret their
experiences, how they construct their worlds, and what meaning they attribute to their
experiences” (Merriam, 2009, p. 5) in a real-world or natural setting.
In qualitative research, the researcher serves as the instrument, “records objectively what
is happening but simultaneously examines its meaning and redirects observation to refine or
substantiate those meanings” (Stake, 1995, p. 8). As the research instrument for data collection
and analysis, qualitative research methods allowed me to be responsive to participants’ verbal
and non-verbal responses by asking for clarification and confirming their responses for accuracy
(Merriam, 2009). I obtained a rich description of these faculty members’ experiences and
perceptions through words and derived meaning by noting patterns and categories from the
collected data from a holistic perspective. I gathered and analyzed information from a social
constructivist approach in which knowledge is constructed from the interactions of individuals
(Creswell, 2013). Through the use of semi-structured interviews, I had the opportunity to create
knowledge together with PTNTTF being interviewed. As data collection concluded, this study

63
applied Braun and Clarke’s (2006) theoretical thematic analysis framework to guide the coding
and analysis of this study’s data in answering this study’s research questions.
Research Setting
In order to answer this study’s research questions, a holistic examination of the
departmental cultures experienced by PTNTTF and their possible impact on the ability of
PTNTTF to meet the academic needs of FYCS was conducted. Since a majority of previous
studies on non-tenure track faculty have been focused on two-year community colleges (Kezar &
Sam, 2010), this study greatly contributes to the literature by studying the experiences of
PTNTTF participants from four-year public universities. More specifically, this study focused on
the experiences of PTNTTF from four-year public, urban universities since 84% of the nation’s
public university students are enrolled in a four-year public university in an urban setting (Berg
et al., 2024). Furthermore, public, urban universities enroll a greater number of adult learners,
students of color, and first-generation college students than public universities in other settings
(Caret, 2019; Pacheco, 1994). Given the diverse student population at public, urban universities,
the large percentage of four-year public university students attending campuses in urban settings,
and the trending enrollment growth in such public, urban universities, this study was focused on
the departmental cultures experienced by PTNTTF at public, urban universities with the hope of
ultimately improving the educational experiences and learning outcomes of the diverse student
population enrolled in our nation’s public, urban universities.
Participant Sampling
Through a purposeful sampling of PTNTTF from different four-year public, urban
universities, this study brought concreteness and a richer description of possible effects that was
not limited to one institution. Purposeful sampling “is based on the assumption that the

64
investigator wants to discover, understand, and gain insight, and therefore must select a sample
from which the most can be learned” (Merriam, 2009, p. 77). The study participants from
different four-year public, urban universities provided me with rich and diversified descriptions
about their lived experience in their departmental culture as a PTNTTF. The goal of this
qualitative study was not to generalize its findings, but rather to bring awareness of this problem
from a larger and wider perspective as opposed to a focused study on a bounded system (i.e. case
study) which may not have provided rich and varied perspectives of this problem.
Inclusion Criteria
Additionally, this study chose to only include study participants who met all of this
study’s inclusion criteria. The following three main inclusion criteria were noted in recruitment
materials and this study’s research information sheet:
1. at least 18 years old, and
2. within the past five years, have been employed as a PTNTTF in a public, urban
university, and
3. within the past five years, taught an introductory, survey, or other lower-division
course intended for first-year students.
This study chose to time-bound participants’ PTNTTF experience within the past five
years so that participants’ responses were relatively current. In addition, the decision to only
include PTNTTF participants who have taught introductory, survey, or other lower-division
course intended for first-year students was purposeful to recognize that the literature has only
postulated how PTNTTF working conditions and departmental cultures impact FYCS (Kezar et
al., 2019; Ran & Zu, 2019). This study aimed to fill the gap in the literature by specifically

65
focusing on examining the departmental cultures experienced by PTNTTF and their possible
impact on the ability of PTNTTF to meet the academic needs of FYCS.
Participant Recruitment
Once final approval from the institutional review board was confirmed, recruitment of
study participants began in February 2024. To yield rich and varied perspectives related to this
study’s two research questions, a large recruitment net was cast. Although contacting the
academic affairs divisions of four-year public, urban universities across the country would have
been ideal to cast such a large net to recruit PTNTTF, doing so would have been time consuming.
Rather, it was more efficient to gain access to PTNTTF across the country by recruiting from
places where they find community with one another, such as online communities or social media.
In recent years, social media recruitment has been a method for researchers to reach out to
potential research study participants efficiently and ethically (Gelinas et al., 2017).
Many PTNTTF have found community on social media sites, such as Facebook. Given
that there are Facebook groups focused on NTTF, it was efficient for me to post a message on
these Facebook group pages. Before posting any messages regarding this study on a group’s
Facebook page, I first ensured that Facebook’s terms and conditions did not include restrictions
on using the platform to recruit research study participants, as recommended by Gelinas et al.
(2017). Called “passive recruitment” (Gelinas et al., 2017), I posted a message on 11 Facebook
group pages informing the group members of the goals of my study, benefits, risks, and inclusion
criteria with the hope that interested PTNTTF would contact me for further information on how
to participate (Appendix B). I also noted the incentive to participate, which was a $15 Target
electronic gift card to each of the first 15 selected study participants who met screening criteria,

66
completed the online interview, and confirmed that the transcripts from the interview were
complete and accurate.
Screening Survey
If the readers of the Facebook post were interested in participating, potential participants
were directed to click on a link that took them to an online screening survey. The front page of
the screening survey contained the same language that was on the Facebook group posting. The
next page included the text from this study’s information sheet (Appendix A) with a link to
download this study’s information sheet in PDF format.
Once interested participants have read the information sheet on the online survey
platform, the prospective participant was asked to fill out the screening survey (Appendix C) via
the online survey platform. The questions on the survey were mapped to the three inclusion
criteria and structured with conditional logic. If the prospective study participant met all three
inclusion criteria, the online survey platform asked the prospective study participant
demographic questions and their contact information. I used the contact information to email
selected study participants to arrange a mutually convenient day and time to meet for an online
interview that was expected to take 60–90 minutes. The email also reiterated that their
participation was voluntary and that they could choose to withdraw from the study at any time.
While the qualitative approach to research is not too concerned about generalizing its
findings (Creswell, 2013; Stake, 2006), I continued to recruit participants until “no new
information [was] forthcoming from new sampled units” (Lincoln & Guba, 1985, p. 202) to
reach saturation and redundancy. The final number of participants in this study was nine.

67
Interviews as the Data Source
As this study took a qualitative approach, I used interviews to collect data relevant to
answering this study’s research questions. As interviews are used to learn more about the
thoughts, feelings, and experiences of individuals that cannot be observed (Merriam, 2009), this
type of data collection method yielded fruitful data to answer this study’s research questions. I
used a semi-structured interview protocol (Appendix D) that afforded me the flexibility to adjust
the interview for follow-up and probing questions (Merriam, 2009).
Interview Protocol
Before beginning the online interview with PTNTTF study participants, I provided a
general description of the study’s scope on understanding the departmental cultures and working
conditions experienced by PTNTTF at four-year public, urban universities. I also shared that I
was particularly interested in how these departmental cultures and working conditions support or
limit PTNTTF in meeting the academic needs of FYCS. I also advised the participant that I
intended to record the interview and use an automated transcription service to assist with
transcription. I asked each participant if they understood and consented to the recording and the
automated transcription service. All nine participants responded in the affirmative.
Once the recoding began, I started to ask rapport building questions to allow the
respondent to feel at ease with simple questions pertaining to their background and experience as
a PTNTTF. The main questions on the interview protocol were knowledge questions, experience,
and behavioral questions (Merriam, 2009). To help me understand participants’ lived experience
in their department culture, I asked questions about their perceptions of support by their
academic department and if they have the tools and resources for their teaching assignment.
These questions were based on the literature describing the working conditions of PTNTTF as

68
being hired last-minute with unpredictable contracts (American Federation of Teachers, 2022;
Baldwin & Chronister, 2001; Berry, 2005; Democratic House Committee on Education and the
Workforce, 2014; Gappa & Leslie, 1993; Jacobs, 1998; Kezar, 2013) and inequitable pay
(American Association of University Professors, 2023; American Federation of Teachers, 2022;
Coalition on the Academic Workforce, 2012; Democratic House Committee on Education and
the Workforce, 2014); not being offered institutional support through an orientation (American
Federation of Teachers, 2022; Gappa & Leslie, 1993; Haeger, 1998; Kezar, 2013; Kezar et al.,
2019; Ran & Sanders, 2020; Street et al., 2012), a private office (American Federation of
Teachers, 2022; Baldwin & Chronister, 2001; Gappa & Leslie, 1993; Haeger, 1998; Jacobs,
1998; Kezar, 2013; Ran & Sanders, 2020; Spinrad & Relles, 2022; Street et al., 2012; Tillyer,
2005), technological resources (Haeger, 1998; Kezar, 2013; Murphy Nutting, 2003; Street et al.,
2012; Tillyer, 2005), and administrative staff support (Democratic House Committee on
Education and the Workforce, 2014; Eagan et al., 2015; Gappa & Leslie, 1993; Kezar, 2013; Ran
& Sanders, 2020; Rhoades, 2020; Spinrad & Relles, 2022; Wilson, 2009); being offered little to
no opportunities for professional development (Gappa & Leslie, 1993; Kezar, 2013; Murphy
Nutting, 2003; Thompson, 2003; Umbach, 2007); not being provided valuable teaching feedback
(Kezar, 2013; Spinrad & Relles, 2022; Umbach, 2007; Witt & Gearin, 2021); and not being
respected as a faculty colleague to be included in department meetings and events (American
Federation of Teachers, 2022; Culver et al., 2020; Jones et al., 2017; Kimmel & Fairchild, 2017;
Meixner et al., 2010; Rhoades, 2020; Witt & Gearin, 2021) or be allowed to make decisions
within their own classes (Meixner et al., 2010; Spinrad & Relles, 2022).
I also asked questions to learn about the faculty member’s perception of how they meet
the academic needs of FYCS. The questions were aligned to the literature on how faculty

69
members can meet the specific academic needs of FYCS in public, urban universities by
providing a comprehensive course orientation (Bennett et al., 2016; College Transition
Collaborative, 2022; Tevis & Britton, 2020); understanding the student demographics on their
campus (College Transition Collaborative, 2022; Kezar, 2013; McMurray & Sorrells, 2009;
Natalicio & Smith, 2005) and their competing commitments (Franklin et al., 2002l; Jacoby,
1990; NASPA & Uwill, 2023); being available outside of class (Hagler et al., 2023; Schwartz et
al., 2018; Strayhorn, 2017; Vetter et al., 2019); encouraging interaction in class (Bennett et al.,
2016; Dwyer, 2017; Frankel & Smith, 2022; McMurray & Sorrells, 2009); academically and
interpersonally validating students’ identities, prior knowledge, and experiences (Beard, 2021;
Castillo-Montoya, 2017; DeFreitas & Rinn, 2013; Hagler et al., 2023; Holcombe & Kezar, 2020;
Jehangir, 2010; Linares & Muñoz, 2011; McCallen & Johnson, 2020; McMurray & Sorrells,
2009; Museus & Quaye, 2009; Rendón, 1994; Sarcedo, 2022; Schademan & Thompson, 2016;
Smith & Lucena, 2016; Yosso, 2005); and scaffolding FYCS in funds of knowledge specific to
academia as an institutional agent (McCallen & Johnson, 2020; Smith & Lucena, 2016; StantonSalazar, 1997; Wang, 2014).
Each interview question in the protocol was mapped to the research question(s) in which
the interview question attempted to answer and the conceptual area of this study’s conceptual
framework. In general, my aim was to first have the respondent talk about their general
experiences with FYCS, then focus on a specific instance in which they worked closely with a
FYCS. Then the questions focused on learning about how PTNTTF participants view their role
in meeting the academic needs of FYCS. I also asked questions prompting the respondent to
reflect on departmental culture and working conditions that impact their ability to meet the
academic needs of their FYCS.

70
Data Collection Procedures
Data collected from this study is kept in multiple and secure locations to minimize the
risk of data loss or damage. Adopting Yin’s (2014) case study database method, all data is kept in
raw form and organized to enable readers the opportunity to easily find and examine the data
collected from this study, draw their own conclusions, and compare them with this study’s
conclusions. Electronic data, including any recordings of interviews, are organized into computer
folders named with the pseudonyms representing PTNTTF participating in this study. This data
is password-protected and stored on my notebook computer and an external hard drive for
backup. All physical forms of data (e.g. written interview notes, documents) are kept in a locked
filing cabinet in my home using the same organizational method described for electronic files.
I utilized an automated transcription service to assist with transcribing the video and
audio recordings of participant interviews. Before the recordings were shared with the
transcription service, I removed any markers, demographic data, and any other identifiable
attributes that may identify participants in any way. I also ensured that once the transcription was
completed by the transcription service, all physical and electronic copies of the data were
securely destroyed.
Data Analysis
As data was collected, I analyzed the qualitative data resulting from interviews via the
approaches and guidelines of a theoretical thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006). By
applying a theoretical thematic analysis that stresses an analysis “driven by the researcher’s
theoretical or analytic interest in the area” (Braun & Clarke, 2006, p. 84), I used this study’s
conceptual framework (i.e. PTNTTF departmental cultures, validation, and institutional agency’s
funds of knowledge) to guide how data was analyzed. More specifically, I aligned my analysis to

71
the six phases of Braun and Clarke’s (2006) thematic analysis: familiarizing myself with the
data, generating initial codes, searching for themes, reviewing themes, defining and naming
themes, and producing the report.
Familiarizing Myself with the Data
With qualitative data collected from interviews, there was a substantial amount of data to
analyze. As data was collected, I read the interview transcripts multiple times while taking brief
notes (Braun & Clarke, 2006) to initially note any interesting data. This process allowed me to
become immersed in the data to help me build the mental process and schema to begin coding.
Generating Initial Codes
By being immersed in the data, initial ideas of potential codes helped me generate initial
codes that were mapped to the conceptual framework of this study (Braun & Clarke, 2006). I was
also open to any terms or codes that might have helped me answer this study’s research questions
in case there was interesting, emerging, or converging patterns later in the thematic analysis
process (Braun & Clarke, 2006). As I coded the entirety of the collected data, I identified
repeated patterns within a participant’s interview and across all participants to help me begin
identifying themes across the data set.
Searching for Themes
Once all collected data was coded and a comprehensive list of codes was generated from
the data, I sorted the codes into various overarching themes and sub-themes. I used paper index
cards to sort the codes on the floor as it was easier to move the codes around or perhaps duplicate
codes in case the code encompassed more than one theme (Braun & Clarke, 2006). As suggested
by the constant comparison method (Charmaz, 2006), codes were constantly compared with
other codes at the same level to help organize the codes. As relationships between the themes

72
emerged, I illustrated these relationships between themes using ribbon to connect the associated
index cards on the floor.
Reviewing Themes
After all the codes were placed into themes and sub-themes via index cards on the floor, I
constantly compared (Charmaz, 2006) codes with other codes, themes with other themes, subthemes with other sub-themes, codes with themes, and themes with sub-themes. These
comparisons allowed me to collapse, demote, or promote codes, themes, and sub-themes as
needed (Braun & Clarke, 2006). As such, codes, themes, and sub-themes were adjusted multiple
times over multiple days so that I had time away from the data to re-examine the data with a
renewed focus. After the themes and sub-themes appeared to be fixed after reviewing them over
multiple days, I took a macro view of the themes, sub-themes, and relationships to examine if the
themes connected to wider concepts in this study’s conceptual framework in answering the
research questions (Braun & Clarke, 2006).
Defining and Naming Themes
Once I determined that the themes were representative of the collected data as a whole
and connected to this study’s conceptual framework and research questions, I defined and named
the themes by “identifying the ‘essence’ of what each theme was about (as well as the themes
overall), and determining what aspect of the data each theme captures” (Braun & Clarke, 2006,
p. 92). Braun and Clarke (2006) recommended that a name be given to each theme that is
concise, yet descriptive for readers. I began drafting a narrative that described the themes, how
they were connected, and the overall significance of those themes to this study’s conceptual
framework and research questions.

73
Producing the Report
As theoretical thematic analysis is less concerned about providing a rich description of
the overall data and instead places an increased emphasis on a detailed analysis of the data
mapped to the conceptual framework and research questions of the study (Brawn & Clarke,
2006), I provide a narrative that describes the themes and sub-themes that were created from the
data in a format that answers the research questions tied to this study’s conceptual framework in
the next chapter. I ensured that specific examples from the data were presented alongside the
narrative to provide a compelling argument that answers the research questions.
Credibility and Trustworthiness
This qualitative study was designed with key strategies to facilitate the reader’s ability to
assess the credibility and trustworthiness of this study’s key findings (Creswell, 2013). First, in
designing this study’s interview protocols, I consulted with professionals who have experience
and first-hand knowledge of PTNTTF and FYCS. Through this peer review process, I
specifically consulted with current and former PTNTTF members and a counselor whose
caseload solely consists of FYCS. I obtained their feedback on the alignment of the protocols to
this study’s research questions and conceptual framework, and the flow and wording of the
interview questions (Creswell, 2013).
Secondly, after interview data was transcribed, I engaged in member checking by sharing
the transcripts with the interview participants (Creswell, 2013). This afforded the interview
participant an opportunity to verify the accuracy of the transcription and to inform me of any
possible transcription errors. If there were discrepancies, I reviewed the suggestions made by the
participant and corrected the transcripts accordingly.

74
Once the interview transcripts were confirmed by the participants, the analysis of such
data included a constant comparison of the data itself within the same levels and across levels
(Charmaz, 2006). More specifically, codes were compared with other codes, themes with other
themes, sub-themes with other sub-themes, codes with themes, and themes with sub-themes.
This process strengthened the credibility of this study as the constant comparison of the data
within the same levels and across the levels demonstrated the systematic way in which this
study’s themes and sub-themes were derived (Glaser, 1965). Furthermore, confirmability of this
study’s findings can be audited with the availability of this study’s raw data, codes table
(Appendix E), and process notes (Merriam, 2009).
Ethics
This study recruited participants using passive social media recruitment methods (Gelinas
et al., 2017). While social media recruitment shares the same ethical considerations as traditional
recruitment methods, respect for the privacy of social media users and investigator transparency
are additional considerations unique to social media recruitment (Gelinas et al., 2017). Given the
complexity of privacy settings found on online social media sites, Gelinas et al. (2017)
recommended that researchers assume that social media users do not know how to adjust their
privacy settings. Researchers must approach publicly posted content carefully to protect social
media users against public embarrassment or other potential harms (Gelinas et al., 2017). In
alignment with the ethical recommendations of Gelinas et al. (2017) to protect the privacy of
social media users, I did not use any publicly available posts on the Facebook groups in this
research study.
In addition, Gelinas et al. (2017) urged researchers to be transparent about their identity
as a researcher and the goals, benefits, and risks associated with their studies. I created a

75
Facebook account and identified myself as a researcher interested in learning about their
experiences as a PTNTTF and their academic department’s support in helping them meet the
needs of FYCS.
Before any online interviews began, I reviewed the study’s information sheet with the
participant and asked them if they had any questions or concerns. I noted that there were no
anticipated risks to their participation but added that there may be some interview questions that
may make them feel uneasy or embarrassed. I assured them that they did not have to answer any
questions if they did not want to and that they may choose to withdraw from the study at any
time before, during, and after data was collected and analyzed. I shared that the interview was
anticipated to last about 60–90 minutes and that they would be given the transcripts for their
interview to confirm and clarify their responses. I clarified the incentive to participate, which
was a $15 Target electronic gift card to each of the first 15 selected study participants who met
screening criteria, completed the online interview, and confirmed that the transcripts from the
interview were complete and accurate. The electronic gift cards were emailed to each participant
after they indicated that they were comfortable with the interview transcripts. To protect the
confidentiality of this study’s participants and to gain the trust of this study’s participants, I used
pseudonyms throughout this study’s report.
Lastly, I explained to each participant that the online interview would be recorded and
that I intended to use an automated transcription service to assist me with transcribing the
interviews. I noted that their decision to be recorded or not would not affect their ability to
participate in the study and that they could request the recording to be stopped at any time. All
nine participants confirmed their consent to be recorded.

76
The Researcher
In full disclosure, I attended a four-year public university in a large urban area during my
undergraduate education. While pursuing my undergraduate degree as a first-generation college
student, I did not fully understand the multitude of available campus resources or the importance
of connecting with faculty members. When I needed help, I instead relied on myself or peers
(Beard, 2021; Hagler et al., 2023; Yee, 2016). However, in retrospect I was embarrassed to seek
help from my instructors (Hagler et al., 2023) as I did not have the confidence and knowledge of
how to interact with faculty members outside of class (Yee, 2016).
My tentativeness to seek assistance from faculty and staff during my undergraduate years
became the inspiration for my decision to pursue a career in student services, specifically
academic advising. During advising sessions, I am reminded about my own college experience
when I ask students how often they interact with their faculty members. I find myself engaging
in institutional agency (Stanton-Salazar, 1997) to help students understand the language and
culture of higher education and scaffold their learning of how to engage faculty in small talk,
such as asking about their faculty member’s research interests, career trajectory, and
recommendations for further reading on shared academic interests (Yee, 2016). While this study
reminded me of my own biases and college experience, I remained mindful of my college
experience, but kept my focus on this study’s research questions and protocols to help ground me
as I entered the field.
Limitations and Delimitations
While this study examined the departmental cultures PTNTTF experience and how those
departmental cultures impact the ability of PTNTTF to meet the academic needs of FYCS, the
focus of this study was limited to the knowledge and experiences shared by each PTNTTF

77
participant. I cannot guarantee that participants were forthcoming to share both positive and
negative responses during the interviews. I could only trust that my efforts to develop trust and
rapport with each study participant were effective enough for them to be comfortable sharing
their entire story.
Lastly, the research questions guiding this study were focused on the perceptions of
PTNTTF of their departmental culture and how they meet the academic needs of FYCS. As such,
this study did not include any data from FYCS themselves. I chose to rely on the literature in
describing the academic needs of FYCS as there is already a voluminous amount of literature
focusing on FYCS’ academic needs from the student perspective. Collecting data from FYCS for
the purposes of this study would be time and resource intensive and would not add anything new
to the large body of work already available on the academic needs of FYCS. Instead, this study
contributes filling a gap in the literature in describing how the departmental cultures experienced
by PTNTTF impact the ability of PTNTTF to meet the academic needs of FYCS.
Conclusion
Conducting this qualitative study at this present time was timely as many public
universities are increasing the use of non-tenure track faculty in response to declining budgets
(Cross & Goldenberg, 2009; Gappa & Leslie, 1993). Previous studies described the norms in
departmental cultures experienced by PTNTTF as being hired last-minute with unpredictable
contracts (American Federation of Teachers, 2022; Baldwin & Chronister, 2001; Berry, 2005;
Democratic House Committee on Education and the Workforce, 2014; Gappa & Leslie, 1993;
Jacobs, 1998; Kezar, 2013) and inequitable pay (American Association of University Professors,
2023; American Federation of Teachers, 2022; Coalition on the Academic Workforce, 2012;
Democratic House Committee on Education and the Workforce, 2014); not being offered

78
institutional support through an orientation (American Federation of Teachers, 2022; Gappa &
Leslie, 1993; Haeger, 1998; Kezar, 2013; Kezar et al., 2019; Ran & Sanders, 2020; Street et al.,
2012), a private office (American Federation of Teachers, 2022; Baldwin & Chronister, 2001;
Gappa & Leslie, 1993; Haeger, 1998; Jacobs, 1998; Kezar, 2013; Ran & Sanders, 2020; Spinrad
& Relles, 2022; Street et al., 2012; Tillyer, 2005), technological resources (Haeger, 1998; Kezar,
2013; Murphy Nutting, 2003; Street et al., 2012; Tillyer, 2005), and administrative staff support
(Democratic House Committee on Education and the Workforce, 2014; Eagan et al., 2015;
Gappa & Leslie, 1993; Kezar, 2013; Ran & Sanders, 2020; Rhoades, 2020; Spinrad & Relles,
2022; Wilson, 2009); being offered little to no opportunities for professional development
(Gappa & Leslie, 1993; Kezar, 2013; Murphy Nutting, 2003; Thompson, 2003; Umbach, 2007);
not being provided valuable teaching feedback (Kezar, 2013; Spinrad & Relles, 2022; Umbach,
2007; Witt & Gearin, 2021); and not being respected as a faculty colleague to be included in
department meetings and events (American Federation of Teachers, 2022; Culver et al., 2020;
Jones et al., 2017; Kimmel & Fairchild, 2017; Meixner et al., 2010; Rhoades, 2020; Witt &
Gearin, 2021) or be allowed to make decisions within their own classes (Meixner et al., 2010;
Spinrad & Relles, 2022). This study explored how departmental cultures that foster these norms
also present obstacles for PTNTTF to meet the academic needs of FYCS.
As found in previous literature, faculty members can meet the specific academic needs of
FYCS in four-year public, urban universities. More specifically, faculty members can best
support their FYCS by providing a comprehensive course orientation (Bennett et al., 2016;
College Transition Collaborative, 2022; Tevis & Britton, 2020); understanding the student
demographics on their campus (College Transition Collaborative, 2022; Kezar, 2013; McMurray
& Sorrells, 2009; Natalicio & Smith, 2005) and their competing commitments (Franklin et al.,

79
2002l; Jacoby, 1990; NASPA & Uwill, 2023); being available outside of class (Hagler et al.,
2023; Schwartz et al., 2018; Strayhorn, 2017; Vetter et al., 2019); encouraging interaction in
class (Bennett et al., 2016; Dwyer, 2017; Frankel & Smith, 2022; McMurray & Sorrells, 2009);
academically and interpersonally validating students’ identities, prior knowledge, and
experiences (Beard, 2021; Castillo-Montoya, 2017; DeFreitas & Rinn, 2013; Hagler et al., 2023;
Holcombe & Kezar, 2020; Jehangir, 2010; Linares & Muñoz, 2011; McCallen & Johnson, 2020;
McMurray & Sorrells, 2009; Museus & Quaye, 2009; Rendón, 1994; Sarcedo, 2022; Schademan
& Thompson, 2016; Smith & Lucena, 2016; Yosso, 2005); and scaffolding FYCS in funds of
knowledge specific to academia as an institutional agent (McCallen & Johnson, 2020; Smith &
Lucena, 2016; Stanton-Salazar, 1997; Wang, 2014).
Given the problematic departmental cultures and working conditions experienced by
PTNTTF and the academic needs of FYCS, this qualitative study aimed to examine how these
departmental cultures either support or limit the ability of PTNTTF to meet the academic needs
of FYCS. After the qualitative data was collected and analyzed, specific themes and sub-themes
that answered this study’s research questions were developed. The next chapter fully describes
these themes and sub-themes within the context of prior literature.

80
Chapter 4: Findings
The purpose of this qualitative study was to examine how the departmental cultures
experienced by part-time, non-tenure track faculty (PTNTTF) (Kezar, 2013), impact the ability
of PTNTTF to meet the academic needs of their first-year college students (FYCS) at four-year
public, urban universities. This study was guided by a conceptual framework to help me
understand departmental culture and how it supports or limits how PTNTTF meet the academic
needs of their FYCS. The framework posits that PTNTTF must first optimize their instructional
methods to foster a culture of success by academically and interpersonally validating FYCS’
prior knowledge and experiences inside and outside the classroom (Rendón, 1994) to enable
them to meet an academic need of FYCS in scaffolding the funds of knowledge specific to
academia as an institutional agent (Stanton-Salazar, 1997). However, the degree to which
PTNTTF can academically and interpersonally validate their students inside and outside the
classroom (Rendón, 1994) and scaffold the funds of knowledge specific to academia as an
institutional agent (Stanton-Salazar, 1997), may be impacted by the PTNTTF’s departmental
culture (Kezar, 2013).
Along with the conceptual framework, this study was guided by the following research
questions:
1. How do part-time, non-tenure track faculty perceive they meet the academic needs of
first-year college students at four-year public, urban universities?
2. How do the departmental cultures experienced by part-time, non-tenure track faculty
support or limit their ability to meet the academic needs of first-year college students
at four-year public, urban universities?

81
Chapter 3 provided details about the methodological choices I made regarding this
study’s research design, research setting and selection criteria, data collection, and data analysis.
In summary, this study used semi-structured interviews with PTNTTF mapped to the conceptual
framework to gather qualitative data to learn about this problem of educational practice from the
PTNTTF perspective. This chapter specifically focuses on sharing this study’s research findings
organized by the study’s research questions. Before these findings are shared, the study’s
participants and their relevant demographics are described in the next section.
Description of the Participants
This study’s nine PTNTTF participants currently serve, or have served within the past
five years, as a PTNTTF teaching an introductory, survey, or lower-division course intended for
FYCS at a four-year public, urban university. Eight of the nine participants were in the Western
region of the United States, while one participant was in the Southern region of the United
States. Five of the nine participants self-identified their gender as female, while four participants
self-identified as male. Five of the nine participants self-identified as White or Caucasian while
also stating that they do not identify as having a Spanish, Hispanic, or Latino origin. One
participant self-identified as White or Caucasian and stated that they identify as having a
Spanish, Hispanic, or Latino origin. One participant stated that they identify as Black or African
American and not having a Spanish, Hispanic, or Latino origin and one participant self-identified
as a Black or African American, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, and having a
Spanish, Hispanic, or Latino origin. One participant did not identify as having a Spanish,
Hispanic, or Latino origin, and declined to self-identify their racial identity. Table 1 summarizes
the demographic profile of this study’s nine participants and includes the academic discipline
with which each participant identified, the metropolitan area their institution is located, and if

82
each participant has or had full-time employment outside of their PTNTTF position. The last
column details participants’ relevant prior experience most salient to this study. To protect the
identities of the study participants, pseudonyms were assigned to each participant.
Table 1
Demographics of Part-Time, Non-Tenure Track Faculty Study Participants
Participant Gender
identity
Spanish,
Hispanic,
or Latino
origin
Racial
identity
Metropolitan
area
Academic
discipline
Full-time
employment
outside of
PTNTTF job
Prior
experience
Beryl Female Yes
Black or
African
American,
Native
Hawaiian or
Other
Pacific
Islander
Denver, CO First-year
experience Yes Student
services
Debby Female No
Black or
African
American
Las Vegas, NV Psychology,
education Yes Student
services
Francine Female No White or
Caucasian San Diego, CA History Yes
Attended
small
college
Helene Female No White or
Caucasian
San Bernardino,
CA Composition No Graduate of
department
Issac Male No White or
Caucasian
Los Angeles,
CA Geology Yes Graduate of
department
Kirk Male Yes White or
Caucasian Las Vegas, NV Health Yes Student
services
Milton Male No White or
Caucasian
Los Angeles,
CA Geology No Graduate of
department
Oscar Male No White or
Caucasian Charleston, SC Geology No Graduate of
department
Patty Female No Prefer not
to say
San Bernardino,
CA Composition No Graduate of
department

83
Beyond their demographics, participants also shared some identities during their
interviews. Five of the participants are or were employed full-time while serving as a PTNTTF
faculty member, while four participants are or were only employed as a PTNTTF faculty
member. Three of the participants currently or previously served as a student services
practitioner in addition to teaching a first-year experience course as part of their PTNTTF
teaching assignment. Five of the nine participants described how their PTNTTF teaching
assignment was in the same institution and department in which they earned their master’s
degree. The findings of this study reflect the participants’ experiences in their prior roles and are
discussed in the next chapter. In the next section, a more detailed description beyond what is
noted in Table 1 for each participant is provided.
Beryl
Beryl is a PTNTTF and full-time student services staff member at a university in Denver,
Colorado. Beryl has a doctorate in education and five years of teaching experience as a PTNTTF.
Beryl teaches first-year experience courses, upper-division ethnic studies courses, and graduatelevel education courses all at the same institution in which they are employed as a full-time staff
member. They typically teach one to two courses per semester all in the same institution.
Debby
Debby is a PTNTTF and full-time student services administrator at a university in Las
Vegas, Nevada. With a doctorate in education, Debby has taught lower-division psychology and
the education department’s first-year experience courses as a PTNTTF for one year. Debby’s
teaching load is normally 3–6 units per semester, and they only teach at the institution in which
they are employed full-time as a university administrator.

84
Francine
Francine has a doctorate in history and 10 years of experience as a PTNTTF teaching
world history, western civilization, and United States history at a public university in San Diego,
California while also teaching world history online at a private university on a full-time basis.
Francine prefers to teach European history as their specialty is within this subsection of the
history discipline. At the public university, Francine’s course load is usually two courses.
Helene
Helene has taught first-year composition, diversity literature, upper-division writing,
writing intensive, and capstone courses as a NTTF at a university in San Bernardino, California
for 10 years. Although Helene is currently a full-time NTTF, Helene was last employed as a
PTNTTF three years ago. While Helene was a PTNTTF with a teaching load of nine courses a
year on the semester system, they also taught similar courses at a private university across town.
Helene now solely teaches at the public university due to their full-time teaching appointment.
Helene also earned a master’s degree in the department in which they currently teach and is
completing a doctorate in education.
Issac
Issac is a PTNTTF and full-time staff member at a university in Los Angeles, California.
For 14 years, Issac has been teaching physical geology and physical geology labs solely at this
institution where they also earned a master’s degree from the department in which they teach.
Issac’s teaching load is usually between 12 and 15 units per semester. Issac also serves on eight
campus committees on top of their teaching and staff duties.

85
Kirk
Kirk was a PTNTTF at a university in Las Vegas, Nevada before becoming a full-time
assistant professor in residence. Kirk’s usual course load as a PTNTTF was two classes per
semester, and they only taught courses at this specific institution in Las Vegas, Nevada while
serving as a full-time university administrator. During Kirk’s time as a PTNTTF, they taught two
years in the health department, specifically first-year experience courses for the department.
Kirk’s specialization in first-year experience courses is attributed to their doctorate in education
and experience as a university administrator in financial aid, academic advising, success
coaching, and academic affairs.
Milton
Milton is a PTNTTF at a university in Los Angeles, California with nine years of
experience teaching lower-division geology lecture and lab courses and lower-division physical
geography courses. While teaching these courses at this university, Milton has also taught at
three different community colleges in the region all at the same time since they do not hold a
full-time job. Normally, Milton teaches 15 semester units at the university and nine semester
units spread across the three community colleges. Milton earned their master’s degree in the
academic department in which they now teach.
Oscar
Oscar is a PTNTTF who teaches earth history lab solely at a university in Charleston,
South Carolina. Oscar’s normal course load is five classes per semester, for a total of five units
per semester. Oscar does not hold a full-time job. Oscar has been teaching as a PTNTTF for five
years at this university where they also earned a master’s degree in the academic department in
which they currently teach.

86
Patty
Patty was a PTNTTF who taught first-year composition courses at a university in San
Bernardino, California for 10 years before becoming a full-time staff member at the same
university. Patty’s part-time teaching load typically consisted of three or four courses per
semester. During Patty’s first year teaching at this university, they also taught courses through
distance education. After their first year teaching, Patty focused their teaching at this one
university. Patty is a graduate of the program in which they were teaching and is completing a
doctorate in education.
Research Question 1 Findings
This study’s first research question explored PTNTTF perceptions of how they meet the
academic needs of FYCS at four-year public, urban universities. The nine study participants
shared their perceptions through the semi-structured interview protocol described in Chapter 3
and included in Appendix D. The participants’ interview transcripts were checked for accuracy
by each participant, then coded using this study’s conceptual framework as a lens to examine the
interview data. Braun and Clarke’s (2006) theoretical thematic analysis framework and the
constant comparison method (Charmaz, 2006) informed the coding and analysis of this study’s
data.
After examining and organizing the data into initial themes, I reviewed and refined the
initial themes into two main themes that capture the participants’ perceptions of how they meet
the academic needs of FYCS at four-year public, urban universities. The first theme I created
from the data is the perception among participants that they meet the needs of FYCS at four-year
public, urban universities by being approachable and understanding. The second theme I
developed is the participants’ perception that they meet the needs of FYCS in structuring their

87
classes for student success, through the sub-themes of facilitating learning and engaging
interaction in class. Lastly, the third theme I created from the data is the participants’ perception
that they meet FYCS’ needs by helping them understand college expectations and resources. In
the next section, I describe each of these themes and provide evidence from the data to support
how each of the themes represent participants’ perceptions.
Being Approachable and Understanding
During the data collection process, all nine study participants described how they meet
the academic needs of FYCS at four-year public, urban universities within a broader theme that I
call being approachable and understanding. Within this theme, five of the nine participants
described how they are approachable and understanding of their students by understanding the
demographics and concerns of the students in their classes. Additionally, three of them
specifically recognized how they understood the demographics of the students they teach. Beryl
noted:
Well so, at our school in particular, more than half of our incoming first-years are also
first-generation college students. And so specific to that population, and just kind of firstyears in general, it’s very much like they don't know what they don't know.
For Kirk, they understood that their campus is “a minority serving institution, especially with
HSI and AANAPISI student populations, and what's really unique about our students is a
majority of them are commuter students.” Oscar offered an observation by sharing that students
in their classrooms have been affected by the COVID-19 pandemic by “never [having] been in
an actual science lab before.” Three of these five participants specifically noted how students in
general are concerned about finances. Beryl shared, “I would say it’s one of those things that will
distract from students being successful, which is certainly the financial piece.” Debby similarly

88
reported that they were often asked by students: “How am I going to continue to pay for college?
How do I pay for college?” For these participants, understanding who their students are and their
overall concerns assisted them in being approachable and understanding faculty for their FYCS.
Another noteworthy pattern relating to the theme of being approachable and
understanding is that six of the nine study participants recognized and understood how students
might be struggling with managing competing demands on their time, such as commute times,
work, family, and cultural commitments. Oscar captured this sentiment in their belief that their:
job as an instructor … is to recognize that [students] have a lot going on in [their] life.
[They] have family stuff going on, 15–18 other credit hours that my one credit hour class
is competing with and [they are] probably trying to have some semblance of a work life
balance.
Debby also understood students’ competing demands by sharing their experience with “students
with different … complex scenarios and working … parents and their kids and then taking care
of someone sick.” Francine explained that:
people have really different backgrounds and different things that they have to overcome
in order to come to class … So some people commute from a different country, daily.
Some … people are parents, you know, there’s … a lot of things that they have to deal
with outside of school.
The importance of understanding these competing demands experienced by FYCS in relation to
being an approachable and understanding faculty member was expressed by these participants
who represented two-thirds of this study’s participants.
Adding to how participants understood the struggles students encounter in managing
competing commitments, five of the nine participants shared they understood how students need

89
support for mental health and overall wellness. Francine noted how their FYCS are more
transparent with their mental health concerns by sharing that “more and more [are] very open
with me about ‘I had a bad mental health day.’” This openness among students to share their
mental health concerns was also shared by Oscar as they expressed that students in their classes
are “very in tune with what their … trigger points are and … what are the stresses that are going
on outside of my classroom.” Helene also shared how they have heard many personal stories
from their students and observed that “students are in serious need of some emotional and almost
therapeutic explorations of what they’re going through.” For more than half of this study’s
participants, being an approachable and understanding faculty member includes understanding
students’ needs to be supported from a wellness and mental health perspective.
Lastly, with respect to the theme of being approachable and understanding, is the
perception among five participants that they meet FYCS’ needs by simply being available to
show genuine care for their students. For example, Beryl noted the importance of first being “as
open and accessible as possible … and … mindful of … meeting students where they are.”
Referring to students who are first-generation college students, Issac expressed that “they’re put
at a disadvantage from the beginning of not having someone who they can relate to, talk about
college with, know what issues they might be facing.” Debby shared how it was important for
faculty to “just [normalize] the student’s feelings, letting them know that, you know, ‘I’m a
resource here on campus.’” The need to show genuine care for students was also expressed by
Oscar who viewed one of their roles as a teacher as being “the guy who loses sleep over how
[students are] doing.” These participants exemplified how much genuine care PTNTTF can show
their students by simply being available to listen and meet them where they are.

90
Structuring Their Classes for Student Success
The second theme that was developed from the data is the participants’ perception that
they meet FYCS’ needs by structuring their classes for student success. Upon organizing the data
within this broader second theme, two sub-themes were created to illustrate a pattern among the
participants’ responses. The first sub-theme further specifies that participants believe that they
structure their classes for FYCS’ success by facilitating learning in class. The second sub-theme
notes another pattern among the data which describes how faculty facilitate engaging interactions
in class to meet FYCS’ needs. The following section describes these two sub-themes in greater
detail.
Facilitating Learning in Class
Within this first sub-theme, PTNTTF participants expressed their perceptions of the
importance of facilitating learning in their classrooms to meet the academic needs of FYCS. For
five of the nine participants, starting their classes with a course orientation in describing course
expectations is important to providing an overall structure to the learning environment. While
also recognizing the student demographics of their institution, Francine shared that:
there’s a lot of first-generation students also at this institution, so maybe they just don’t
even understand what a syllabus is like, [so] we actually talk about that … I try to assume
less knowledge, institutional knowledge … but that’s been affected by me learning about
just what their lives are actually like.
Francine described how they discuss what office hours are and “require coming to office hours
… so they could find my office and see what it means when you come to office hours.” Beryl,
Helene, and Patty’s responses were similar by also sharing that their first course meetings consist

91
of talking about office hours and the importance of them. Beryl expressed their purpose for
reviewing office hours by reporting that:
being very clear [about] what office hours are and … why you should come see me. And
here are some guidelines if you’re going to office hours, like what you can do, what you
should go to office hours for, [and] what you should not go to office hours for. [I help]
students … understand … that hidden curriculum that comes with a lot of … unspoken
rules of being successful at college. And, and being very mindful of sharing those sorts of
things I think has always been really important.
Debby’s response also added that the first course meetings provide an opportunity to share with
students their expectations “I too, you know, I want your best … I want nothing but your best
work and … you can rise to the occasion.”
Beyond the first few course meetings, seven of the nine participants believed that
fostering a positive learning environment in their classes helps them meet the academic needs of
FYCS in their classrooms. Francine and Helene specifically mentioned that faculty must first
embody an asset-based, not deficit-based, perspective when they think about students and their
learning. Francine explained what educators should do instead of deficit-based thinking:
I think the big thing was I felt like my students were not engaged. They weren’t doing the
work. And so my mom was a teacher and she would always say … “Look in a mirror, not
a microscope.” So if they’re not doing it, don’t say “what’s wrong with you?” Look at …
what could you be doing differently.
Similarly, building students’ self-efficacy was specifically reported by Patty as they recalled
“telling them and showing them how they can do hard things. And that they could do hard things
because I knew them.” Helene stressed their belief that “these students are incredibly hard

92
working. And if they if you can show them the value of what they’re doing, they will give you
their all.”
Akin to how Helene believes in sharing with students the value of what they are learning,
six of the nine study participants believe that helping students understand the why’s and the
larger picture of their learning further enriches their learning and classroom experience. Beryl
shared an example of students’ questions they have answered about the applicability of course
concepts to their career:
And spending time putting it into context … was really important for the first-year
students … so really supporting them through understanding the full pathway. Now this
class, they will say “Why do we have to take this first year seminar? I don’t need this to
be a nurse.” Every time they told me that I was like “Well I need my nurse to know how
to communicate.”
Oscar comments were similar in how they have shifted to being explicit about the larger picture
with their students:
I have shifted away from saying, “I’m going to teach you how to do science.” [I] say
instead, “I am going to teach you how to really analyze things.” Because I will usually
say like … “No matter what your major is … you’re gonna be doing analysis … You’re
gonna be looking at the effects of the Feds raising interest rates. If you’re … studying the
effects of Emily Bronte on … 19th century women in London … you’re doing analysis.”
Four of the nine participants shared that they help their students learn about the larger
picture by connecting course concepts to their prior knowledge and experiences. Two of these
four participants described structuring course assignments to specifically scaffold students in

93
applying their prior knowledge and experiences to course concepts. For example, Beryl shared
how a resume writing assignment helped scaffold students’ application of prior knowledge:
especially like as first-years, they’re coming in like “I worked at Shake Shack in the mall
and I volunteered at my dad’s job.” Like they have limited experience. It’s harder to be …
like “How do I highlight this for a job?” and we talk about career and making that
connection. But I felt like having an actual assignment to make that concrete was really,
really important.
Oscar described how they help students draw upon their prior knowledge and experiences in
other courses to help their students in their course:
“Okay, you’re taking this class and so what are you studying in this class?” And … “are
you doing this and that … thing that are also analytical methods.” So, it drills down to the
point of “can we think about successfully study [sic] for these other classes? What are
you doing to do well in your communications major, or your finance major or something
like that? And … how can we adapt that to … what we’re doing in our class, you know?”
While these participants’ experiences described how they help students connect prior knowledge
and experiences, Kirk explained the larger picture of why faculty do this: “I think being able to
change up the different activities really comes to show the students that I value what they’re
saying and what they’re experiencing, so it tends to help them build confidence.”
Building students’ confidence and capacity to succeed is another component to how
participants shared that they facilitate learning in their classes to meet the academic needs of
FYCS. Six of the nine participants shared that they structure their pedagogical practices to build
students’ capacities to succeed in their courses through scaffolding, chunking, destressing high-

94
stakes assessments, and stressing that imperfection is okay. For instance, Beryl described how
they scaffold and chunk complex course concepts:
so for me like more scaffolding and providing like, “Let’s break this down into smaller
pieces. So you’re gonna get feedback on your outline, and you’re gonna have an
opportunity to meet with me one on one. And we’re doing this in class. So this is not
something separate you need to think about.” I find that to be very useful for students. So
yeah, definitely scaffolded assignments and lots of opportunities for personalized
feedback.
Additionally, Issac described how they adjusted grading in order to build students’ self-efficacy
by:
including different grading styles such as … trying to get away from a zero grade and that
everybody has a score, as long as they took part in the activity. [It helps] to decrease that
discouragement of getting an F, [or] a zero on an assignment … they should have gotten
something for at least trying it.
Beryl shares with their students that assignments can be re-written and that there is a lot of trial
and error they support in working with students:
I also give students like the opportunity to rewrite assignments. “So if for some reason
you weren’t happy with this paper, you didn’t like your grade … let’s actually sit down
and talk about why. And you have the opportunity to submit a rewrite based on our
conversation and that feedback.”
I share with students: “There is a lot of trial and error and here’s how I hope I am
a supportive person in that process, so that when the error part comes in, you still have a
support network to continue to be successful rather than having it feel like ‘Oh, it didn’t

95
work out. It’s not going to work out.’” But seeing it as “It didn’t work out, now what
have I learned from that so it can work out more in the future.”
Patty stressed to their students, “Don’t worry about what you sound like if it’s not academic
enough. Figure out what you sound like generally, in your writing, and then we can work on
translating it to the academy if we need to.”
Building students’ capacity to succeed also extends to how five study participants
reported that providing individual academic help supports students in their learning. More
specifically, these participants mentioned that the nature of the individual academic help they
provide is usually to cover course content that a student missed. When talking to a student who
could not come to class regularly due to work responsibilities, Beryl assured the student by
saying “you don't need to apologize, like, show up when you’re able and if you’re missing
anything … we will get it covered.” Francine shared a similar perspective as they recalled saying
to a student, “so tell me what’s going on and why you couldn’t get this done on time and let’s
make sure before you leave, you have a thesis statement.” Participants who shared the
importance of providing individual help to their students also demonstrated their approachability
and capacity to understand their FYCS.
Facilitating Engaging Interactions in Class
Within this second sub-theme, study participants shared how they facilitate engaging
interactions in class to meet the academic needs of FYCS. For five of the nine participants,
facilitating engaging in-class interactions with students’ peers and/or their instructor is important
to how they meet the academic needs of their FYCS. Debby described how they scaffold
engaging in-class interactions among students:

96
engagement is always required in my classes. It’s a requirement through the lessons and
so breaking them up in small groups, everybody has to present, sharing [sic], turning [sic]
to your neighbor [and] sharing [sic] one thing. So I incorporate the interaction in my
courses in person.
Issac noted how they go beyond in-class group work and integrate an element of field work into
a group research and presentation assignment:
they research a specific geologic activity, come up with some materials, [and] come [talk]
to me. We look at … what they might talk about for that location … and [each group] …
takes a bunch of little video clips … smash [sic] them together … to post on YouTube.
And so [with] this use of technology in a group cohort … they have to come up with a
visual field trip related to geology that they take the class on at the end of the semester.
For these five participants, facilitating engaging interactions among the students also
provides an opportunity for the students to build community with their peers. Helene shared that
they provide these engaging and interactive activities in class to “try to get students to be friendly
with each other and … we’ll spend some time really getting to know each other and playing
games and things like that.” Similarly, Issac explained that their visual field trip activity:
became a … source for them to study from. So now they were [sic] working together to
accomplish tasks in the class and understand the material more. One person said that
having that group allowed them to feel more at ease at school because they could see that
they were all going through the same thing. They were dealing with the same issues.
They were struggling at the same times … And so it really helped them understand
school and how to overcome some of the hurdles that they were facing, and they did it
together.

97
Helping Students Understand Campus Resources and College Expectations
The third theme developed from the data is the participants’ perception that they meet
FYCS’ needs by helping them understand campus resources and college expectations. During the
first few class sessions and throughout the term, five of the nine participants shared that they
review and discuss campus resources with their students. Patty described their perspective that:
there needs to be more support for … students … well maybe the support services are
there, but students don’t realize that they can take advantage of them … I do think they
need to understand and know [the campus resources] … beyond the “You should go visit
this place.”
Three of these five participants specifically mentioned the importance of reviewing relevant
campus resources and explaining how the specific resource would be helpful for their success
either in the course or beyond. Beryl shared how they describe a campus resource and tie it to a
common career goal among their students:
making sure students know there’s supplemental learning available through our Learning
Resources Center [that] is specific for those [science] classes. Especially if they’re
interested … in our teacher licensure program: “If you want to be a science teacher, you
got to take science classes. And so those are the classes that students will struggle with
the most, but those are also the ones that have the most resources available.”
Francine shared a similar approach, but also talked about an assignment to scaffold the use of the
library:
I do have a library assignment … you know history … we just we need the library a lot
… in using different databases with journals. I want to … make sure they know how to
use the catalog and go find a book.

98
Two participants, Beryl and Kirk, both described how they help their students by
leveraging their campus network to provide students with a warm referral to a specific individual
instead of a generic referral to a campus office. Kirk offered:
I’ve been very fortunate where I know many colleagues within very different departments
where I tell students “Hey, if you have any challenges or issues let me know I’ve, one,
probably experienced it myself, or know someone who has and, two, can connect you to
someone within that department that might be a better resource instead of saying go talk
to that front desk or that main point of contact.” I try to incorporate those specifically into
the class.
Two of the participants also mentioned the importance of going beyond campus referrals to help
their students understand the wider campus structure and culture. Helene noted that “I think
demystifying the academic culture is … the number one way that I try to professionalize and
create activities for [students] that go beyond the first year classroom.”
Five of the nine participants described how it is important to also help students
understand the overall structure and steps to be prepared for graduate study and/or careers. Three
of these participants shared that they integrate assignments in their classes to help students
develop skills to be career ready. Kirk, for example, shares with students how the strategies they
are learning now as students are transferrable to other life contexts, including their career:
some students … kind of see that as redundant … but [I am] trying to bring it to life and
help them have connections to their future like letting them know “Hey, like time
management, it’s even going to adjust as you’re older or when you’re working, if you
have family and other responsibilities that change. It’s a lifelong skill that you can go and
develop.”

99
Issac mentioned similar thoughts as they explain to students:
“You’re still going to be interacting with people. Can you write effective emails? Can you
write effectively in letters? Can you communicate effectively in oral communication?”
And so I incorporate that into the project and I feel that that has really succeeded and
helped my students succeed.
Three of the participants noted the importance of helping students individually with assessing
career goals and addressing questions about the applicability of their degrees to a career. For
Kirk, sometimes talking about career goals helped students problem solve as they described how
they helped a student “move away from a 40 hour job, get more scholarships, focus on their
academics and also get part-time experiences within the public health field to help them navigate
future possible internships and career opportunities.”
In addition to helping students understand campus resources, four participants also
expressed how they help meet FYCS’ academic needs by orienting them to the expectations of
college. Patty talked about the following which describes this perception:
I think students need to be made aware of expectations and what it means to be a college
student. That sounds reductive, I know. But I found [that] when I was teaching, my class
was … 75% composition and 25% “here's how to be a student” because they weren’t
getting this “Welcome to College” kind of thing. So [students need] more of this
orientation ... an ongoing orientation, I guess kind of a first year experience.
These four participants also specifically shared that they coach their FYCS in understanding how
the expectations on their specific campus are different than those they experienced either in high
school or their previous educational institution. Beryl described the importance of “having really
explicit conversations with folks about like ‘So, this is a transition and what worked in high

100
school may not work here.’” Milton similarly described how FYCS need help understanding that
they are ultimately responsible for their education and “the responsibility that students have
maintaining their own grades and understanding where we are in the semester needs to be
developed somehow.”
Related to understanding college expectations, five participants noted that FYCS need
guidance on skillsets specific to being a successful student on their campus. Oscar described this
from their experience as a PTNTTF in the sciences:
How do you study at the collegiate level? My students, most of them, are used to “Okay,
I’m going to make a bunch of quizlets and I’m going to go through those and then I’m
going to get an A.” And that’s just not how it works in a geology lab.
Milton expressed that institutions need to better support FYCS by “providing something that
teaches them what it’s going to be like [in college] when they start.”
As part of understanding college expectations and the specific skillsets needed to succeed
in college, eight of the nine participants expressed that they also assist FYCS by scaffolding the
use of academic language. Four of these participants specifically noted how they scaffold how to
interact and communicate with college faculty and staff. For example, Patty shared how their
students visited them during office hours to ask advice about another course:
They’ll usually start with course issues and the course issues often would go into the …
“I have this question about even another class.” I’m like, “Well, I can’t tell you really
about that class because I’m not teaching it, but here’s what I suggest you ask about.”
Milton offered a similar perspective about students needing guidance on how to appropriately
engage with college faculty as some “students … are too casual. You know, like, ‘What’s up
Professor …’ swearing like ‘Hey, you know, we’re friends.’ Like, ‘We’re actually not.’”

101
Returning to Patty, they continued to describe how they scaffolded the use of academic language
and discourse in assignments by assuring students “don’t worry about what you sound like if it’s
not academic enough. Figure out what you sound like generally in your writing, and then we can
work on translating it to the academy if we need to.”
For four study participants, they mentioned that they help their FYCS apply their
knowledge of college expectations and resources to solve problems. An example of this could be
identifying the most appropriate campus resource to help students with an obstacle hindering
academic success, such as excessive work responsibilities. As shared by Kirk, “Hey, if work’s the
thing, let’s talk about things financially, let’s apply for scholarships, let’s look at these other
resources that can support.” Or as shared by Beryl, the problem could be navigating an appeal
process as Beryl recalled being:
able to like sit down and … look at the rules. It was like “Okay, if a student is put on
probation in the program, here is their appeal process. And during the appeal process …
your child can continue to go into [child] care.”
Summary of Research Question 1 Findings
This study’s first research question sought out to understand the perceptions among
PTNTTF of how they meet the academic needs of FYCS at four-year public, urban universities.
In summary of the major findings pertaining to this study’s first research question, PTNTTF
participants shared their perceptions that they help meet the needs of FYCS by being
approachable and understanding, structuring their classes for student success by facilitating
learning and engaging interaction in class, and assisting students with understanding college
expectations and the resources on their campuses. In the next section, I share findings pertaining

102
to how the departmental culture experienced by PTNTTF supports or limits their ability to meet
the academic needs of FYCS at four-year public, urban universities.
Research Question 2 Findings
The second research question of this study explored how the departmental culture
experienced by PTNTTF supports or limits their ability to meet the academic needs of FYCS at
four-year public, urban universities. After coding, examining, and organizing the data into initial
themes, five main themes were created that represent the participants’ description of how their
departmental culture supports or limits their ability to meet FYCS’ needs. The first two themes
describe the positive norms of departmental cultures supporting PTNTTF in meeting FYCS’
needs, while the last three themes describe the negative norms of departmental cultures limiting
PTNTTF in meeting FYCS’ needs.
Supporting PTNTTF with Professional Treatment
The first theme that was developed to answer this study’s second research question is that
that PTNTTF are supported in meeting the academic needs of FYCS through departmental
cultures that provide PTNTTF with professional treatment. For the nine participants who
participated in this study, all of them expressed some form of professional treatment within their
respective departments. More specifically, five participants shared how they appreciate that their
department leadership respects and supports their expertise to modify their courses to better meet
the academic needs of their FYCS. For instance, Beryl described how they use their professional
experience and training to modify their courses to be more relevant to their students:
I get a little more flexibility … doing things like “I’m going to swap out this assignment
for something more relevant to my students” like … all of my students were looking to
become teachers and so we did more assignments, a little more geared towards that. So

103
instead of them doing a reflection paper, I had them submit a resume. And actually, I was
trained as a career counselor in my graduate program and I love reviewing resumes, it’s
actually one of my favorite things.
Debby talked about feeling supported by their department to apply their expertise to:
develop the course and teach it how I felt students needed. I do my part by showing up as
the best faculty member that I can to support the first-year students, utilizing my
experiences as an administrator and a faculty.
Additionally, four participants talked about how their department culture supports their overall
ability to exercise autonomy in their classes. Beryl described how they appreciate “having the
freedom to be able to make … changes was really, really good. [There] are the things you have to
do, the prepackaged stuff, and then the freedom to … supplement that and make it better.” Milton
also offered how their department culture also supports their autonomy to be responsive to
students’ needs:
over time it’s become easier and easier to kind of realize what the students are going to
respond to. And what I like about assignments … I like to kind of play it by ear and every
semester depending on how my class is working, I’ll cut things out and add things… to
my assignments that I … haven’t used … recently.
Additionally, Oscar recalled how their department is very open and receptive to pedagogical
innovations for a course:
They’ve been really happy that I … keep trying to innovate and figure out ways to
connect with my students and help my students do better and … most importantly …
[have an impact on] the numbers of the department … that we’re retaining these students.

104
The last pattern among the data pertaining to this first theme is that all nine participants
reported they are given enough time by their department to prepare for their courses. The nine
participants shared that they are given anywhere from 1–3 months notice on which courses they
would be teaching the next term. Issac offered their experience with the varied notices they were
given by their department, “I have been told up to one week prior. There was one semester I was
given a class a week in [sic] [to the term], so the class had already started. And then typically I
will know about a month beforehand.” Issac added that “because I’ve been teaching for 14 years,
I have materials … I can modify as needed for each class and I have material to work from.”
Patty’s reflection was similar as they noted that “the more comfortable I became teaching, it was
easier for me to … prepare and get ready. And the more I had taught the classes, I knew what to
expect and how to structure things.” Milton’s response was similar to Issac’s and Patty’s
viewpoint about the impact of experience on their ability to adequately prepare for their classes.
Milton described course preparation when they first started teaching and how it now differs
based on their years of experience:
in the beginning of my career … as soon as I found out that I had the positions … I would
start preparing my own PowerPoints and I would rehearse my PowerPoints. And I would
fact check every single thing that I said, and I would time myself and watch myself
lecture basically to make sure I would fulfill those timeframes. And then I would call
upon previous assignments, the ways that I had been taught, to kind of inform … how [I]
creating [sic] assignments for my students. But as time has gone on, more and more of
this material has become canned in a way where I can plan my lectures and my
assignments just the week, if not even sometimes to the day, before that part of my
syllabus arrives.

105
Supporting PTNTTF with Course Materials and Collegiality
In addition to the professional treatment participants felt from the culture in their
department, participants also reported that the culture in their department supports them in
meeting the needs of FYCS by providing them course materials and collegiality with their
faculty peers. Five of the participants shared that they receive helpful course materials to
reference from departmental faculty and staff. Kirk described how their course coordinator
reviews the preset course materials with all course instructors:
It was really more [of] a welcome. “Let’s introduce ourselves. Here’s the course syllabus
that we’ll be doing each semester. Here’s the textbook. Here’s how to access it. Here’s the
online modules that we work on.” And then, “Here [are] like the lecture slides. Let me
know if you have any questions.”
Milton described how the departmental staff are helpful in providing them course materials to get
started: “I also I was given … entire semesters worth of PowerPoints and any assignment I want
and the syllabi word for word and just change my name and my office number if I wanted to.”
Beryl also shared how the course materials and online modules provided to them are helpful to
get them started teaching:
They do a pretty good job in onboarding faculty. They give us a set syllabus that we’re
supposed to teach from. And because our first year experience program, again, they
prepackage some of this, so I have like a whole instructor Canvas shell. I [can choose]
not to do any personalization and make any changes. Everything I need is actually
available for me.
For Oscar, they also shared how they receive helpful course materials, but from an
informal department mentor. Four other study participants reported being supported by an

106
informal department mentor. Oscar described how their supervisor, a senior instructor, supported
them when they first started teaching at the institution:
My immediate boss … kind of compensated for that by really mentoring us, you know.
We would meet one on one weekly. She would … [say] “Hey, you know, [redacted]
who’s been teaching this forever, he has this section on Monday … go sit in … and watch
how he does it.” So it was more informal within the department … and she does that
with ... everybody who is … new, but that is on her own initiative. I mean, she provided
all the resources I would need … She said, “Here’s the … lab manual that we wrote in
house. Here’s the old one … here’s access to all the materials and everything.”
Patty’s experience with their informal mentor included helping them with their teaching
practices:
They helped me learn how to reflect better on my practices, and kind of think through
like, “Oh, I see why that didn’t work. Let me try it again or better yet, go back to my
students and say, ‘Hey, what happened here and what’s going on?’” I learned from them
to kind of rethink some of the assumptions that I took to my classes and realized how
different sometimes the worldviews I and my students have are, because it’s hard to get
out of ourselves sometimes, right? And so, to teach my students to do that I needed to do
it as well.
Patty later added their informal mentor became their departmental champion in building their
self-efficacy in the classroom:
Like it was a lot of championing, which I think is a step above cheerleading. It wasn’t
just like, “yeah, you can do it, go” it’s like “no, you can do this because this is what I’m
seeing in your course.”

107
In addition to the support, referrals, and scaffolding from informal department mentors
such as Oscar’s, participants expressed how their departmental culture also supports them in
developing a community with their peers. Four participants specifically noted that community
building with their peers helps them meet the academic needs of their FYCS. Debby, who
teaches a first-year seminar, described how required meetings hosted by the course coordinator
helps build community among those teaching the same course to share ideas with one another:
The coordinator is very hands on. Very hands on training, lots of communication, lots of
information. [There is] an expectation that we will meet together as a faculty to talk about
what’s happening in our courses and how we can support each other. And so all of us
would get together once a month, and then we will break down into kind of our
subgroups once a week. And, you know, talking about what's happening in the class.
Beryl, who also teaches a first-year seminar, shared a similar experience regarding meetings
organized by the course coordinator and notes the need for additional community building
opportunities with peers:
We get to meet with other instructors because we have something like 40 sections of that
University 101 class. And so we’d like pair share and meet up and talk. I do wish … there
were more structured or formal opportunities to be able to interact more with the First
Year Experience folks.
While study participants’ responses reflected positive norms of departmental culture
supporting their ability to meet the academic needs of FYCS, participants also expressed how
their departmental culture limits their ability to meet the academic needs of FYCS. The
following themes discuss these negative norms of departmental culture impacting the ability of
PTNTTF in meeting the needs of FYCS.

108
Limiting PTNTTF with Poor Hiring Practices and Inequitable Pay
The third theme that answers this study’s second research question is that PTNTTF are
limited in meeting the academic needs of FYCS through departmental cultures that operate with
poor hiring practices and provide PTNTTF with inequitable pay. More specifically, four
participants reported how their department assigns them to courses where they may not have
adequate expertise to effectively teach the course. Beryl described how they needed to accept a
course in which they did not have expertise due to their original class being cancelled:
I even taught a global media class. I have no background in global media, but the class I
was scheduled to teach in ethnic studies didn’t make for enrollment and they were like,
“Hey, we had another instructor drop off. Can you teach this?” And I was like, “Okay,
sure.”
Francine recalled an instance where they were asked to teach a United States history course
without the specialized expertise in their discipline:
Oh, the first time I taught US history, that was a big surprise. And you know, I’m a
Europeanist … I was given very little notice on that one … So I was not an expert in US
history and I was given a survey class of first year students … and I was … a day ahead
of [the students] in terms of reading the material. So that was hard.
Similarly, Issac shared the impact of being assigned courses without having the expertise on the
student experience:
Well, now I have to go back and figure out what’s changed in my field in the last … half
a decade … [For] Environmental Science … that’s like a completely different field …
five to 10 years [ago]. Electric cars are taking off, now hydrogen cars are probably

109
coming in … so I am literally planning the class week to week as we go along, trying to
update it with new materials. And it’s definitely a mess to say at least.
These participants shared how they needed to perform additional work to prepare for
classes in which they do not have adequate expertise to teach. While participants did not
specifically mention if the extra work they performed to prepare for these classes was
compensated, eight of the nine participants noted their overall perception of being paid
inequitably compared to faculty on the tenure track. Issac expressed their thoughts regarding the
extra workload of developmental education and their pay in relation to poverty wages in their
geographical location:
It’s a lot more grading, a lot more prep work, a lot more student office hours. And so it is
definitely problematic and it doesn’t allow us to make that compensation for remedial
issues like math and writing that students need … at my school … as far as pay goes. I’ve
worked for 14 years now at what we would call poverty level. So $60,000 in Los Angeles
is basically at the poverty line. I was making $55,000 working full-time for [redacted] …
I was working full-time for poverty level wages.
Patty also shared their perception of their inequitable pay:
Adjunct faculty part-time lecturers are woefully under underpaid … We’re not getting the
raise that our tenure track faculty are getting because we’re part-time … The raise that we
get really only translates to $25 a paycheck and I’m really never going to see that because
… our tax rate increases or insurance premiums go up. So I’m actually making less
money even though I just got a raise.

110
Due to their inequitable pay, two of the participants noted that they had to make difficult
employment decisions. For Milton, it meant that they needed to teach at multiple institutions to
be able to provide for their family:
I’ve taught at [redacted], [redacted], and [redacted] all at the same time. I need to bring
home a little bit more, so I branch out [to other campuses for employment]. So I guess I
feel pressured, but it’s more of like a life pressure … I have two kids and I have a third
one on the way.
Oscar found the level of pay at their institution unviable and even considered leaving the
profession:
It’s just become economically unviable for me to continue to do this. I was just gonna go
take an entry-level position at a library and go online and get my Master of Library
Science degree and just become a librarian because … I enjoy it, but like it’s just more
economically viable.
Limiting PTNTTF by Offering Little to No Training or Departmental Support
The fourth theme that answers this study’s second research question is that PTNTTF are
limited in meeting the academic needs of FYCS through departmental cultures that offer
PTNTTF with little to no training or departmental support. All nine participants shared that when
they started their teaching positions at their institution, none of them were offered an official
orientation to the school or department. In terms of how the lack of an orientation impacted their
ability to meet the needs of FYCS, four participants noted that an orientation would have helped
them understand campus resources to which they could refer students. Issac shared:
Typically students come to [faculty] and ask questions about who do I [sic] go to for that,
who do I [sic] go for this? I’m lucky that I went to school here, so I know a little bit

111
more, but most lecturers I know, don’t know … And so onboarding and training is
definitely important to both the allowing them to do their job effectively, but then also
helping them to improve their job as they continue teaching.
Patty’s response was similar and added examples of why a PTNTTF orientation covering campus
resources is needed:
and also some orientation to ... like the faculty and student affairs side of things. Like if
students cheat or if I need to refer students … for discipline issues or for basic resources
because we have a lot of students that are under-housed and under-employed and might
have food scarcity issues and things like that. And so some basic counseling training,
actually, would … be useful to know that these things might happen and will happen. So
how to find resources [to help students care for themselves].
Additionally, five participants specifically mentioned that a PTNTTF orientation covering
the usage of the campus’ learning management system (LMS) would have helped them meet the
needs of their FYCS. Patty described the need for an LMS orientation for new PTNTTF:
I think one big thing would be [an] orientation to the learning management system that’s
being used. Like how to how to, a, get there; b, how to put stuff in there if you’re not
used to it because the student side of things is very different from the faculty or instructor
side of things. So just learning that kind of navigation or at least pointing to resources for
that navigation.
Beryl’s perspective added how the lack of an orientation covering the campus LMS impacts
students:
I definitely think that [some] sort of training and information and resources is super
important because … I’ve had students where I’m dealing with them as their advisor, and

112
they’re having trouble communicating with an instructor because the instructor doesn’t
realize they have a Canvas inbox through our learning management system, which is
separate from their university email inbox.
Issac’s response added that an LMS orientation also needs a section on the student information
system:
Most of the times when lecturers start, we’re not taught how to put grades in, when
grades are due, how to do grades, what is required in your class, [and] that there are 17
things that should be required on a syllabus, or standards the school has.
Issac’s response also underscored the importance of a PTNTTF orientation that covers
teaching expectations, such as school standards or syllabus requirements. Four other participants
shared similar responses to Issac’s. Patty expressed that school standards, expectations, and
policies should be covered in an orientation:
Also some things with the … the manual for faculty, like how to do things … you’re
supposed to do, that you are required to do in your class. Here’s the policy about
attendance. Here’s the policy about office hours. Here’s the policy about all these
different things that we’re accountable for but are never talked about to … or shown
resources for.
Issac recalled the following conversation with a colleague that demonstrates how PTNTTF need
to search for these policies and requirements on their own without such an orientation:
“Why don’t you have those on your syllabus? And why has nobody been telling you
these things?” “Well, nobody bothered telling me. No one gave it to me. I had to find out
on my own recognizance or cognizance of how that is and go from there.”

113
Francine’s comments further added that the expectations and policies still need to be followed
even if PTNTTF were never advised of the existence of specific expectations or policies:
So, the amount of pages that students were supposed to write I learned in my review. So
when they reviewed me after a year, they told me I needed to assign more writing. I did
assign writing, but my classes were 100 students each so they weren’t, you know,
incredibly long papers.
Although Francine was penalized on a performance review for an expectation they did
not know about, Francine was provided a performance review, which differs from other study
participants who reported that their department never provided them with an evaluation. Three
participants noted that they never received any feedback to help them improve their teaching.
Beryl shared that even though they were observed in the classroom, they were not provided any
feedback or evaluation:
the Director of the First Year Experience will come in and … watch one of your classes at
some point in the semester for like 10 minutes. And we don’t actually get any feedback
from her doing that. She’s kind of there, takes some notes, interacts with my students a
little, and then says bye. And so I have no idea what she’s doing with that information,
but she visits all 40 sections and I have no idea what comes from that. So in terms of that
evaluation, totally, totally clueless.
Kirk was not offered an evaluation or feedback either, but expressed how feedback would allow
them to understand if their teaching is meeting the students’ and their department’s expectations:
“I prefer it. Come see me a lot. Am I on the right track? Am I not? It’s those type of elements that
I think could better serve students.”

114
Although three participants shared that they received teaching feedback and input from
their departments, all three of them noted that the feedback and input was not meaningful or
helpful. Milton expressed that “the feedback was always good … but it wasn’t anything that
would have helped me do my job.” Helene talked about how the faculty member who observed
their teaching and provided feedback was from a different discipline and could not provide
helpful feedback:
I get … “Well … she’s not giving a detailed rubric of what she’s looking for in her
papers.” Well, that’s by design. I’m trying to get students to write … I’m trying to
encourage process, not product … I’m not trying to get them to tick boxes. That’s my
pedagogy and it’s working for me. My students are doing well, but they don’t quite
understand that because they’re coming from a different discipline. So we do get some
observation and they’re generally very generous. It’s just I don’t find them very useful.
While participants noted that they generally do not receive helpful feedback to improve
their teaching, departments can provide support for their PTNTTF to improve their teaching via
professional development or training. However, for seven of this study’s nine participants,
departmental support for professional development or training is not available to them. Patty
noted that “when the budget allowed, there was money for lecturers, but it was very minimal and
not enough to cover full cost.” For some study participants, they shared how PTNTTF have the
lowest priority in being supported for professional development in comparison to full-time
faculty. Francine described that in their department full-time faculty are afforded more funding
opportunities for professional development compared to what is offered to PTNTTF:

115
So it’s a very sharp divide between being [a] full-time [faculty member] … versus a oneyear contract [faculty member] when you’re not full time. So [full-time faculty] get
access [to professional development] if you have a good proposal and everything.
In Helene’s department, funds for a PTNTTF teaching development fund were re-allocated to
tenure track faculty professional development:
So they’re now taking those [teaching development] funds away from lecturers and
giving them to tenure line faculty. And it’s for any of their professional development,
which I think is problematic because those funds are supposed to be just for teaching and
that was the only professional development funds that we had access to.
Milton’s perspective added that their department, or the wider campus, never shared their
expectation or support for PTNTTF to participate in professional development as they were just
expected to just teach:
I haven’t been made aware of why [professional development] would even be something
that I need to do. I’ve talked to … people in the department about this before: “Am I
expected to take part in this or am I expected to give this type of input or provide this?”
And it’s always “No … you’re just hired to teach. You show up and you teach.”
In addition to the lack of departmental funding and support for PTNTTF professional
development, four participants expressed how their assigned shared office is problematic as it is
not welcoming and does not provide a private space for students to share concerns with their
faculty. Helene recounted how they shared an office space with other PTNTTF when they first
started teaching:
For the first 10 years of working here, I would share an office with … three to five
adjuncts. And these are tiny offices. And we would always share the same office from

116
term to term, that was our assigned office. So it didn’t matter if our schedules changed
and we all had the same office hour because of the way that our schedule would go. So
we would have to [work with each other] to [coordinate] “You out in the hall, you go
down to the department office.” We’d have to find some way to manage having multiple
adjuncts in one [office].
Kirk offered their perception of how a student might feel sharing a concern with a PTNTTF in a
shared office:
As a part-time instructor, we had a shared part-time instructor office that was just four of
us. It really wasn’t too welcoming to students. Then [if] … some students … walk to an
office and see four part-time instructors, they might be like, “Maybe I don’t want to share
what’s going on, especially if that’s where we would communicate.” So being able to
kind of help out online … or by email was really an area … to kind of better serve
students within the part-time role.
Limiting PTNTTF by Not Offering Opportunities to Provide Input or Build Community
The fifth and last theme that answers this study’s second research question is that
PTNTTF are limited in meeting the academic needs of FYCS through departmental cultures that
offer PTNTTF with little to no opportunities to provide curricular input or build community with
peers. Six of the nine study participants noted that they were invited to department meetings but
felt that they were not included in the conversations to offer any input. Kirk shared that “as far as
the department [meetings], I did not really feel like I was a fully inclusive member in there as a
part-time instructor.” Helene offered a similar sentiment in their humorous response: “the
department meetings have always been open to us. But after my first department meeting, I felt
like a meter maid at a beat cop meeting. There was absolutely nothing that pertained to me

117
whatsoever.” Issac expressed that they were invited to department meetings, but only certain
parts of them:
If [I am] invited to department meetings, it’s [only a] part of a department meeting. So
you’re invited to the “Hey, let us tell you what you’re doing, what’s going on” [portion of
the meeting]. And then “oh, we have a couple of things we have to talk [about] that we
won’t invite you to.”
Furthermore, when PTNTTF are invited to full meetings, participants reported that their input
regarding curriculum, is not taken seriously. Helene mentioned:
I had no voice. And anything we teach, 99% of the first-year writing classes in the
department, we had no say in it. I did push for the ability to vote on curricular matters for
the first-year comp program. It seems silly for them to make all the decisions when none
of them are in the classroom.
Patty expressed a similar response regarding sharing ideas in meetings with tenure track faculty:
We collectively, as part-timers, taught the majority of the composition courses and a lot
of the major courses that we could … there was a distinct divide, sometimes. Rarely from
the department chair themselves, [but] occasionally with that minor reminder of the “Oh,
you’re part-time. So thanks for what you said, but we’re not going to implement that
because that doesn’t really affect the tenure line.” So it was it was clear there were two
populations in there.
The feelings of exclusion during faculty meetings also extended to how four participants
shared that there were no opportunities to build community with colleagues, whether they were
on the tenure track or not. Helene shared that their department does not have opportunities for
them to share pedagogical strategies with one another:

118
Well, it would be absolutely wonderful if we could share resources and ideas and
approaches with each other, but we’re so alienated from one another, that there is no real
… sense of community with the lecturers. So we’re not … able to share what’s working
in the first-year class.
Kirk mentioned a similar thought about how community building with peers would be helpful in
their teaching:
I think if I was [sic] able to interact with more faculty teaching … similar … courses, I
think it would be nice to … find out what they’re experiencing and if I was experiencing
the same, to see if there’s any trends or identify things going on with students, or even to
identify growth opportunities, especially whenever it was with technology, resources, or
… the support that was provided to faculty and staff.
Summary of Research Question 2 Findings
This study’s second research question aimed to understand how the departmental culture
experienced by PTNTTF supports or limits their ability to meet the academic needs of FYCS at
four-year public, urban universities. There were five major themes that answered this study’s
second research question. The first two themes described how PTNTTF are supported in meeting
the academic needs of FYCS through departmental cultures that provide PTNTTF with
professional treatment, course materials, and collegiality. The last three themes detailed how
PTNTTF are limited in meeting the academic needs of FYCS through departmental cultures with
poor hiring practices and inequitable pay, no training or departmental support, and no
opportunities to provide curricular input or build community with peers.

119
Conclusion
This chapter described this study’s participants and presented the findings of this study
organized by the study’s research questions:
1. How do part-time, non-tenure track faculty perceive they meet the academic needs of
first-year college students at four-year public, urban universities?
2. How do the departmental cultures experienced by part-time, non-tenure track faculty
support or limit their ability to meet the academic needs of first-year college students
at four-year public, urban universities?
The findings for this study’s first research question were that PTNTTF perceived they
meet the academic needs of FYCS at four-year public, urban universities by being approachable
and understanding, structuring their classes for student success via facilitating learning and
engaging interactions in class, and helping students understand campus resources and college
expectations. For this study’s second research question, participants perceived that the culture in
their department supported them in meeting FYCS’ needs by providing them with professional
treatment, course materials, and collegiality. Participants also perceived that their departmental
culture limited them in meeting the needs of FYCS by implementing policies and practices with
poor hiring practices and inequitable pay, no training or departmental support, and no
opportunities to provide curricular input or build community with peers. In the next chapter,
these findings are discussed within the context of the literature. The next chapter ends with
recommendations for practice and recommendations for future research.

120
Chapter 5: Discussion and Recommendations
The purpose of this qualitative study was to examine how the departmental cultures
experienced by part-time, non-tenure track faculty (PTNTTF) impact their ability to meet the
academic needs of their first-year college students (FYCS) in four-year public, urban
universities. The research questions that guided this study were:
1. How do part-time, non-tenure track faculty perceive they meet the academic needs of
first-year college students at four-year public, urban universities?
2. How do the departmental cultures experienced by part-time, non-tenure track faculty
support or limit their ability to meet the academic needs of first-year college students
at four-year public, urban universities?
To further guide this study, a conceptual framework was created. The framework
suggests that PTNTTF must first optimize their instructional methods to foster a culture of
success by academically and interpersonally validating FYCS’ prior knowledge and experiences
inside and outside the classroom (Rendón, 1994). By engaging in academic and interpersonal
validation, PTNTTF can work closely with their FYCS in scaffolding the funds of knowledge
specific to academia as an institutional agent (Stanton-Salazar, 1997). However, the degree to
which PTNTTF can academically and interpersonally validate their students (Rendón, 1994) and
scaffold specific funds of knowledge unique to academia (Stanton-Salazar, 1997), may be
impacted by the PTNTTF’s departmental culture (Kezar, 2013).
With the data collected from semi-structured interviews with PTNTTF, this study applied
the approaches and guidelines of a theoretical thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006) and the
constant comparison method (Charmaz, 2006) to generate themes to organize and present this
study’s findings. In summary, this study found that PTNTTF perceive that they meet the

121
academic needs of FYCS at four-year, public urban universities by being approachable and
understanding, structuring their classes for student success via facilitating learning and engaging
interactions in class, and helping students understand campus resources and college expectations.
This study also found that PTNTTF are supported in meeting the academic needs of FYCS
through departmental cultures that provide PTNTTF with professional treatment, course
materials, and collegiality. Conversely, this study also found that PTNTTF are limited in meeting
the academic needs of FYCS through departmental cultures with poor hiring practices and
inequitable pay, no training or departmental support, and no opportunities to provide curricular
input or build community with peers.
This chapter further discusses the findings of this study while situating them within the
context of the literature. The chapter ends with recommendations for practice and
recommendations for future research.
Discussion of the Possible Impact of Participants’ Prior Roles on Findings
Before discussing the findings of this study with respect to answering this study’s
research questions, it is important to note how the participants’ experiences in their prior roles
may have influenced how they perceive they meet the academic needs of first-year college
students and their perceptions of how the departmental cultures they experience support or limit
their ability to meet the academic needs of their first-year students.
As noted in the previous chapter, five of the nine participants, Helene, Issac, Milton,
Oscar, and Patty, shared that their PTNTTF teaching assignment is in the same institution and
department in which they earned their master’s degree. As alumni of the institution and
department in which they are now employed, these five participants have the advantage of
understanding the unique student population on their campus and its campus resources. In the

122
sections to follow, Helene, Issac, Milton, Oscar, and Patty’s responses are discussed with respect
to their familiarity and established relationships with departmental staff and faculty through their
interactions with them as a graduate student. While these five participants may not need as much
support with getting to know departmental staff and faculty or understanding the unique student
population and campus resources in their institutions, they may need support in translating their
prior knowledge and experiences as a former student to evidence-based instructional approaches
that best meet the needs of the unique student population on their campus.
In addition, three of the participants, Beryl, Debby, and Kirk, currently or previously
served as a student services practitioner in addition to teaching a first-year experience course as
part of their PTNTTF teaching assignment. Full-time student services practitioners sometimes
serve as PTNTTF (Scott & Kezar, 2019) and have an inherent knowledge of student
development and student success theories, approaches, and best practices through their graduate
education and work experience in the student services profession. Guillaume et al. (2020) found
that student services practitioners who transition into faculty roles embody student-centered
philosophies which manifest in their instructional approaches as being caring and available for
their students. As such, student services practitioners who serve in a faculty capacity may not
need as much support from their departments to understand how to best meet the academic needs
of students. Rather, they may need support in understanding the unique student population on
their campus to effectively leverage their prior knowledge and experiences as a student services
practitioner to best support their students in the classroom. In the sections to follow that describe
this study’s findings with respect to the research questions, Beryl, Debby, and Kirk’s responses
reflecting their student-centered philosophies and prior experiences working closely with
students in their current or former capacities as a student services practitioner are discussed.

123
Discussion of Research Question 1 Findings
The first research question that this study answered was how part-time, non-tenure track
faculty (PTNTTF) perceive they meet the academic needs of first-year college students (FYCS)
at four-year public, urban universities. After analyzing the qualitative data, three main themes
were created to best capture how PTNTTF perceive they meet FYCS needs: being approachable
and understanding, structuring classes for student success, and helping students understand
campus resources and college expectations. In this section, I discuss each of these themes within
the context of prior literature.
Being Approachable and Understanding
The first finding that answered this study’s first research question is that PTNTTF
perceive meeting the academic needs of FYCS by being approachable and understanding.
Adopting an approachable and understanding mindset when working with students aligns with
the tenets of interpersonal validation (Rendón, 1994). This is important to note as Sarcedo (2022)
found that students are more likely to interact with faculty members during class if their faculty
members are genuinely approachable and understanding of their students. To best demonstrate
their approachability and genuine understanding of their students, faculty, including PTNTTF,
must first take the time to understand the student demographic make-up of their classrooms and
the wider institution (College Transition Collaborative, 2022; Kezar, 2013; McMurray &
Sorrells, 2009; Natalicio & Smith, 2005).
Taking this important step to understand the unique student population on their campus
even before stepping foot in the classroom was described by five of the nine participants in this
study. Kirk was among these participants who noted how they understood that their institution is
a minority serving institution with many commuter students. Kirk’s understanding of their

124
institution’s commuter student population was also indicative of their understanding of the
mission of a public, urban university which focuses on serving the region’s population (Franklin
et al., 2002; Jacoby, 1990). Furthermore, students who attend public, urban universities often
commute and have work, family, and other life commitments (Franklin et al., 2002; Jacoby,
1990). Six of the nine participants shared similar responses which support findings of previous
researchers in recognizing how students in public, urban universities may be struggling with
balancing the demands of school, work, and family commitments (Franklin et al., 2002; Jacoby,
1990). Oscar and Debby, for example, exemplified this understanding by sharing how their
students have multiple competing demands on their time. In addition, five study participants
reported how they recognize that students are also needing support with mental health and
overall wellness. Oscar and Helene described how their students openly share their mental health
and wellness needs and struggles. Oscar and Helene’s observation of students’ openness to share
mental health concerns is consistent with recent research indicating that 93% of higher education
leaders in the United States observed the same openness of students to discuss mental health
concerns given the declining national trend of mental health stigma on campus (NAPSA &
Uwill, 2023).
By recognizing the unique student population on their campuses and students’ competing
commitments, PTNTTF can apply their understanding of their students to showing genuine care
for their students and being available to them. Beryl’s perspective that faculty need to be “as
open and accessible as possible … and … mindful of … meeting students where they are”
recognizes how faculty need to understand the unique student population on their campuses and
be open and flexible as possible to meet students’ needs. By offering flexible meeting times for
students to meet with them, PTNTTF communicate their genuine care for their students,

125
resulting in their students being more willing to engage in help-seeking behavior (Hagler et al.,
2023). Additionally, Debby described how it was important for faculty to engage in interpersonal
validation (Rendón, 1994) to normalize what students are feeling and to reinforce that faculty are
available to them. Consistent with the literature, five study participants also expressed that
faculty must strive to be as available and present as possible (Hagler et al., 2023, McCallen &
Johnson, 2020; Museus & Quaye, 2009; Sarcedo, 2022; Strayhorn, 2017; Vetter et al., 2019) and
normalize help seeking behavior to encourage students to take advantage of their instructor’s
availability to ask questions about their assignments (College Transition Collaborative, 2022;
Yee, 2016).
Structuring Their Classes for Student Success
The second finding that answered this study’s first research question was that PTNTTF
participants perceive meeting the academic needs of FYCS in public, urban universities by
structuring their classes for student success. Once PTNTTF adopt a mindset of being
approachable and understanding to their students, PTNTTF can purposely design their classes
from a student success perspective. This begins with an intentional design of a course syllabus
and schedule to ensure that a course orientation and course expectations are continuously
reviewed throughout the academic term. Five of this study’s nine participants expressed that they
provide a course orientation early in the term to review the course syllabus and course
expectations. Participants noted that they review the syllabus, course and instructor expectations,
and the purpose of office hours. Debby’s comment captured how a comprehensive course
orientation is an opportunity for faculty to communicate to students that they believe in their
academic success: “I too, you know, I want your best … I want nothing but your best work …
and you can rise to the occasion.” Overall, these early actions taken by this study’s participants

126
during the beginning of the term are consistent with the literature regarding how a course
syllabus, course orientation, and sharing of expectations create a student-centered learning
environment (College Transition Collaborative, 2022; Tevis & Britton, 2020).
Beyond the first few days and weeks of an academic term, seven PTNTTF participants
also expressed how they continue to facilitate a climate of success in the classroom throughout
the term. Participants shared that they frequently communicate affirming messages to students in
class to increase their self-efficacy, how they could apply their academic success to other
contexts, such as other classes and their careers, and that their prior knowledge and experience is
valuable to how they are making sense of the course content. These strategies shared by
participants are consistent with the tenets of academic validation (Rendón, 1994) through how
the PTNTTF participants communicate that they value their students’ prior knowledge and
experiences to help them feel included and valued in class (Castillo-Montoya, 2017; DeFreitas &
Rinn, 2013; Hagler et al., 2023; Jehangir, 2010; McMurray & Sorrells, 2009; Museus & Quaye,
2009; Rendón, 1994; Smith & Lucena, 2016; Yosso, 2005). Furthermore, by connecting
students’ prior knowledge and experiences to course concepts, PTNTTF participants help their
students develop the skills to apply abstract course concepts to the real world (Kaufka, 2010;
Soria & Stebelton, 2012; Vetter et al., 2019).
Additionally, six study participants noted that they structure their classes for student
success by using pedagogical techniques that build on their students’ capacity to succeed.
Participants mentioned techniques such as chunking, scaffolding, destressing high-stakes
assessments, and communicating that imperfection is okay. These classroom-based strategies are
consistent with the literature describing how faculty can structure courses to scaffold and
facilitate the learning of complex, abstract concepts and their application to prior knowledge and

127
experiences (Ambrose et al., 2010; Castillo-Montoya, 2017; DeFreitas & Rinn, 2013;
Harackiewicz et al., 2014; McCallen & Johnson, 2020; Rendón, 1994; Smith & Lucena 2016).
Furthermore, five of the nine study participants shared how they structure their classes to
include engaging interactions with peers and themselves as the instructor. Participants noted how
they use group activities, field work, and group presentations to help students co-create
knowledge together and develop community among their peers at the same time. In alignment
with the literature, PTNTTF participants incorporate group and project-based assignments for
FYCS’ deeper learning (Frankel & Smith, 2022) and to help FYCS develop support networks
and community with each other (Bennett et al., 2016). It is also important to note that this study’s
finding that PTNTTF participants facilitate engaging interactions in class contradicts findings of
Baldwin and Wawrzynski (2011) and Umbach (2007) who found that NTTF tend to teach and
assess students through passive instructional methods such as lectures and multiple-choice
exams. Recognizing how PTNTTF go beyond passive instructional approaches is important to
honoring the work and dedication of PTNTTF in designing their courses for optimal student
learning.
In addition to adopting an approachable and understanding mindset in working with their
students and employing interactive instructional activities in class, PTNTTF who structure their
classes for student success could also help them earn trust and rapport with their students to work
with them on an individual basis (Beard, 2021; Bennett et al., 2016; Dwyer, 2017; Kaufka, 2010;
Rendón, 1994; Sarcedo, 2022). Without such trust and rapport, students would not feel
comfortable sharing personal circumstances with their faculty. For example, Beryl recalled an
instance when a student shared that they could not come to class due to work responsibilities.
Due to Beryl’s earlier efforts to be approachable and to structure their class for student success,

128
one can assume that this student felt comfortable enough to be vulnerable in disclosing that they
could not come to class due to work commitments. For Beryl, they were able to apply their
knowledge of students’ competing commitments at their public, urban university to understand it
was necessary for them to work individually with their students in meeting their unique needs
given life circumstances.
Helping Students Understand Campus Resources and College Expectations
The last finding that answered this study’s first research question was that PTNTTF
participants perceive meeting the academic needs of FYCS in public, urban universities by
helping students understand campus resources and college expectations. The specific college
resources and expectations that this study’s participants described are in alignment with the
funds of knowledge Stanton-Salazar (1997) outlined in their institutional agency framework.
For example, five of the nine study participants noted that they reviewed campus
resources with their students throughout the term, which aligns with Stanton-Salazar’s (1997)
organizational/bureaucratic and network development funds of knowledge. Participants shared
that they do not assume that their FYCS know about specific campus resources and instead make
sure they are aware of their resources and discuss how the resource would be helpful to their
success in the course. By making the connection for students on how the resource could be
helpful for their course, PTNTTF participants engage in scaffolding technical funds of
knowledge (Stanton-Salazar, 1997). Francine, for example, reviews library resources and
scaffolds for their students how to use the library catalog to find journal articles. Beryl and Kirk
talked about tapping into their campus network to make sure that their campus referrals direct
students to a specific person as opposed to a generic referral to an office. The in-class review of
campus resources and the scaffolded activities in applying campus resources are necessary

129
activities for faculty to set up FYCS for success (Bennett et al., 2016; College Transition
Collaborative, 2022). Taking the extra step to review campus resources within the context of
teaching campus structure and culture is also in alignment with literature in helping students
develop the cultural and social knowledge of higher education (McCallen & Johnson, 2020;
Smith & Lucena, 2016; Stanton-Salazar, 1997), more specifically the organizational/bureaucratic
and network development funds of knowledge (Stanton-Salazar, 1997).
This study’s participants also reported how they help their FYCS understand the
expectations of college. More specifically, eight of the nine PTNTTF participants recognized the
importance of teaching college student study skills either in class or through their work
individually coaching FYCS. Participants shared that they coach students on study skills
knowledge and taking responsibility for their education, which also aligns with Stanton-Salazar’s
(1997) technical funds of knowledge. Some participants also shared how they help students
formulate questions and talking points to interact with other college faculty and staff, which
aligns with Stanton-Salazar’s (1997) institutional sanctioned discourses fund of knowledge.
Especially for students who are from marginalized and minoritized backgrounds, FYCS need this
type of faculty coaching and mentorship to understand and apply Stanton-Salazar’s (1997) funds
of knowledge to help them navigate a complex and unfamiliar college environment (Beard,
2021; Bennett et al., 2016; Franklin et al., 2002; McCallen & Johnson, 2020; Smith & Lucena,
2016; Stanton-Salazar, 1997; Strayhorn, 2017; Wang, 2014). When faculty scaffold the funds of
knowledge to help students solve a student success obstacle just like Kirk and Beryl described,
they are scaffolding problem solving (Stanton-Salazar, 1997) within their institutional context.
By scaffolding the application of Stanton-Salazar’s (1997) funds of knowledge, PTNTTF teach

130
students lifelong skills that can be applied to navigating complex structures at work or in their
personal lives.
Discussion of Research Question 2 Findings
The second research question that this study answered was how the departmental culture
experienced by part-time, non-tenure track faculty supports or limits their ability to meet the
academic needs of first-year college students at four-year public, urban universities. After
analyzing the qualitative data, five main themes were created to best capture how PTNTTF
perceive that their department’s culture supports or limits them in meeting FYCS’ needs. The
first two themes describe the positive norms of departmental cultures supporting PTNTTF in
meeting FYCS’ needs, while the last three themes describe the negative norms of departmental
cultures limiting PTNTTF in meeting FYCS’ needs. In this section, I discuss each of these
themes within the context of prior literature.
Supporting PTNTTF with Professional Treatment
The first theme that answers this study’s second research question is that PTNTTF are
supported in meeting the academic needs of FYCS through departmental cultures that provide
PTNTTF with professional treatment. All nine study participants expressed some form of
professional treatment by their academic department in supporting them to meet the academic
needs of their FYCS. More specifically, all nine participants reported that they are generally
given enough time to prepare for their courses. Although participants shared that they sometimes
receive less than a month notice from their department, participants indicated that they typically
receive 1–3 months of notice from their department. This contrasts with a national study of
NTTF that found that 42.9% of their study participants were given four or less weeks of notice
from their department (American Federation of Teachers, 2022). Furthermore, this study’s

131
finding that PTNTTF participants are generally given enough time to prepare for their courses
specifically contradicts the literature which described how the last-minute hiring of PTNTTF
affects their ability to adequately prepare syllabi, textbooks, and lesson plans prior to the term
beginning (Street et al., 2012). The misalignment of this study’s findings with the literature on
PTNTTF preparation time could be explained by the experience level of the participants
themselves. As Patty noted, “the more comfortable I became teaching, it was easier for me to
kind of prepare and get ready and the more I had taught the classes I knew what to expect and
how to structure things.” Although all the participants noted that they were given enough time to
prepare, it is important to note that more notice would offer PTNTTF additional time to prepare
engaging lesson plans to facilitate a positive learning experience for their students (Prince,
2004).
Additionally, PTNTTF participants reported professional treatment in the way their
department’s culture supported their professional autonomy and expertise. More specifically,
five of this study’s participants noted how their department leadership respects and supports their
expertise in modifying their courses to better meet the needs of their FYCS. Participants shared
how they are supported to tap into their professional and academic expertise to modify
assignments and content to teach the course the way they felt most effective for the students in
their classes. For Beryl this meant having the flexibility to change a standardized reflection paper
assignment to a resume assignment in which Beryl could apply their knowledge of career
development to provide valuable feedback on a tool students could use for their career or even a
part-time job on campus. The departmental support experienced by study participants to exercise
autonomy in teaching their courses contradicts recent studies of PTNTTF who reported that their
departments did not trust them to make classroom decisions (Meixner et al., 2010; Spinrad &

132
Relles, 2022). This divergence could be explained by how the five participants whose
departments supported their autonomy and expertise all had at least five years of teaching
experience. These PTNTTF might have already developed a strong reputation and trust with their
academic department that afforded them the flexibility to adjust courses as they needed.
Supporting PTNTTF with Course Materials and Collegiality
The second theme that answers this study’s second research question is that PTNTTF are
supported in meeting the academic needs of FYCS through a departmental culture that provides
them with course materials and collegiality. For five of this study’s participants, they reported
having access to course materials to assist them in preparing for their courses. Respondents
shared that department faculty and staff provide them with sample syllabi, past assignments and
exams, content for their course’s learning management system, and PowerPoint presentations.
The support they receive from their departments appear to be in contrast with previous research
that found that NTTF are provided little to no departmental support to prepare for their courses
(Eagan et al., 2015; Gappa & Leslie, 1993; Kezar, 2013; Ran & Sanders, 2020; Rhoades, 2020;
Spinrad & Relles, 2022; Wilson, 2009). These five participants further shared that they
appreciate having access to these materials as a starting point to enable them to customize their
courses as they needed, especially when they first started teaching.
Additionally, five of this study’s participants reported receiving support from their
department via an informal peer mentor. Participants shared that their informal mentor not only
provided them sample course materials when they first started teaching, but also shared insights
on departmental culture and norms, observed their courses, provided teaching feedback, and
advocated for them when necessary. Informal peer mentoring, as noted in prior research, is a

133
form of support many PTNTTF seek, especially when they first start teaching (Kezar, 2013;
Meixner et al., 2010).
Informal peer mentors can also help PTNTTF develop a sense of community with faculty
colleagues in their department. In fact, four of this study’s participants noted that their
department creates opportunities for them to build community with their peers. Participants
shared how their department holds formal and informal meetings as a venue for them to share
classroom experiences, learn best practices, and develop relationships with other faculty
members teaching similar courses. For these four study participants, their experience with
departmental community building opportunities is different from the prior literature that noted
that PTNTTF members rarely connect with their colleagues, whether on the tenure track or not
(Kezar, 2013; Meixner et al., 2010; Murphy Nutting, 2003; Thompson, 2003). The type of
support these four participants receive in their departmental community events are consistent
with prior literature describing the benefits of these informal peer interactions on instructional
quality (Kezar, 2013; Umbach, 2007; Witt & Gearin, 2021). Although these findings on
departmental support are promising, the upcoming themes provide a different perspective on
how departments limit PTNTTF in meeting the needs of FYCS.
Limiting PTNTTF with Poor Hiring Practices and Inequitable Pay
The third theme that answers this study’s second research question is that departmental
cultures limit PTNTTF in meeting first-year college student needs at public, urban universities
with poor hiring practices and pay. Eight of this study’s nine participants expressed that their pay
is inequitable in comparison to those on the tenure track. Issac described how they feel about
their pay:

134
I’ve worked for 14 years now at what we would call poverty level. So $60,000 in Los
Angeles is basically at the poverty line. I was making $55,000 working full-time for
[redacted] … I was working full-time for poverty level wages.
Considering the high cost of living in the Los Angeles metropolitan area, Issac’s concerns about
their pay are consistent with previous literature noting the low, and sometimes poverty-level, pay
(American Association of University Professors, 2023; American Federation of Teachers, 2022).
Furthermore, the literature has noted that because of the low pay of PTNTTF, about 22%
PTNTTF teach at more than one institution (Coalition on the Academic Workforce, 2012).
While only two participants, Francine and Milton, currently teach at more than one
institution due to concerns about pay and benefits, other participants made other choices
considering the low pay. Four of this study’s participants shared that they accept teaching
assignments where they may not have the specific expertise to teach the course. For example,
Beryl shared that after one of their ethnic studies classes was cancelled due to low enrollment,
they had to accept an offer to teach a global media course without having any background in the
subject. PTNTTF accepting an offer that is outside their academic training or expertise is in line
with previous research (Kezar, 2013; Maynard & Joseph, 2008). When PTNTTF accept lastminute course offerings in which they do not have the expertise, the impact on student learning
could be negative. Francine and Issac shared stories about how they both performed unplanned
and uncompensated research on the course subject to minimally be ready to teach the course. In
fact, Francine expressed that the one time they taught a course outside of their expertise, they
were ahead of their students in their reading assignments by only one day. With PTNTTF mostly
focusing their preparation time on learning the course material in order to minimally teach it, it
can be assumed that their course preparation to include the interactive activities FYCS need

135
(Beard, 2021; Bennett et al., 2016; Dwyer, 2017; Kaufka, 2010; Rendón, 1994; Sarcedo, 2022) is
severely limited. This is problematic as this may have larger impacts to institutional student
success metrics, such as retention rates.
Limiting PTNTTF by Offering Little to No Training or Departmental Support
The fourth theme that answers this study’s second research question is that departmental
cultures limit their PTNTTF in meeting FYCS’ needs at public, urban universities by offering
little to no training or departmental support. One of the ways in which a departmental culture can
support PTNTTF from their first day is offering PTNTTF an orientation to help them better
understand the student population, campus resources for faculty and students, and departmental
expectations for their teaching. For all nine of this study’s participants, none of them were
offered a new faculty orientation when they started teaching at the institution. These participants’
experiences were also consistent with faculty surveys reporting that 94% of NTTF respondents
do not receive a campus or department orientation (Street et al., 2012). Although the literature
also offered that orientations could also teach faculty how to understand the needs and strengths
of their diverse students (Holcombe & Kezar, 2020; Keehn & Martinez, 2007; Kezar, 2013;
Kitchen et al., 2021; McMurray & Sorrells, 2009), none of the participants noted this. However,
throughout the study, all nine participants expressed at least some understanding of the unique
student population on their campus. This could be attributed to the fact that eight of the nine
participants either identify as a graduate of the department in which they now teach or a student
services practitioner at their institution.
Additionally, the lack of an orientation for these participants also meant that they did not
receive a review of helpful campus resources for students. Four participants expressed that such
a review during a faculty orientation would have been helpful when they first started teaching,

136
especially given how the participants are seeing increased housing and food insecurity concerns
among students. Although the literature found that a lack of a faculty orientation would make it
difficult for PTNTTF to advise and refer students (Gappa, 2008; Haeger, 1998; Kezar, 2013;
Kezar et al., 2019; Ran & Sanders, 2020; Thompson, 2003), PTNTTF in this study did not
express specific difficulties doing so. This could be partly explained by the participants already
having prior knowledge of their campus due to their student services role or their prior
attendance at the institution as a graduate student in the department.
However, for five participants, an orientation to help them understand departmental
teaching expectations and how to use the campus learning management system (LMS) to post
course content, resources, messages, and grades would have been most helpful. For instance,
although Patty is a graduate of the department in which they previously taught, Patty noted that
the student interface to the LMS is significantly different from the functionality and interface
given to faculty members. Additionally, five participants also mentioned that a faculty
orientation given by their department would have been helpful to understand departmental
teaching expectations, such as syllabus and course assignment standards. Francine expressed
how even though they were not advised of specific expectations, they were penalized for not
following the expectations during their performance review. The thoughts shared by this study’s
participants about not being offered an orientation to understand departmental expectations and
faculty resources are also consistent with the literature (Gappa & Leslie, 1993; Haeger, 1998;
Kezar, 2013; Kezar et al., 2019; Ran & Sanders, 2020; Street et al., 2012). The negative
correlation between students taking introductory courses with NTTF and passing rates in
subsequent courses found by Ran and Xu (2019) could be explained by departments not offering

137
NTTF an orientation to departmental expectations and standards to ensure curricula between
courses are aligned.
Beyond their onboarding process to their departments, seven PTNTTF participants also
expressed that they do not receive any support from their departments on professional
development or training to improve their teaching. Participants reported that they are the last
priority to be awarded professional development opportunities. Helene further described how
professional development earmarked for PTNTTF to improve teaching was redirected to tenure
track faculty development which did not necessarily need to be focused on teaching. The
experiences expressed by seven participants regarding the lack of support for professional
development are aligned with previous studies that found that PTNTTF are not afforded much
support for in-house or external professional development opportunities (Gappa & Leslie, 1993;
Kezar, 2013; Murphy Nutting, 2003; Thompson, 2003; Umbach, 2007). For example, poor
institutional and departmental support for professional development is evident in Helene’s
response about concerns from another faculty member regarding Helene’s preference not to use a
rubric in their teaching. If professional development focused on pedagogy were more widely
offered to PTNTTF, Helene would have understood how the use of rubrics to communicate
performance standards contributes to optimum student performance (Ambrose et al., 2010).
Previous literature also described how PTNTTF desire professional development to enhance
their pedagogical practices (Meixner et al., 2010) and to help them learn and teach the latest
advances in their respective fields (Gappa & Leslie, 1993; Kezar, 2013; Murphy Nutting, 2003;
Thompson, 2003; Umbach, 2007). As this study also focuses on PTNTTF teaching in public,
urban universities where there are more diverse populations, the impact of not offering
professional development to PTNTTF also hinders their ability to learn and infuse culturally

138
responsive teaching strategies (Keehn & Martinez, 2007) and academic and interpersonal
validation inside and outside the classroom (Rendón, 1994).
Related to advancing PTNTTF teaching skillsets, PTNTTF participants also described
concerns regarding not receiving feedback on their teaching. More specifically, three participants
did not receive feedback on their teaching and three others reported that the feedback they
received was not helpful or meaningful. Although PTNTTF not receiving any feedback was
consistent with the literature (Kezar, 2013; Spinrad & Relles, 2022; Umbach, 2007; Witt &
Gearin, 2021), prior research did not specifically address the unhelpful feedback this study’s
participants shared. For instance, Helene described how they were evaluated and given feedback
from a faculty member from a different discipline, which was not helpful as the evaluator did not
understand Helene’s disciplinary approach. Without receiving valuable feedback from peers in
their own discipline, PTNTTF teaching approaches and course materials in introductory courses
may not be the most effective, possibly leading to lower passing rates in subsequent courses as
found in Ran and Xu’s (2019) study.
The last pattern that was found with respect to the lack of departmental support is how
four of the nine study participants noted problems associated with not having a private office to
engage with their students. Participants reported either having a shared office with 3–5 other
PTNTTF, or not having an office space at all. Kirk’s response captured how a shared office
specifically impacts their students in that “there are some students that honestly if they walked to
an office and see four part-time instructors, they might be like, ‘Maybe I don’t want to share
what’s going on, especially if that’s where we would communicate.’” The problematic aspects of
PTNTTF not having a private office were also noted in prior research (Baldwin & Chronister,
2001; Gappa & Leslie, 1993; Haeger, 1998; Jacobs, 1998; Kezar, 2013; Ran & Sanders, 2020;

139
Spinrad & Relles, 2022; Street et al., 2012; Tillyer, 2005). In lieu of a private office, however,
the literature indicates that PTNTTF have instead found alternatives to meet with students in
cubicles, coffee shops, and even parking lots (Gappa & Leslie, 1993; Kezar, 2013). Interestingly,
given the shift to remote instruction during the COVID-19 pandemic, all nine participants
expressed that they continue to offer office hours and private appointments remotely via online
meeting platforms such as Zoom or Microsoft Teams. However, given higher education’s
continual efforts to return to on-campus operations, the problematic aspects of departmental
decisions not to offer PTNTTF a private office also return as students may not feel comfortable
sharing their concerns in the shared offices of PTNTTF.
Limiting PTNTTF by Not Offering Opportunities to Provide Input or Build Community
The fifth and final theme that answers this study’s second research question is that
PTNTTF are limited in meeting the academic needs of FYCS through departmental cultures that
do not offer PTNTTF with opportunities to provide curricular input and build community with
their peers. One of the ways in which departments can offer PTNTTF an opportunity to provide
input, either on curricular or departmental matters, is to invite and include PTNTTF in their
departmental meetings. According to the literature, however, PTNTTF feel excluded from their
campuses and departments as they are not invited or included in departmental meetings
(American Federation of Teachers, 2022; Culver et al., 2020; Jones et al., 2017; Kimmel &
Fairchild, 2017; Meixner et al., 2010; Rhoades, 2020; Witt & Gearin, 2021). In this study, six
participants expressed feeling excluded during departmental meetings, which aligns with the
literature. Participants noted that even though they are invited to attend departmental meetings,
their input as PTNTTF are either dismissed or none of agenda items pertain to their work or
experience as a PTNTTF. Helene captured this sentiment by sharing that they “felt like a meter

140
maid at a beat cop meeting.” Helene further added that even though PTNTTF were responsible
for teaching almost all of the first-year writing courses in the department, their expertise teaching
these courses are dismissed in favor of considering the input of tenure track faculty who do not
even teach first-year writing courses. Helene’s comment is also aligned with previous research
that found that PTNTTF are excluded from offering their expertise to improve curriculum for the
courses that they teach (Bettinger & Long, 2010; Kezar, 2013; Rhoades, 2020).
In addition to not being offered an opportunity to provide input on curriculum and
departmental matters in departmental meetings, four of this study’s participants noted that their
departments do not offer PTNTTF any opportunities to build community with their peers, either
on the tenure track or not. These participants shared how it would be ideal to learn from other
PTNTTF teaching the same course and to discuss patterns across their classes. It is also
important to note that in the previous discussion of this study’s second theme, four other study
participants shared differing perspectives describing how their department indeed offers them
opportunities to build community with peers. In examining the two groups of participants who
reported differing experiences on departmental support for peer community building, there were
no specific patterns among the participants themselves that account for the differing experiences.
However, what is common among the two groups with differing experiences is their belief that
peer community building is important, which is also consistent with the literature stating the
importance of first-year course instructors having meaningful engagement with one another
(Barefoot et al., 2010; Student Experience Project, 2022).
Summary of Major Findings
To summarize this study’s findings, I return to this study’s conceptual framework that
guided this study. The framework suggests that PTNTTF must design and structure their courses

141
to facilitate a culture of success by academically and interpersonally validating FYCS’ prior
knowledge and experiences inside and outside the classroom (Rendón, 1994). By academically
and interpersonally validating students, PTNTTF can meet another academic need of FYCS by
scaffolding the funds of knowledge specific to academia as an institutional agent (StantonSalazar, 1997). However, the degree to which PTNTTF can academically and interpersonally
validate their students inside and outside the classroom (Rendón, 1994) and scaffold funds of
knowledge as an institutional agent (Stanton-Salazar, 1997), may be further supported or limited
by the PTNTTF’s departmental culture (Kezar, 2013). In the previous section, the major findings
of this study were discussed within the context of prior literature. To overlay the major findings
of this study on this study’s conceptual framework, a figure is presented in Figure 2.
Figure 2
Major Findings with Conceptual Framework

142
Starting from the left-most section in Figure 2, this study found that PTNTTF at public,
urban universities are guided by their knowledge and experiences in previous student-facing
roles in meeting the academic needs of first-year students in their classes. In addition,
departmental cultures support the ability of PTNTTF to meet FYCS’ needs at public, urban
universities by providing PTNTTF with professional treatment, course materials, and
collegiality. This study also found that departmental cultures limit the ability of PTNTTF to meet
FYCS’ needs with poor hiring practices and inequitable pay, little to no training or departmental
support, and little to no opportunities for PTNTTF to provide curricular input or build
community with one another. The totality of these positive and negative norms of their
departmental culture ultimately impacts their ability to meet the academic needs of FYCS via
academic and interpersonal validation (Rendón, 1994) and the scaffolding of specific funds of
knowledge that college students need to succeed in college (Stanton-Salazar, 1997).
As represented in the center and right-most sections in Figure 2, this study also found that
PTNTTF perceive that they meet the needs of FYCS in public, urban universities via the main
tenets of validation (Rendón, 1994) and institutional agency’s funds of knowledge (StantonSalazar, 1997). More specifically, the main findings that align with academic and interpersonal
validation (Rendón, 1994) are that PTNTTF perceive they meet the academic needs of FYCS by
being approachable and understanding (interpersonal validation), while structuring the classes
for student success (academic validation). This study also found that PTNTTF perceive that they
meet the needs of FYCS by helping students understand campus resources and college
expectations, more specifically six of the seven funds of knowledge in the institutional agency
framework (Stanton-Salazar, 1997): institutionally sanctioned discourses,

143
organizational/bureaucratic funds of knowledge, network development, technical funds of
knowledge, knowledge of labor and educational markets, and problem solving knowledge.
Recommendations for Practice
This qualitative study examined how the departmental cultures experienced by part-time,
non-tenure track faculty (PTNTTF) affect their ability to meet the academic needs of their firstyear college students (FYCS) in four-year public, urban universities. It is clear from the findings
of this study that departmental cultures experienced by PTNTTF both support and limit the
ability of PTNTTF in meeting the academic needs of FYCS in public, urban universities. Given
the focus of this study and the literature which noted that the culture within an academic
department is the most salient to PTNTTF as a majority of their institutional interactions are on
the departmental level (Austin, 1990; Culver et al., 2020; Meixner et al., 2010), these
recommendations are intended for those in departments who can influence the culture in their
academic department.
Although many of these recommendations are not new and well-represented in the over
30 years of prior research on PTNTTF working conditions and departmental cultures, some of
the recommendations below are unique and nuanced based on the prior knowledge and
experiences these study participants gained in their prior roles as student services practitioners or
graduates of the department in which they now teach. These recommendations also serve as
reminders that institutions are still not providing the best support for the PTNTTF on which they
continue to rely term after term and year after year. Furthermore, if departments in public, urban
universities continue to rely on PTNTTF to teach lower-division and first-year courses, it is a
moral imperative for department leaders in public, urban universities to adopt these

144
recommendations to fully support PTNTTF in meeting the academic needs of the marginalized
and minoritized students that are increasingly enrolling in such institutions.
Recommendation 1: Add mastery in discipline-specific pedagogy in each graduate
program’s learning outcomes
My first recommendation for departmental leaders to consider and adopt is including
mastery in evidence-based and discipline-specific pedagogical approaches in each graduate
program’s learning outcomes. It is a moral imperative for graduate programs to not only prepare
its students for a career in research as a tenure-track faculty member, but also to prepare its
students for roles that are outside of the tenure-track, such as PTNTTF appointments that focus
on teaching. By improving graduate education to ensure that masters and doctoral degree
recipients have mastery in evidence-based teaching practices specific to their discipline, students
who are enrolled in courses with faculty trained in effective pedagogy can enjoy a classroom
environment that fosters their academic success and meets their academic needs, such as those
described in this study. In recognition of the trend in this study’s participants to teach in the
department in which they earned their graduate degree, academic departments with a culture to
hire their own graduates as PTNTTF could also nuance their teaching of discipline-specific
teaching practices to incorporate the specific teaching strategies that meet the academic needs of
the campus’ unique student population. Targeted graduate program improvements like these in
public, urban universities could potentially improve student success outcomes, such as retention
and graduate rates, and close opportunity gaps.
Recommendation 2: Improve hiring practices for PTNTTF course assignment consistency
My second recommendation is for department leaders to improve their planned course
offering processes and hiring practices for PTNTTF so that their course assignments are as

145
consistent as possible from term to term. More specifically, the aim is to ensure that each
PTNTTF’s teaching load and course assignments are consistent and predictable from term to
term and from year to year. Optimally, this includes assigning the same type of courses to a
particular PTNTTF so that course preparation is streamlined and that PTNTTF can continually
improve their teaching of a specific course over time. Additionally, by assigning courses to
PTNTTF in alignment with their disciplinary expertise, students can enjoy the unique knowledge
of PTNTTF who may also have industry experience (Bettinger & Long, 2010). Furthermore,
with a consistent and predictable PTNTTF teaching load and course assignments, it becomes
more possible to provide more notice to PTNTTF so that they can appropriately prepare for their
courses with the interactive and positive learning experiences students need (Prince, 2004).
In addition, due to current course assignment practices and inequitable pay for PTNTTF,
about 22% of PTNTTF teach at more than one institution (Coalition on the Academic
Workforce, 2012). By ensuring course assignment consistency and working with the university
to bring PTNTTF pay to greater equity with tenure track faculty, PTNTTF would not feel that
they would need to be employed at different institutions for their own financial stability. This
could not only help PTNTTF develop a sense of belonging with the department and campus but
could also help PTNTTF become more widely available for their students in meeting their
academic needs as found in this study.
Recommendation 3: Create a new faculty orientation for PTNTTF
In this study, all nine participants reported not receiving a faculty orientation when they
first started teaching at their institution. This was consistent with Street et al. (2012) who found
that more than 94% of NTTF nationwide reported not receiving a campus or departmental
orientation. Based on the findings of prior literature, my third recommendation is for department

146
leaders to create a new faculty orientation that allows PTNTTF to better understand the needs
and strengths of their diverse students (Holcombe & Kezar, 2020; Keehn & Martinez, 2007;
Kezar, 2013; Kitchen et al., 2021; McMurray & Sorrells, 2009), helpful campus resources for
students (Gappa, 2008; Haeger, 1998; Kezar, 2013; Kezar et al., 2019; Ran & Sanders, 2020;
Thompson, 2003), and vital resources for faculty, such as the campus learning management
system (Gappa & Leslie, 1993; Haeger, 1998; Kezar, 2013; Kezar et al., 2019; Ran & Sanders,
2020; Street et al., 2012). During such an orientation, a department can also review PTNTTF
teaching expectations to ensure that introductory courses taught by PTNTTF are aligned to
curricular standards so that students are successful in subsequent courses in the discipline (Ran &
Xu, 2019). Understanding these areas specifically help PTNTTF in becoming more supportive of
the diverse student population at public, urban universities given how students may be seeking
PTNTTF assistance with balancing their academics with competing life commitments (Franklin
et al., 2002; Jacoby, 1990) and that students are becoming more comfortable discussing mental
health concerns with campus faculty and staff (NAPSA & Uwill, 2023). As such, it is
increasingly important for departments to better onboard PTNTTF in making sure PTNTTF
understand how to assist students and the specific campus resources to which PTNTTF can refer
them.
Recommendation 4: Assign PTNTTF a private office space
For my fourth recommendation, department leaders need to assign a PTNTTF a private
office space. Consistent with the literature that many PTNTTF do not have an assigned private
office space to meet with students (Baldwin & Chronister, 2001; Gappa & Leslie, 1993; Haeger,
1998; Jacobs, 1998; Kezar, 2013; Ran & Sanders, 2020; Spinrad & Relles, 2022; Street et al.,
2012; Tillyer, 2005), this study’s participants were not assigned a private office to meet with

147
students. Given that higher education staff may now be working in a hybrid or remote
environment, there is an opportunity for departmental leaders to perform a space usage analysis
to understand how their departmental office spaces are now being used. There may be
opportunities to shift office assignments given the new reality of hybrid and remote work to
prioritize private offices to those who have frequent contact with students, such as PTNTTF who
primarily teach FYCS. Assigning private offices to PTNTTF who primarily teach FYCS offers
privacy for students to not only discuss course matters, but also other personal concerns that
might be more sensitive.
Recommendation 5: Create a PTNTTF support coordinator position to develop nuanced
support plans for each PTNTTF
Perhaps the reason why the literature on the working conditions of PTNTTF has not
changed much over the past 30 years is that institutions may be overwhelmed with overhauling
entrenched campus and departmental cultures, policies, procedures, and practices and the costs
associated with changing them. However, as this study found, PTNTTF are not a homogenous
group with the same needs. As evidenced in Beryl, Debby, and Kirk’s responses, their prior roles
in student services afford them the knowledge of student development and student success
theories, approaches, and best practices. As such, PTNTTF with student services experience may
not need much support in understanding such theories and best practices. Rather, they may need
onboarding support in understanding the unique student population on their specific campus to
effectively apply their prior knowledge and experience as a student services practitioner to meet
the academic needs of students in their classrooms. Similarly, PTNTTF who have prior
knowledge and experience as a former student in the department in which they now teach may
not need as much support with getting to know departmental staff and faculty or understanding

148
the unique student population and campus resources in their institutions. Rather, they may need
support in translating their prior knowledge and experiences as a former student to evidencebased instructional and student development approaches that best meet the needs of the unique
student population on their campus.
As each PTNTTF member has unique needs to advance their ability to meet the academic
needs of students in their classrooms, it is my fifth recommendation for department leaders to
create a PTNTTF support coordinator position to develop nuanced support plans for each
PTNTTF in their department. Developing nuanced support plans for every PTNTTF in the
department allows departments to focus limited financial and human resources to targeted
PTNTTF support as opposed to resource heavy one-size-fits-all support programs for all
PTNTTF.
Recommendation 6: Provide relevant course materials to PTNTTF
Although this study’s participants reported that they had enough time before an academic
term to prepare for their courses, the literature has indicated that PTNTTF are sometimes hired
within days of a term starting (Baldwin & Chronister, 2001; Gappa & Leslie, 1993; Jacobs,
1998; Kezar, 2013), which impacts their ability to optimally prepare for their courses (Street et
al., 2012). Given higher education’s reliance on just-in-time PTNTTF teaching assignments
based on enrollment demands (Baldwin & Chronister, 2001; Gappa & Leslie, 1993; Jacobs,
1998; Kezar, 2013; Murphy Nutting, 2003), my sixth recommendation is to provide relevant
course materials to PTNTTF to ease their course preparation, especially if they are not provided
ample notice from their departments on their course assignment. This study’s participants
appreciate having syllabi, lesson plans, course assignments, PowerPoint presentations, and

149
content for learning management systems provided by their departments as a scaffold to develop
their own course materials.
Participants also added that they appreciate how their departments honor their expertise
in trusting them to exercise their autonomy in making appropriate changes to their courses to
enable them to best meet the needs of their students. Doing so requires departmental leadership
to develop and sustain a culture in which PTNTTF are considered peers to tenure track faculty,
which is not the culture in many institutions as prior literature has found (Meixner et al., 2010;
Spinrad & Relles, 2022). However, if departmental leaders shift their departmental culture to
honor the expertise of PTNTTF and afford them autonomy to make changes to their courses,
positive learning outcomes for students can be achieved through a learning environment that is
engaging (Dwyer, 2017; Frankel & Smith, 2022; McMurray & Sorrells, 2009) and best meets
students’ needs (Prince, 2004).
Recommendation 7: Provide PTNTTF feedback on their teaching, ideally from a mentor
As this study’s participants expressed, PTNTTF are eager to be observed in the classroom
to be provided with a teaching evaluation with meaningful feedback. For example, Kirk noted
that they prefer to be observed and evaluated to see if they are “on the right track” with
departmental teaching expectations. However, nationally, PTNTTF are rarely provided any
teaching evaluation or feedback from their faculty peers (Kezar, 2013; Spinrad & Relles, 2022;
Umbach, 2007; Witt & Gearin, 2021).
For this study’s seventh recommendation, department leaders ought to formalize
structures for faculty peers to observe PTNTTF in the classroom and provide meaningful
feedback. This includes ensuring that the faculty member performing the observation and
providing feedback is from the same discipline as the PTNTTF being evaluated. As Helene

150
noted, feedback from faculty in a different discipline is not useful if they do not understand the
pedagogical approaches that are most effective in the PTNTTF’s discipline. Concluding such an
evaluation with a meeting to discuss feedback would also allow the PTNTTF to engage in
conversation with their peer to improve their teaching, and subsequently student outcomes.
As reported by this study’s participants and confirmed in the literature, having an
informal mentor affords PTNTTF a departmental contact who could provide them with helpful
course materials, campus referrals, and ongoing feedback on their teaching (Kezar, 2013;
Meixner et al., 2010). By establishing an informal mentor for PTNTTF, departments also provide
PTNTTF with a sense of connection and belonging to the department, which could positively
impact a PTNTTF’s decision to continue their teaching relationship with the institution. This
consistency would also be a net positive for students as they could continue developing their
relationship with a PTNTTF, which in turn positively impacts students’ sense of belonging to
persist through graduation.
Recommendation 8: Create opportunities for PTNTTF to build community
Although an informal mentor program offers PTNTTF an established departmental
contact to help them acclimate to the department, this study’s participants shared that structured
opportunities to meet and connect with other faculty members, especially those who are teaching
similar courses, would help them build a sense of community within the department. As such,
offering purposeful opportunities for PTNTTF to build community with one another is this
study’s eighth recommendation. This is especially important as the literature has noted that
PTNTTF feel disconnected to their campuses due to exclusion in department meetings and
events (American Federation of Teachers, 2022; Culver et al., 2020; Jones et al., 2017; Kimmel
& Fairchild, 2017; Meixner et al., 2010; Rhoades, 2020; Witt & Gearin, 2021). Furthermore, the

151
research has found that PTNTTF rarely have the opportunity to interact with colleagues, whether
on the tenure track or not (Kezar, 2013; Meixner et al., 2010; Murphy Nutting, 2003; Thompson,
2003).
This study’s participants discussed how informal and formal meetings with colleagues,
especially those who teach similar courses with them, would also offer them opportunities to
learn best practices from one another. In addition, the literature noted that these opportunities to
interact with peers offer PTNTTF another venue to get ideas and feedback on textbooks, lesson
plans, and other course materials (Kezar, 2013; Umbach, 2007; Witt & Gearin, 2021). The main
beneficiaries of these efforts to bring greater interaction and collaboration among PTNTTF are
the students themselves who can experience improved teaching and learning materials being
used throughout the entire academic department.
Recommendation 9: Offer permanent funding for PTNTTF professional development
Similar to the findings of other researchers who found that PTNTTF are not provided
access to professional development (Gappa & Leslie, 1993; Kezar, 2013; Murphy Nutting, 2003;
Thompson, 2003; Umbach, 2007), the participants in this study shared that their department does
not offer any professional development or training opportunities for PTNTTF. Previous literature
also noted how professional development for PTNTTF enhances their teaching, and ultimately
student learning, by keeping PTNTTF current in their field and advancing their pedagogical
methods for more effective teaching specific to the discipline (Gappa & Leslie, 1993; Kezar,
2013; Murphy Nutting, 2003; Thompson, 2003; Umbach, 2007). For instance, the literature
explained how PTNTTF expressed the need to learn culturally responsive teaching (Keehn &
Martinez, 2007), “technology usage, developing syllabi, keeping up with changes in the field,
pacing one’s class, incorporating active learning strategies, creating fair tests, developing grading

152
scales, and dealing with academic integrity” (Meixner et al., 2010, p. 145). Given how PTNTTF
professional development connects to improved PTNTTF teaching and student learning in the
classroom, offering permanent funding for PTNTTF professional development is this study’s
ninth recommendation.
Recommendation 10: Create concrete ways for PTNTTF to provide curricular input on
courses they teach
This study’s last recommendation for practice is for department leaders to create concrete
ways for PTNTTF to provide curricular input to the department, especially for courses that they
teach. As noted in the literature, PTNTTF bring to their teaching a wealth of knowledge, skills,
and experiences due to their current or previous roles focused on practice in their respective
fields (Bettinger & Long, 2010). In this study, three participants were or currently serve as a
student services practitioner. Their knowledge, skills, and experiences learned via their student
services role were especially helpful for these participants to understand the academic needs of
FYCS and scaffold students’ academic and social development from a student development
perspective. Tapping into the knowledge base of PTNTTF who have student services experience
also offers departments specialized knowledge to improve curricula and course level lesson
plans. For other PTNTTF who may have worked in other fields prior to teaching, their
knowledge, skills, and experiences can offer department leaders a unique perspective to keep the
curriculum up to date with the latest trends and needs of their respective professional areas
(Bettinger & Long, 2010; Kezar, 2013; Rhoades, 2020).
However, as experienced by this study’s participants, PTNTTF are not invited to
meetings where curricular matters are discussed. As Issac noted, they are only invited to the
department updates section of meetings, and when curricular matters are discussed, PTNTTF are

153
excused from the meeting. As described in the Student Experience Project (2022), campus and
department leaders are missing the important perspective of PTNTTF who often have sustained
interactions with students. By offering PTNTTF a venue to share their experiences with students
inside and outside the classroom, campus and department leaders can adopt new policies,
procedures, and curricular enhancements to better facilitate student learning. These venues could
certainly be meetings and forums but could also mean department leaders holding open office
hours for PTNTTF, an online feedback form, or casual meet and greets with PTNTTF. These
opportunities not only provide a communication channel for PTNTTF to be heard, but also
contributes to their sense of belonging and respect for which many PTNTTF are hoping and
seeking.
Recommendations for Future Research
As this qualitative study was limited to examining how the departmental culture
experienced by part-time, non-tenure track faculty (PTNTTF) affect their ability to meet the
academic needs of their first-year college students (FYCS) in four-year public, urban
universities, this study has recommendations for future research to advance scholarship
pertaining to PTNTTF.
Recommendation 1: Focus on PTNTTF with limited experience and first-generation faculty
As this study’s participants either had multiple years of experience as a PTNTTF or
student services practitioner, this study did not specifically study the experiences of PTNTTF
with limited experience as a PTNTTF or PTNTTF who are first-generation faculty. This is
important to note as all study participants shared that their department provides them with
enough time to prepare for their courses, which is counter to the literature noting that most NTTF
have two weeks or less to prepare for their courses (Street et al., 2012). However, given

154
participants’ multiple years of experience as a PTNTTF or a student services practitioner,
participants drew upon their prior knowledge and experience in the classroom or with students to
structure their classes for student success without needing much time to prepare.
For PTNTTF who may have limited experience as a PTNTTF or first-generation faculty,
they may need more time to prepare for their courses, a department mentor to help acclimate
them to the culture of the department as a faculty member, or nuanced teaching support. Given
that preparation time is vital for faculty to develop engaging classes for a positive learning
environment (Prince, 2004), this study’s first recommendation for future research is to focus a
qualitative study on the experiences of PTNTTF with limited experience, especially those who
are first-generation faculty. Such a study would capture the stories and voices of PTNTTF who
are currently in need of the most support and resources as a new PTNTTF and/or first-generation
faculty.
Recommendation 2: Compare the experiences of PTNTTF who teach in a department from
which they graduated to those who did not graduate from the department
In this study, five of the nine study participants identify as graduates of the department in
which they currently teach. For these five participants, they described how they were already
familiar with the unique student population at the campus and resources in which they could
refer their students. This inside knowledge provided them with more context and information to
be successful in their early years as a PTNTTF at the institution.
However, for those who find PTNTTF employment in a campus and department from
which they did not graduate, they may not have the same information and resource knowledge as
those who graduated from the department or institution. Therefore, as this study’s second
recommendation, future research could identify a department as a case study and qualitatively

155
compare the experiences of PTNTTF who graduated from the department in which they now
teach and PTNTTF who teach in the same department but graduated from a different institution
or department. Findings from such a study could be significant for departments to understand the
nuanced support they need to provide to PTNTTF who did not graduate from their department.
For example, a qualitative study could explore how an informal mentor program might help
introduce PTNTTF new to the department to the culture of a department (Kezar, 2013; Meixner
et al., 2010) or how community building events can help them develop a sense of belonging with
the department and campus (American Federation of Teachers, 2022; Culver et al., 2020; Jones
et al., 2017; Kimmel & Fairchild, 2017; Meixner et al., 2010; Rhoades, 2020; Witt & Gearin,
2021).
Conclusion
Although previous studies have found negative correlations in student outcomes when
students enroll in classes taught by PTNTTF (Eagan & Jaeger, 2008; Ehrenberg & Zhang, 2005;
Harrington & Schibik, 2001; Jacoby, 2006; Jaeger, 2008; Jaeger & Eagan, 2009; Jaeger &
Eagan, 2011; Jaeger & Hinz, 2008; Ran & Xu, 2019), the literature had not yet explored the
impact of departmental cultures experienced by PTNTTF on their ability to meet FYCS’
academic needs. Through the application of qualitative research methods and a theoretical
thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006) of the data, this study aimed to understand how the
departmental cultures of PTNTTF impact their ability to meet the academic needs of FYCS in
four-year public, urban universities.
This study first found that PTNTTF perceive that they meet the needs of FYCS in public,
urban universities by being approachable and understanding, structuring their classes for student
success, and helping students understand campus resources and college expectations. These

156
findings were consistent with the literature, with the exception of this study’s finding that
PTNTTF reported that they infuse their instruction with interactive and engaging activities and
assignments. Secondly, this study found that departmental cultures support the ability of
PTNTTF to meet FYCS’ needs at public, urban universities by providing PTNTTF with
professional treatment, course materials, and collegiality. However, this study also found that
departmental cultures limit the ability of PTNTTF to meet FYCS’ needs with poor hiring
practices and inequitable pay, little to no training or departmental support, and little to no
opportunities for PTNTTF to provide curricular input or build community with one another.
Although there were some divergences from the literature, mainly regarding PTNTTF course
preparation times (Street et al., 2012), autonomy to make classroom decisions (Meixner et al.,
2010; Spinrad & Relles, 2022), and the need for an orientation to understand where to refer
students (Gappa, 2008; Haeger, 1998; Kezar, 2013; Kezar et al., 2019; Ran & Sanders, 2020;
Thompson, 2003), this study’s findings were largely supported by previous literature. Lastly, this
study found that PTNTTF at public, urban universities are guided by their knowledge and
experiences in previous student-facing roles in meeting the academic needs of first-year students
in their classes. This study also included recommendations for practice and future research with
the hope that department leaders at public, urban universities take actionable steps to improve
departmental culture to better support their PTNTTF in meeting the academic needs of FYCS.
In closing, all the participants in this study, including the findings in the literature,
expressed that PTNTTF are the backbone of lower-division education at four-year universities
through their everyday efforts to make a positive difference in the lives and education of students
(Kezar, 2013; Kimmel & Fairchild, 2017; Meixner et al., 2010). Despite how PTNTTF
commonly experience departmental cultures that are not wholly supportive, Patty shared that “I

157
got good at leaving [my working conditions] at the door when I would teach, but you’d pick it
back up when you leave the classroom … like it’s always there.” This is because PTNTTF, like
all the participants in this study, go the extra mile for their students due to their passion for their
students’ academic success (Kezar, 2013; Meixner et al., 2010). It is my hope that this study
inspires department leaders to recognize the good work PTNTTF are performing, while creating
and sustaining a departmental culture that equitably compensates and supports PTNTTF to
continue the work they are doing in meeting and exceeding the academic needs of their students.

158
References
Ambrose, S. A., Bridges, M. W., DiPietro, M., Lovett, M. C., & Norman, M. K. (2010). How
learning works: Seven research-based principles for smart teaching. John Wiley & Sons.
American Association of University Professors. (2023) Annual report on the economic status of
the profession, 2022–2023. https://www.aaup.org/file/ARES-2022-23.pdf
American Federation of Teachers. (2022) An army of temps, AFT contingent faculty quality of
work/life Report, 2022.
https://www.aft.org/sites/default/files/media/documents/2023/Contingent_Faculty_
Survey_2022_interactive.pdf
Austin, A. E. (1990). Faculty cultures, faculty values. New Directions for Institutional
Research, 1990(68), 61–74.
Baldwin, R. G., & Chronister, J. L. (2001). Teaching without tenure: Policies and practices for
a new era. (1st ed.). Johns Hopkins University Press.
Baldwin, R. G., & Wawrzynski, M. R. (2011). Contingent faculty as teachers: What we know;
what we need to know. American Behavioral Scientist, 55(11), 1485–1509.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764211409194
Barefoot, B. O., Gardner, J. N., Cutright, M., Morris, L. V., Schroeder, C. C., Schwartz, S. W.,
Siegel, M. J., & Swing, R. L. (2010). Achieving and sustaining institutional excellence
for the first year of college. John Wiley & Sons.
Beard, T. A. (2021). Emerging social capital in the lives of Latinx first-generation college
students: The case for “apprentice agents” in a social capital framework.
Journal of First-Generation Student Success, 1(2), 92–110.
https://doi.org/10.1080/26906015.2021.1940389
Benjamin, E. (2002). How over-reliance on contingent appointments diminishes faculty
involvement in student learning. Peer Review, 5(1), 4–11.
Bennett, J., Anderson, W. H., Liebl, M., Bakken, L., Jaradat, M. S., Mustafa, M. B., &
Vanderburgh, W. L. (2016). The importance of social capital in the 1st year of
college. Researchers World, 7(4), 20–34. https://doi.org/10.18843/rwjasc/v7i4/03
Berg, B., Causey, J., Cohen, J., Randolph, B., & Shapiro, D. (2024). Current term enrollment
estimates expanded edition: Fall 2023. National Student Clearinghouse Research Center.
https://nscresearchcenter.org/current-term-enrollment-estimates/
Berry, J. (2005). Reclaiming the ivory tower: Organizing adjuncts to change higher education.
Monthly Review Press.

159
Bettinger, E. P., & Long, B. T. (2010). Does cheaper mean better? The impact of using adjunct
instructors on student outcomes. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 92(3),
598–613. https://doi.org/10.1162/REST_a_00014
Bolitzer, L. A. (2019). I really wanted to attend but it never happened: Instructional development
for adjunct faculty. The Journal of Faculty Development, 33(2), 69–76.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in
Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Caret, R. L. (2019). Social responsibility and civic readiness as critical higher education
outcomes. Metropolitan Universities, 30(4), 9–16. https://doi.org/10.18060/23551
Castillo-Montoya, M. (2017). Deepening understanding of prior knowledge: What diverse firstgeneration college students in the US can teach us. Teaching in Higher Education, 22(5),
587–603. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2016.1273208
Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative
analysis. Sage.
Coalition of Urban Serving Universities. (2022). Annual report.
https://www.aplu.org/wp-content/uploads/2022-usu-annual-report.pdf
Coalition on the Academic Workforce. (2012). A portrait of part-time faculty members: A
summary of findings on part-time faculty respondents to the Coalition on the Academic
Workforce survey of contingent faculty members and instructors.
http://www.academicworkforce.org/CAW_portrait_2012.pdf
Colby, G. (2023). Data snapshot: Tenure and contingency in US higher education. American
Association of University Professors Academe, 109(1).
College Transition Collaborative. (2022). Classroom practices library.
https://collegetransitioncollaborative.org/sep-practices-library/
Conley, V. M. & Leslie, D. W. (2002). Part-time instructional faculty and staff: who they are,
what they do, and what they think. U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational
Research and Development, National Center for Education Statistics.
Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five
approaches. Sage.
Cross, J. G., & Goldenberg, E. N. (2009). Off-track profs: Nontenured teachers in higher
education. MIT Press.

160
Culver, K. C., Young, R. L., & Barnhardt, C. L. (2020). Communicating support: Examining
perceived organizational support among faculty members with differing appointment
types. Innovative Higher Education, 45(4), 299–315.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-020-09503-z
Dailey-Herbert, A., Mandernach, J. B., Donnelli-Sallee, E., & Norris, V. R. (2014). Expectations,
motivations, and barriers to professional development: Perspectives from adjunct
instructors teaching online. Journal of Faculty Development, 28(1), 67–82.
Davis, D. B., & Kezar, A. J. (2017). Contingent academic labor: Evaluating conditions to
improve student outcomes. Routledge.
DeFreitas, S. C., & Rinn, A. (2013). Academic achievement in first generation college students:
The role of academic self-concept. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning,
57–67.
Delaney, A. M. (2008). Why faculty-student interaction matters in the first year
experience. Tertiary Education and Management, 14(3), 227–241.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13583880802228224
Democratic House Committee on Education and the Workforce, U.S. House of Representatives.
(2014). The just-in-time professor: A staff report summarizing eForum responses on the
working conditions of contingent faculty in higher education.
http://democrats.edworkforce.house.gov/sites/democrats.edworkforce.house.gov/files/
documents/1.24.14-AdjunctEforumReport.pdf
Dwyer, T. (2017). Persistence in higher education through student-faculty interactions in the
classroom of a commuter institution. Innovations in Education and Teaching
International, 54(4), 325–334. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2015.1112297
Eagan, M. K., & Jaeger, A. J. (2008). Closing the gate: Part-time faculty instruction in
gatekeeper courses and first-year persistence. New Directions for Teaching and
Learning, 2008(115), 39–53. https://doi.org/10.1002/tl.324
Eagan, M. K., Jaeger, A. J., & Grantham, A. (2015). Supporting the academic majority:
Policies and practices related to part-time faculty’s job satisfaction.
The Journal of Higher Education, 86(3), 448–483.
Ehrenberg, R. G., & Zhang, L. (2005). Do tenured and tenure-track faculty matter? Journal of
Human Resources, 40(3), 647–659. https://doi.org/10.3368/jhr.XL.3.647
Frankel, R., & Smith, K. F. (2022). Leveling the playing field inside the classroom. Journal of
First-Generation Student Success, 2(2), 118–125.
https://doi.org/10.1080/26906015.2022.2070443

161
Franklin, K., Cranston, V., Perry, S., Purtle, D., & Robertson, B. (2002). Conversations with
metropolitan university first-year students. Journal of the First-Year Experience &
Students in Transition, 14(2), 57–88.
Gappa, J. M. (2008). Today's majority: Faculty outside the tenure system. Change: The
Magazine of Higher Learning, 40(4), 50–54. https://doi.org/10.3200/CHNG.40.4.50-54
Gappa, J. M., Austin, A., & Trice, A. (2007). Rethinking faculty work: Higher education’s
strategic imperative. Jossey-Bass.
Gappa, J. M., & Leslie, D. W. (1993). The invisible faculty: Improving the status of part-timers
in higher education. Jossey-Bass.
Gehrke, S. J., & Kezar, A. J. (2015). Supporting non-tenure-track faculty at 4-year colleges and
universities: A national study of deans’ values and decisions. Educational Policy, 29(6),
926–960. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904814531651
Gelinas, L., Pierce, R., Winkler, S., Cohen, I. G., Lynch, H. F., & Bierer, B. E. (2017).
Using social media as a research recruitment tool: ethical issues and recommendations.
The American Journal of Bioethics, 17(3), 3–14.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2016.1276644
Glaser, B. G. (1965). The constant comparative method of qualitative analysis.
Social Problems, 12(4), 436–445. https://doi.org/10.1525/sp.1965.12.4.03a00070
Guillaume, R. O., Martinez, E., & Elue, C. (2020). Experiences of student affairs professionals
of color turned faculty: A collaborative autoethnography. Journal of Student Affairs
Research and Practice, 57(1), 42–54. https://doi.org/10.1080/19496591.2019.1644114
Guthrie, R., Wyrick, C., & Navarrete, C. J. (2019). Adjunct faculty can increase student
success: Create opportunities for them to lift graduation and retention rates. Planning for
Higher Education, 48(1). 18–24.
Haeger, J. D. (1998). Part‐time faculty, quality programs, and economic realities. New
Directions for Higher Education, 1998(104), 81–88. https://doi.org/10.1002/he.10408
Hagler, M., Johnson, R., Boags, J., & Snipe, L. (2023). A qualitative thematic analysis of firstgeneration college students’ help-seeking attitudes, decisions, and behaviors. Journal
of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice.
https://doi.org/10.1177/15210251231198006
Harackiewicz, J. M., Canning, E. A., Tibbetts, Y., Giffen, C. J., Blair, S. S., Rouse, D. I., & Hyde,
J. S. (2014). Closing the social class achievement gap for first-generation students in
undergraduate biology. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106(2), 375–389.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034679

162
Harrington, C., & Schibik, T. (2001). Caveat emptor: Is there a relationship between part-time
faculty utilization and student learning outcomes and retention? Association of
Institutional Research Annual Forum.
Holcombe, E., & Kezar, A. J. (2020). Ensuring success among first-generation, low-income, and
underserved minority students: Developing a unified community of support. American
Behavioral Scientist, 64(3), 349–369. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764219869413
Jacobs, F. (1998). Using part‐time faculty more effectively. New Directions for Higher
Education, 1998(104), 9–18. https://doi.org/10.1002/he.10401
Jacoby, B. (1990). Adapting the institution to meet the needs of commuter students. Metropolitan
Universities, 1(2), 61–72.
Jacoby, D. (2006). Effects of part-time faculty employment on community college graduation
rates. The Journal of Higher Education, 77(6), 1081–1103.
https://doi.org/10.1353/jhe.2006.0050
Jaeger, A. J. (2008). Contingent faculty and student outcomes. Academe, 94(6), 42–43.
Jaeger, A. J., & Eagan, M. K. (2009). Unintended consequences examining the effect of parttime faculty members on associate’s degree completion. Community College
Review, 36(3), 167–194. https://doi.org/10.1177/0091552108327070
Jaeger, A. J., & Eagan, M. K. (2011). Examining retention and contingent faculty use in
a state system of public higher education. Educational Policy, 25(3), 507–537.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904810361723
Jaeger, A. J., & Hinz, D. (2008). The effects of part-time faculty on first semester freshmen
retention: A predictive model using logistic regression. Journal of College
Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 10(3), 265–286.
https://doi.org/10.2190/CS.10.3.b
Jehangir, R. (2010). Stories as knowledge: Bringing the lived experience of first-generation
college students into the academy. Urban Education, 45(4), 533–553.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085910372352
Jones, W. A., Hutchens, N. H., Hulbert, A., Lewis, W. D., & Brown, D. M. (2017). Shared
governance among the new majority: Non-tenure track faculty eligibility for election to
university faculty senates. Innovative Higher Education, 42(5), 505–519.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-017-9402-2
Kaufka, B. (2010). Beyond the classroom: a case study of first-year student perceptions of
required student-faculty conferences. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and
Learning, 10(2), 25–33.

163
Keehn, S., & Martinez, M. G. (2007). A study of the impact of professional development in
diversity on adjunct faculty. Action in Teacher Education, 28(3), 11–28.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01626620.2006.10463416
Kezar, A. J. (2013). Departmental cultures and non-tenure-track faculty: Willingness, capacity,
and opportunity to perform at four-year institutions. The Journal of Higher
Education, 84(2), 153–188. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2013.11777284
Kezar, A. J., DePaola, T., & Scott, D. T. (2019). The gig academy: Mapping labor in the
neoliberal university. Johns Hopkins University Press.
Kezar, A. J., & Sam, C. (2010). Understanding the new majority of non-tenure-track faculty in
higher education: Demographics, experiences, and plans of action. ASHE Higher
Education Report, 36(4), 1–133. https://doi.org/10.1002/aehe.3604
Kimmel, K. M., & Fairchild, J. L. (2017). A full-time dilemma: Examining the experiences of
part-time faculty. Journal of Effective Teaching, 17(1), 52–65.
Kitchen, J. A., Perez, R., Hallett, R., Kezar, A. J., & Reason, R. (2021). Ecological validation
model of student success: A new student support model for promoting college success
among low-income, first-generation, and racially minoritized students. Journal of College
Student Development, 62(6), 627–642. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2021.0062
Linares, L. I. R., & Muñoz, S. M. (2011). Revisiting validation theory: Theoretical foundations,
applications, and extensions. Enrollment Management Journal, 2(1), 12–33.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage.
Maynard, D. C., & Joseph, T. A. (2008). Are all part-time faculty underemployed? The influence
of faculty status preference on satisfaction and commitment. Higher Education, 55(2),
139–154. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-006-9039-z
McCallen, L. S., & Johnson, H. L. (2020). The role of institutional agents in promoting higher
education success among first-generation college students at a public urban
university. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 13(4),
320–332. https://doi.org/10.1037/dhe0000143
McMurray, A. J., & Sorrells, D. (2009). Bridging the gap: Reaching first-generation students in
the classroom. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 36(3), 210–214.

164
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.
https://doi.org/10.1080/87567555.2010.484032
Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation.
Jossey-Bass.
Modern Language Association. (2008). Education in the balance: A report on the academic
workforce in English. http://www.mla.org/pdf/workforce_rpt03.pdf
Murphy Nutting, M. (2003). Part‐time faculty: Why should we care?. New Directions for
Higher Education, 2003(123), 33–39. https://doi.org/10.1002/he.118
Museus, S. D., & Quaye, S. J. (2009). Toward an intercultural perspective of racial and ethnic
minority college student persistence. The Review of Higher Education, 33(1),
67–94. https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.0.0107.
NASPA & Uwill. (2023). Current state of college & student mental health.
https://uwill.wpenginepowered.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/NASPA-UwillResearch-Brief-1.pdf
Natalicio, D. S., & Smith, M. (2005). Building the foundation for first-year student success in
public, urban universities. In M. L. Upcraft, J. N. Gardner, & B. O. Barefoot (Eds.),
Challenging and supporting the first-year student: A handbook for improving the first
year of college (pp. 155–175). Jossey-Bass.
National Education Association Research Center. (2007). Part-time faculty: A look at data
and issues.
Ott, M. C., & Dippold, L. K. (2018). Adjunct employment preference: Who wants to be full-time
faculty? Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 42(3), 190–203.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10668926.2017.1283259
Pacheco, A. (1994). Bridging the gaps in retention. Metropolitan Universities, 5(2), 53–60.
Prince, M. (2004). Does active learning work? A review of the research. Journal of Engineering
Education, 93(3), 223–231. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2004.tb00809.x
Pryor, K. N. (2020). Thriving, surviving, or striving? A part-time non-tenure-track faculty
typology for the new era of faculty work. Teachers College Record, 122(11), 1–40.
https://doi.org/10.1177/016146812012201104
Ran, F. X., & Sanders, J. (2020). Instruction quality or working condition? The effects of parttime faculty on student academic outcomes in community college introductory
courses. AERA Open, 6(1), https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858420901495

165
Ran, F. X., & Xu, D. (2019). Does contractual form matter? The impact of different types of nontenure-track faculty on college students’ academic outcomes. Journal of Human
Resources, 54(4), 1081–1120. https://doi.org/10.3368/JHR.54.4.0117.8505R
Rendón, L. I. (1994). Validating culturally diverse students: Toward a new model of learning and
student development. Innovative Higher Education, 19(1), 33–51.
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01191156
Rhoades, G. (2020). Taking college teachers’ working conditions seriously: Adjunct faculty and
negotiating a labor-based conception of quality. The Journal of Higher Education, 91(3),
327–352. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2019.1664196
Saenz, V. B., Hurtado, S., Barrera, D., Wolf, D., & Yeung, F. (2007). First in my family: A
profile of first-generation college students at four-year institutions since 1971.
Higher Education Research Institute.
Sarcedo, G. L. (2022). Using narrative inquiry to understand faculty supporting first-generation,
low-income college students of color. Journal of First-Generation Student Success, 2(3),
127–142. https://doi.org/10.1080/26906015.2022.2086087
Schademan, A. R., & Thompson, M. R. (2016). Are college faculty and first-generation, lowincome students ready for each other?. Journal of College Student Retention: Research,
Theory & Practice, 18(2), 194–216. https://doi.org/10.1177/1521025115584748
Schwartz, S. E., Kanchewa, S. S., Rhodes, J. E., Gowdy, G., Stark, A. M., Horn, J. P., Parnes,
M., Spencer, R. (2018) “I’m having a little struggle with this, can you help me
out?”: Examining impacts and processes of a social capital intervention for first‐
generation college students. American Journal of Community Psychology, 61(1–2),
166–178. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajcp.12206
Scott, D. & Kezar, A. J. (2019). How student affairs departments can support and engage nontenure-track faculty. Pullias Center for Higher Education, University of Southern
California.
Scott, D., Kezar, A. J., Celly, K. S., & Robinson, P. (2019). Equity for lecturers and counseling
faculty at California State University, Dominguez Hills. Pullias Center for Higher
Education, University of Southern California.
Smith, J. M., & Lucena, J. C. (2016). Invisible innovators: How low-income, first-generation
students use their funds of knowledge to belong in engineering. Engineering
Studies, 8(1), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/19378629.2016.1155593
Soria, K. M., & Stebleton, M. J. (2012). First-generation students’ academic engagement and
retention. Teaching in Higher Education, 17(6), 673–685.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2012.666735

166
Spinrad, M. L., & Relles, S. R. (2022). Losing our faculties: Contingent faculty in the corporate
academy. Innovative Higher Education, 47(5), 837–854.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-022-09602-z
Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Sage.
Stake, R. E. (2006). Multiple case study analysis. Guilford Press.
Stanton-Salazar, R. D. (1997). A social capital framework for understanding the socialization of
racial minority children and youths. Harvard Educational Review, 67(1), 1–39.
https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.67.1.140676g74018u73k
Stanton-Salazar, R. D. (2011). A social capital framework for the study of institutional agents and
their role in the empowerment of low-status students and youth. Youth & Society, 43(3),
1066–1109. htttps://doi.org/10.1177/0044118X10382877
Strayhorn, T. L. (2017). Factors that influence the persistence and success of Black men in
urban public universities. Urban Education, 52(9), 1106–1128.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085915623347
Street, S., Maisto, M., Merves, E., & Rhoades, G. (2012). Who is professor “staff” and how can
this person teach so many classes?. Center for the Future of Higher Education.
http://www.nfmfoundation.org/ProfStaffFinal.pdf
Student Experience Project. (2022). Increasing equity in college student experience: Findings
from a national collaborative. https://studentexperienceproject.org/report
Tevis, T., & Britton, K. (2020). First-year student experiences: Uncovering the hidden
expectations of frontline faculty members and student services administrators. Innovative
Higher Education, 45(4), 333–349. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-020-09511-z
Thompson, K. (2003). Contingent faculty and student learning: Welcome to the strativersity.
New Directions for Higher Education, 2003(123), 41–47. https://doi.org/10.1002/he.119
Tillyer, A. (2005). Educational technology and “roads scholars”. Academe, 91(4), 49–52.
https://doi.org/10.2307/40253431
Tinto, V. (1987). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition.
University of Chicago Press.
Umbach, P. D. (2007). How effective are they? Exploring the impact of contingent faculty on
undergraduate education. The Review of Higher Education, 30(2), 91–123.
https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2006.0080

167
Vetter, M., Schreiner, L., & Jaworski, B. (2019). Faculty attitudes and behaviors that contribute
to thriving in first-year students of color. Journal of the First-Year Experience & Students
in Transition, 31(1), 9–28.
Wang, T. R. (2014). Formational turning points in the transition to college: Understanding how
communication events shape first-generation students’ pedagogical and interpersonal
relationships with their college teachers. Communication Education, 63(1), 63–82.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03634523.2013.841970
Wilson, R. (2009). “Chronicle” survey yields a rare look into adjuncts’ work lives. The Chronicle
of Higher Education. 56(9).
Witt, P. A., & Gearin, C. A. (2021). An exploration of the challenges faced by traveling
adjuncts. Research in Education, 110(1), 21–37.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0034523720939992
Wyatt, T. J., Oswalt, S. B., & Ochoa, Y. (2017). Mental health and academic performance of
first-year college students. International Journal of Higher Education, 6(3), 178–187.
Yee, A. (2016). The unwritten rules of engagement: Social class differences in undergraduates’
academic strategies. The Journal of Higher Education, 87(6), 831–858.
https://doi.org/10.1353/jhe.2016.0031
Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods. Sage.
Yosso, T. J. (2005). Whose culture has capital? A critical race theory discussion of community
cultural wealth. Race, Ethnicity and Education, 8(1), 69–91.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1361332052000341006

168
Appendix A: Study Information Sheet
My name is Gene Sandan, and I am a doctoral student at the University of Southern California.
I am conducting a research study to understand how the departmental culture and working
conditions experienced by part-time, non-tenure track faculty support or limit their ability to
meet the academic needs of first-year college students at four-year public, urban universities. The
name of this research study is “How the Departmental Cultures Experienced by Part-Time, NonTenure Track Faculty at Public, Urban Universities Affect Their Ability to Meet First-Year
College Student Needs.” I am seeking your participation in this study.
Your participation is completely voluntary, and I will address your questions or concerns at any
point before or during the study.
You may be eligible to participate in this study if you meet the following criteria:
1. Within the past five (5) years, you were part-time, non-tenure track (i.e. adjunct,
contingent, lecturer) faculty member at a four-year public university located in a large,
urban area, and
2. Within the past five (5) years, have taught an introductory, survey, or other lowerdivision course intended for first-year students at a four-year public university located in
a large, urban area
3. You are over 18 years old
If you decide to participate in this study, you will be asked to do the following activities:
1. Complete an online survey for 5 minutes
2. Participate in a 1:1 online interview over Zoom for 60–90 minutes
3. Review your interview transcript via email for no more than 60 minutes
After you complete the online survey, online interview, and a review of your interview transcript
via email, you will receive a Target e-gift card in the amount of $15.00 via email.
I will publish the results in my thesis. Participants will not be identified in the results. I will take
reasonable measures to protect the security of all your personal information. All data will be deidentified prior to any publication or presentations. I may share your data, de-identified with
other researchers in the future.
If you are interested in participating, please visit: [link to survey platform]
If you have any questions about this study, please contact me at [PI email]. If you have any
questions about your rights as a research participant, please contact the University of Southern
California Institutional Review Board at (323) 442-0114 or email hrpp@usc.edu.

169
Appendix B: Social Media Recruitment Posting Text
My name is Gene Sandan, and I am a doctoral student at the University of Southern California. I
am conducting a research study to understand how the departmental culture and working
conditions experienced by part-time, non-tenure track faculty support or limit their ability to
meet the academic needs of first-year college students at four-year public, urban universities.
I am recruiting individuals who meet all these criteria:
1. Within the past five (5) years, you were part-time, non-tenure track (i.e. adjunct,
contingent, lecturer) faculty member at a four-year public university located in a large,
urban area, and
2. Within the past five (5) years, have taught an introductory, survey, or other lowerdivision course intended for first-year students at a four-year public university located in
a large, urban area, and
3. You are over 18 years old.
If you decide to participate in this study, you will be asked to do the following activities:
1. Complete an online survey for 5 minutes
2. Participate in a 1:1 online interview over Zoom for 60–90 minutes
3. Review your interview transcript via email for no more than 60 minutes
During these activities, you will be asked questions about:
• Your teaching experiences, working conditions, and support provided by your institutions
as a part-time, non-tenure track faculty member
• Your experience supporting the academic needs of first-year students at large, urban
public universities
• Demographic questions such as your years of teaching experience, the types of courses
you teach, and how you identify.
After participants complete the online survey, online interview, and a review of their interview
transcript via email, participants will receive a Target e-gift card in the amount of $15.00 via
email.
If you are interested in participating in this study, please click this link: [link to survey platform]
If you have questions, please contact me via email at [PI email].
Thank you!
Gene Sandan

170
Appendix C: Survey to Screen Possible Study Participants
The purpose of this survey is to see if you meet the criteria for participating in this research
study. This survey will take approximately 5 minutes.
I am looking to recruit individuals who within the past five (5) years:
• were part-time, non-tenure track (i.e. adjunct, contingent, lecturer) faculty members at a
four-year public university located in a large, urban area, and
• have taught an introductory, survey, or other lower-division course intended for firstyear students at a four-year public university located in a large, urban area
After reviewing your answers to this survey, the principal investigator will notify you if you are
eligible to participate in this study. Only complete this survey if you choose to do so.
Screening Survey
1. Are you currently teaching as a part-time, non-tenure track (i.e. adjunct, contingent,
lecturer) faculty member at a four-year public university located in a large, urban
area?
❑ Yes ❑ No
2. [If no to #1] When was the last time you taught as a part-time, non-tenure track (i.e.
adjunct, contingent, lecturer) faculty member at a four-year public university located
in a large, urban area?
❑ Never ❑ Less than 1 year ago ❑ 1 year ago ❑ 2 years ago ❑ 3 years ago
❑ 4 years ago ❑ 5 years ago ❑ More than 5 years ago
3. What is the city and state of the four-year public, urban university where you have
been a part-time, non-tenure track faculty member the longest (e.g. Los Angeles,
CA)? ____________________________________
4. Are you currently teaching an introductory, survey, or other lower-division course
intended for first-year students at a four-year public university located in a large,
urban area?
❑ Yes ❑ No
5. [If no to #4] When was the last time you taught an introductory, survey, or other
lower-division course intended for first-year students at a four-year public university
located in a large, urban area?
❑ Never ❑ Less than 1 year ago ❑ 1 year ago ❑ 2 years ago ❑ 3 years ago
❑ 4 years ago ❑ 5 years ago ❑ More than 5 years ago
Demographic Information
How many years have you taught as a part-time, non-tenure track faculty member at a four-year
public university in a large, urban area? ________

171
What are the introductory, survey, or other first-year lower-division courses you have taught at a
four-year public university located in a large, urban area (e.g. Chemistry 1A: General Chemistry
1)?
______________________________________________________________________________
How do you describe yourself? ❑ Male ❑ Female ❑ Non-binary / third gender
❑ Prefer to self-describe: _______________ ❑ Prefer not to say
Are you of Spanish, Hispanic, or Latino origin? ❑ Yes ❑ No
Choose one or more races that you consider yourself to be:
❑ American Indian/Native American or Alaska Native ❑ Asian ❑ Black or African
American
❑ Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander ❑ White or Caucasian
❑ Other _____________________________ ❑ Prefer not to say
Contact Information
First Name: _________________________
Last Name: _________________________
Email Address: ___________________

172
Appendix D: Semi-Structured Interview Protocol for Study Participants
Introduction
Thank you very much for taking time out of your busy schedule to meet with me. My name is
Gene Sandan, and I am a doctoral candidate at the University of Southern California. I am
currently studying the departmental cultures and working conditions experienced by part-time,
non-tenure track (i.e. adjunct, contingent, lecturer) faculty at four-year public universities in
large, urban areas. I am particularly interested in how these departmental cultures and working
conditions support or limit you in meeting the academic needs of first-year college students at
four-year public universities in large, urban areas.
I believe that you have much to share in helping me understand my research topic from the
faculty perspective. Let me first assure you that your responses will be confidential and any
information that can identify you will be removed.
The interview is anticipated to last about 60–90 minutes. You will be given the opportunity to
review the transcripts of your interview to confirm and clarify your responses. After you
complete a review of your interview transcript via email, you will receive a Target e-gift card in
the amount of $15.00 via email.
The interview will be recorded with your permission; if you choose not to be recorded,
handwritten notes will be taken. You can change your mind about the recording at any time. I
will be using an automated online platform called OtterAI to assist me with recording and
transcribing this interview.
Is it ok if I record our meeting and use OtterAI to assist with transcription?
Before I start recording, are there any questions you have for me?
You will hear an advisory that recording has started. You will also see “Gene’s Otter Pilot” join
our meeting. Great! So, recording has started and let’s begin.
# Question and Probes RQ
Addressed
Concept
Addressed
1 From the screening survey you completed, you shared that you
have taught [verbally share participant’s survey response].
How do these courses represent the types of courses you usually
teach?
• When you taught these introductory, survey, or other
first-year lower-division courses, did you also teach at
other institutions during the same academic term?
2 Culture/working
conditions (time,
availability,
compensation)
2 Culture/working
conditions (time,
availability,
compensation)

173
# Question and Probes RQ
Addressed
Concept
Addressed
2 For the next few questions, I’d like you to reflect on your
experience at a public urban university where you served the
most time as a part-time, non-tenure track faculty member and
taught introductory or first-year courses.
What is/was the city and state of that institution?
What is/was your usual teaching load each term at that specific
institution?
• Is/was your teaching load each term pretty consistent?
• How do you feel about how the institution determined
your teaching load and class schedule?
2 Culture/working
conditions (hiring,
contract renewals)
2 Culture/working
conditions (hiring,
contract renewals)
2 Culture/working
conditions (hiring,
contract renewals,
respect)
3 How far in advance were you notified that you would be teaching
the next term?
• How did you feel about the amount of time you were
given to prepare for an introductory/survey course
before the term began (e.g. prepare the syllabus, select
textbooks; lesson plans, etc.)?
2 Culture/working
conditions (hiring,
contract renewals)
2 Culture/working
conditions (hiring,
contract renewals),
engaging pedagogy
4 Did you feel that you were offered equitable pay and benefits?
How?
2 Culture/working
conditions (hiring,
contract renewals,
compensation)
5 How did you feel when you interacted with departmental faculty
and staff? Did you feel that you were included (events/meetings,
governance), belong, and that your input was valued? Why?
2 Culture/working
conditions (respect,
inclusion in
department matters)
6 Were you offered departmental support to attend professional
development (on or off-campus) or academic conferences?
• How important was it for the institution to offer support
to attend professional development or academic
conferences?
2 Culture/working
conditions
(institutional support)
1 Engaging pedagogy

174
# Question and Probes RQ
Addressed
Concept
Addressed
7 I’d now like you to think about when you first started teaching at
that institution. Did the department or institution offer any
faculty orientations or training sessions for their new faculty
members?
• If yes: How did these orientations or training sessions
prepare you to teach first-year students at large, urban
public universities?
• If no: If the department or institution offered an
orientation or training sessions when you first started
teaching there, what would be some helpful topics to
help you teach first-year students at large, public urban
universities?
2
1, 2
1, 2
Culture/working
conditions
(institutional support)
Culture/working
conditions
(institutional support),
engaging pedagogy,
validation
Culture/working
conditions
(institutional support),
engaging pedagogy,
validation, institutional
agency
8 Did you have a department mentor either on a formal or informal
basis?
• If yes: How did your department mentor help you be
prepared to teach first-year students at large, urban
public universities?
• If no: If the institution offered a mentor program, would
it have helped you be prepared to teach first-year
students at large, urban public universities? How?
2 Culture/working
conditions
(institutional support),
engaging pedagogy,
validation
1, 2 Culture/working
conditions
(institutional support),
engaging pedagogy,
validation
1, 2 Culture/working
conditions
(institutional support),
engaging pedagogy,
validation
9 How did your department provide you with feedback (or an
evaluation) on your teaching?
2 Culture/working
conditions
(institutional support)
10 Thinking about all the training sessions you’ve attended and the
interactions you’ve had with students, how would you describe
the academic needs of first-year students at large, urban public
universities?
• How did you learn about the academic needs of first-year
students at public urban universities you just described?
1 Engaging pedagogy,
validation, institutional
agency
1, 2 Culture/working
conditions
(institutional support),
engaging pedagogy,
validation, institutional
agency

175
# Question and Probes RQ
Addressed Concept Addressed
11 Are there specific strategies or approaches you have integrated
into your teaching that specifically address the academic needs
of first-year students at large, urban public universities?
Please describe.
• How did you learn about these strategies or approaches?
1, 2 Engaging pedagogy,
validation, institutional
agency
1, 2 Culture/working
conditions
(institutional support),
engaging pedagogy,
validation, institutional
agency
12 What are some of the things you do inside the classroom to help
first-year students at large, urban public universities feel
included, valued, and academically capable?
• How do you feel these strategies help first-year students
feel encouraged to interact with you outside of the
classroom?
1, 2 engaging pedagogy,
validation
1, 2 Validation,
institutional agency
13 How would you describe the nature of your interactions with your
first-year students at large, urban public universities outside of
class (e.g. course related, advising, campus navigation, careers,
student life)?
• When you interact with first-year students outside the
classroom, does their engagement in the classroom
change? How?
• Do you meet with them in your office? Online?
• If you need to show a student how to perform a course-
related task on a computer, do you have a computer
issued to you by your department?
1, 2 Validation,
institutional agency
1, 2 Engaging pedagogy,
validation, institutional
agency
2 Culture/working
conditions
(institutional support)
2 Culture/working
conditions
(institutional support)

176
# Question and Probes RQ
Addressed Concept Addressed
14 I’d like to return to your experience at a public, urban university
where you served the most time as a part-time, non-tenure track
faculty member and taught introductory or first-year courses.
How did your working conditions and the departmental culture at
that specific public, urban university support you in meeting the
academic needs of first-year students you shared with me today?
• What is the campus/department doing well to support you
in supporting your first-year students?
1, 2 Culture/working
conditions (hiring,
institutional support),
engaging pedagogy,
validation, institutional
agency
1, 2 Culture/working
conditions (hiring,
institutional support),
engaging pedagogy,
validation, institutional
agency
15 How did your working conditions and the departmental culture at
that specific public, urban university limit you in meeting the
academic needs of first-year students you shared with me today?
• What can the campus/department improve to better
support you in supporting your first-year students?
1, 2 Culture/working
conditions (hiring,
institutional support),
engaging pedagogy,
validation, institutional
agency
1, 2 Culture/working
conditions (hiring,
institutional support),
engaging pedagogy,
validation, institutional
agency
16 Lastly, I’d like you to think about a meaningful and close
interaction you had with a first-year student at a large, urban
public university. If you can remember one, could you share a
little bit about that interaction?
1, 2 Engaging pedagogy,
validation, institutional
agency
17 Thanks so much. I have learned quite a bit from our conversation
today. But before we end or meeting, is there anything else you
would like to add that would be helpful for this study that we
haven’t covered yet?
1, 2 Culture/working
conditions,
engaging pedagogy,
validation, institutional
agency

177
Appendix E: Coding Table
Table 2
Coding Table
Research
Question
Conceptual Framework
Area Code
1 Interpersonal validation Recognize students managing competing demands
Understand student demographics of class and institution
Need support for wellness and mental health
Be available
Show genuine care
1 Academic validation Foster climate of success in classroom
Provide a course orientation and review expectations
Build students’ capacity to succeed
Believes imperfection is okay
Help students understand the why’s and larger picture
Help students apply course concepts to prior knowledge
Work with students individually for academic help
1 Academic validation Facilitate engaging interaction with peers and
instructor in class
Facilitate students’ community building with
each other
1 Funds of knowledge Campus resource orientation
Campus structure
Language and communication in college
Successful student technical skills
Career and graduate school knowledge
Problem solving

178
Research
Question
Conceptual Framework
Area Code
2 Departmental culture Supports PTNTTF expertise to modify courses
Supports PTNTTF autonomy
Supports PTNTTF with enough notice of teaching
assignment
Supports PTNTTF by providing course materials
Supports PTNTTF by providing an informal mentor
Supports PTNTTF by providing community building with
peers
Limits PTNTTF with inequitable pay
2 Departmental culture Limits PTNTTF by assigning courses to them in which they
do not have expertise
Limits PTNTTF by not providing an orientation
Limits PTNTTF by not providing meaningful input on their
teaching
Limits PTNTTF by not providing support for professional
development or training
Limits PTNTTF by not providing a private office
Limits PTNTTF by not providing opportunities to provide
curricular input
Limits PTNTTF by not providing opportunities to build
community with peers

Abstract (if available)

Abstract Research on first-year college students (FYCS) indicate that faculty, including part-time, non-tenure track faculty (PTNTTF), play a vital role in meeting the academic needs of FYCS to facilitate their academic success. However, the literature on PTNTTF suggests that the departmental culture they experience may impact their ability to meet students’ needs. This qualitative study used the validation and institutional agency frameworks to describe how departmental cultures support or limit PTNTTF in meeting the academic needs of FYCS at public, urban universities. Through interviews, this study examined the experiences of nine PTNTTF to understand their perceptions on how they meet the academic needs of FYCS and how the departmental cultures they experience affect their ability to meet FYCS’ academic needs. This study first found that PTNTTF perceive that they meet the needs of FYCS by being approachable and understanding, structuring their classes for student success, and helping students understand campus resources and college expectations. Secondly, this study found that departmental cultures support the ability of PTNTTF to meet FYCS’ needs by providing PTNTTF with professional treatment, course materials, and collegiality. This study also found that departmental cultures limit the ability of PTNTTF to meet FYCS’ needs with poor hiring practices and inequitable pay, little to no training or departmental support, and little to no opportunities for PTNTTF to provide curricular input or build community with one another. Lastly, this study found that PTNTTF are guided by their knowledge and experiences in previous roles in meeting the academic needs of FYCS.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

How do non-tenure track faculty interact with Latino and Latina students in gatekeeper math courses at an urban community college?

PDF

Participation of full-time, non-tenure-track faculty in school-level goveranance and decision making

PDF

Échale ganas: the transition experiences of first-generation Latinx students and their parents to college

PDF

The work identity of full‐time non‐tenure‐track faculty at a four year research university

PDF

Developing effective mentoring programs for non-tenure track faculty

PDF

Faculty perceptions of barriers: gender and ethnicity differences among tenured and tenure-track faculty in the University of California system

PDF

Part-time non-tenure track faculty, motivation, and departmental governance: a grounded theory approach

PDF

The impact of campus closures: experiences of first-generation college students at a 4-year private university in southern California

PDF

Postsecondary faculty attitudes, beliefs, practices, and knowledge regarding students with ADHD: a comparative analysis of two-year and four-year institutions

PDF

The positionality and power dynamics of high school math departments

PDF

Supporting non-tenure-track faculty in a physical therapy program: a case study

PDF

Addressing financial barriers to college completion through community cultural wealth

PDF

Student support program for first-generation law students

PDF

Exploring the academic success of black male former student-athletes and their experiences with academic support upon re-entry to college

PDF

Exploring faculty-student interactions in a comprehensive college transition program for low-income and first-generation college students

PDF

Meeting the needs of nontraditional undergraduate students through inclusive pedagogy

PDF

“Black” workplace belonging: an examination of the lived experiences of Black faculty sense of belonging factors in community colleges

PDF

Enhancing a culture of research support for first-generation PhD students in social science fields

PDF

Community college faculty member perspectives of workforce development-oriented public-private partnerships

PDF

Faculty experiences: sense of belonging for sexual and gender minority college students

Asset Metadata

Creator Sandan, Gene G. (author)

Core Title How the departmental cultures experienced by part-time, non-tenure track faculty affect their ability to meet first-year college student needs

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Educational Leadership

Degree Conferral Date 2024-08

Publication Date 07/17/2024

Defense Date 07/10/2024

Publisher Los Angeles, California (original), University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag departmental culture,first-year college students,four-year public universities,institutional agents,part-time non tenure track faculty,urban universities,validation,working conditions

Format theses (aat)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Tobey, Patricia (committee chair), Kim, Esther Chihye (committee member), Krop, Cathy (committee member)

Creator Email genesandan@gmail.com,sandan@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC113997X5S

Unique identifier UC113997X5S

Identifier etd-SandanGene-13254.pdf (filename)

Legacy Identifier etd-SandanGene-13254

Document Type Dissertation

Format theses (aat)

Rights Sandan, Gene G.

Internet Media Type application/pdf

Type texts

Source 20240718-usctheses-batch-1184 (batch), 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 author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright.

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

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu