• Save
UNC TLT 2010
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

UNC TLT 2010

on

  • 198 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
198
Views on SlideShare
198
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment
  • DIANE **Give background on each presenter Proposal: Session Title: Capturing the Heart of the Online Instructor: Motivations to Teach Growth in distance education (DE) enrollment and needs for DE administrators to meet staffing challenges under tight budget constraints is accompanied by a growing reliance on part-time adjunct and non-tenure track instructors to teach online courses (Ambrosino & White, 2006; Bettinger & Long, 2006). This staffing model creates challenges for DE administrators, such as increased turnover of contingent faculty coupled with costs of recruitment and retention (Betts & Sikorski, 2008). It is imperative for DE administrators to understand factors motivating instructors (both tenure-track and contingent) to teach DE courses. In a quantitative study, distance education instructors were asked to identify intrinsic and extrinsic factors for motivation to teach online. A questionnaire was distributed to all DE instructors listed for an academic year at a large, research-intensive university in the southern US.  This presentation displays the results of this study and provides strategies for capturing the heart of the online instructor.
  • DIANE Overview --Distance education continues to grow in colleges and universities. Cuts in state funding and limited physical classroom space have exasperated this increase. At the same time, there is a rising number of adjunct and non-tenure-track instructors, commonly referred to as contingent faculty (marklein), engaged in teaching DE courses. -- As the number of DE offerings at colleges and universities continues to grow, so will the number of contingent faculty members. --As a result, there is a growing need to better understand what motivates contingent faculty to teach at a distance and to discover if there are differences as compared to instructors in tenure-track positions. **** Reasons for growth in adjunct faculty: ( Micceri ) 1. increasing graduate enrollment puts pressure on faculty to serve those students, 2. increasing graduate enrollment makes more GTAs available to teach undergraduate courses, and 3. both adjuncts and GTAs cost considerably less than ranked faculty.   4. Associates and full professors should be used to teach upper level and graduate courses and only make cameo appearances in lower-level courses.
  • SOPHIA
  • SOPHIA
  • SOPHIA Expectations: What are the expectations in terms of adjuncts (pay, office space, collegial relationships with other faculty, professional development)?
  • SOPHIA Flexible Staffing model flexibility required to implement distance education seen as a driver for increase in contingent faculty (Holub)
  • SOPHIA High turnoverrate Many programs suffer from high rates of contingent faculty turnove Compensation inequity According to the American Association of University Professors, "part-time non-tenure-track faculty are paid approximately 64 percent less per hour" than their full-time counterparts (as cited in Holler). r Institutional demand The greater the dependence on such employees, the greater is the institutional responsibility to provide orientation, oversight, evaluation, professional development, and opportunities for integration into the life of the institution ” (Monhollon). Retention   Retention of experienced an experienced distance education faculty is essential to success for DE at both the program and university levels. Morale There is a trend to replace tenure track lines with part time and non-tenure track lines creating a permanent underclass of contingent faculty (MOnhollon) Market Model
  • DIANE This presentation will present the results of a study of the motivations for teaching DE courses. From the research, we know general motivators include: Flexible work environment Professional development Intellectual stimulation Avenue for full-time employment Prospect for potential employment Social-professional connections with other faculty and students
  • DIANE
  • DIANE
  • DIANE
  • DIANE
  • DIANE
  • DIANE
  • SOPHIA
  • SOPHIA
  • BOTH QUESTIONS AND TAKEAWAYS

UNC TLT 2010 UNC TLT 2010 Presentation Transcript

  • Capturing the Heart of the Online Instructor: Motivations to TeachDiane Chapman, NC State UniversitySophia Stone, Duke University 1
  • Overview Background: Growth of DE and Contingent faculty hired to match program growth Increase of part-time adjunct & non-tenure track instructors to teach online courses DE Administration Challenge: Staffing Understand adjunct faculty motivation to teach  Intrinsic and extrinsic motivators Can better address recruitment, retention, and ensure success of DE program 2
  • Contingent Faculty - DefinitionPeople in both full-time and part-time faculty in non- tenure track positions.Also referred to as contract faculty, full-time non- tenure track faculty, term faculty, adjunct professors, visiting professors, and lecturers (Holub, 2003) 3
  • Contingent Faculty “the increasing number of faculty who are employed in contingent positions, whether full or part time, represents probably the single most significant development in higher education in the last two decades” (Curtis, 2005, p.1). 4
  • Contingent Faculty: Issues Expectations: institutional/faculty Acceptance/Connection to institution Recruitment, retention, professional development Staffing model presents benefits and challenges for institution and for contingent faculty member --“the adjunct” 5
  • Benefits and ChallengesBenefitsFor institution: Flexible staffing model Practitioner expertise Costs 36% less to educate a student Cost-effective staffing model Addresses insecure funding for DE programs 6
  • Benefits and ChallengesChallengesFor institution: High turnover rate Compensation inequity Institutional demand Retention Morale “Market Model” Student services may suffer: advising, mentoring 7
  • About the Study•What motivates the contingent faculty toteach distance education courses?•Is there a difference between whatmotivates tenure-track instructors versuscontingent instructors? 8
  • Study Design Quantitative Online Survey Survey designed using intensive literature review about issues pertaining to contingent faculty Expert panel for face validity Beta tested with sample group 9
  • Study Results Online survey to all DE instructors listed for an academic year (294) 48% response rate (142) 97 tenure/tenure-track instructors (68%) 45 contingent instructors (32%) 10
  • Limitations  One university  Snapshot  Self-report 11
  • Typical Respondent Tenured/Tenure Track:  Contingent: Is at the full professor rank (51%)  Is a lecturer or assistant professor (86%)  Has taught F2F for 8 years Has taught F2F for over 21 years  Has taught online for 2 years Has taught online for 6 years  Has a master’s or doctorate Has a doctorate  Is 45 years old Is 55 years old  Is female (63%) Is male (79%)  Teaches primarily online undergraduate Primarily teaches online undergraduate courses courses  Is employed full time at the university (79%) Has taught at 1 school in past 3 years  25% have taught at 2 schools in the past 3 years 12
  • Results: Top MotivatorsTenured & Tenured Track Contingent Flexible schedule (52.9%)  Flexible schedule (59.2%) Self-satisfaction (48.0%)  Opportunities to use new technologies (57.1%) Opportunities to use new technologies (48%)  Self-satisfaction (51.0%) Financial rewards (45.1%)  Financial rewards (46.9%) Intellectual stimulation  To enhance my online (45.1%) teaching skills (44.9%) 13
  • Results: Lowest MotivatorsTenured & Tenured Track Contingent A lack of permanent  A lack of permanent employment elsewhere (0%) employment elsewhere (2%) For the social connections with  For the social connections with faculty (0%) faculty (2%) For the social connections with  For the social connections with students (0%) students (2%) Pressure from my peers (1%)  Pressure from my As a potential entry point for department head (6.1%) teaching career (1%)  Pressure from my peers (6.1%) As an avenue for full-time  For professional employment at this connections with faculty institution (2%) (6.1%) 14
  • Significant Differences As a potential entry point for teaching career  Contingent faculty were more motivated A lack of permanent employment elsewhere  Contingent faculty were more motivated As an avenue for full-time employment at this institution  Contingent faculty were more motivated 15
  • Significant Differences Pressure from my peers  Contingent faculty were more motivated For the professional connections with faculty  Contingent faculty were more motivated For the social connections with faculty  Contingent faculty were more motivated For the social connections with students  Contingent faculty were more motivated 16
  • Concluding Thoughts Community and Connection Managing Expectations Orientation & Faculty Development Recruitment & Retention 17