This document summarizes a study on the motivations of contingent faculty to teach online courses. The study found that both tenured and contingent faculty were most motivated by flexible schedules and self-satisfaction. Contingent faculty were more motivated by opportunities for career advancement and employment, while tenured faculty prioritized intellectual stimulation. The results indicate administrators should focus on building community and managing expectations to better recruit and retain contingent online instructors.

1. Capturing the Heart of the
Online Instructor:
Motivations to Teach
Diane Chapman, NC State University
Sophia Stone, Duke University
1

2. 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

3. Contingent Faculty - Definition
People 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

4. 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

5. 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

6. Benefits and Challenges
Benefits
For institution:
 Flexible staffing model
 Practitioner expertise
 Costs 36% less to educate a student
 Cost-effective staffing model
 Addresses insecure funding for DE programs
6

7. Benefits and Challenges
Challenges
For institution:
 High turnover rate
 Compensation inequity
 Institutional demand
 Retention
 Morale
 “Market Model”
 Student services may suffer: advising, mentoring
7

8. About the Study
•What motivates the contingent faculty to
teach distance education courses?
•Is there a difference between what
motivates tenure-track instructors versus
contingent instructors?
8

9. 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

10. 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

11. Limitations
 One university
 Snapshot
 Self-report
11

12. 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

13. Results: Top Motivators
Tenured & 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

14. Results: Lowest Motivators
Tenured & 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

15. 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

16. 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

17. Concluding Thoughts
Community and Connection
Managing Expectations
Orientation & Faculty Development
Recruitment & Retention
17