by Alejandra Picard
The rapid and seemingly unabated growth in the number of part-time instructors teaching college courses throughout the country has significantly increased the need for a comprehensive and accurate assessment of the impact adjuncts are having on higher education. Adjuncts currently represent approximately two-thirds of educators at degree-granting institutions within the United Sates, with the most rapid growth represented in distance education courses (Bergom & Waltman, 2009; Puzziferro, 2004). This trend has re-ignited the long-standing debate about the role of the adjunct, including how they are incorporated into institutions and compensated for their work. In addition, it has raised new concerns about the potential impact the “overuse” of part-time, or temporary, faculty may have on the quality of higher education in America. The purpose of this paper is to provide a snapshot of the current state of the adjunct, including an overview of some of the positive aspects of this trend, issues of concern that it raises, and areas of uncertainty that are in need of further investigation.
Those that have been paying attention to trends in higher education have undoubtedly noticed that the reliance on adjuncts to teach college courses has increased sharply and quickly in recent years. The reasons for this increase are fairly clear. First, part-time faculty satisfy several instructional needs in a cost effective way. They allow institutions to fill instructional gaps when more courses are offered than can be taught by full-time faculty, as well as allow for greater departmental flexibility (Bergom & Waltman, 2009). Furthermore, they make it possible for a college or university to expand online programs to meet demand (Carnevale, 2004). Adjuncts also tend to have professional work experience in their field, and are therefore regularly praised by administrators as bringing “real world experience” into the classroom, able to demonstrate the application of course content in practical ways (Bergom & Waltman, 2009; Carnevale, 2004; Garii & Petersen, 2005). Current research also indicates that there are many aspects of being an adjunct that are highly valued. Most appreciated is the degree of flexibility and autonomy commonly experienced by the adjunct (Bergom & Waltman, 2009; Carnevale, 2004; Williams, 2009). Individuals are able to work independently and set their own schedules, which is particularly valuable for those balancing family and work. In addition, educators who wish to solely focus on teaching are able to do so as they do not have the added pressure of meeting departmental research and/or publication demands or expectations (Bergom & Waltman, 2009; Williams, 2009). A recent development, the high demand of online instructors, also represents a particularly comfortable and potentially lucrative niche for some adjuncts. This is because, in addition to setting one’s own schedule and working exclusively from home, one is able to take on as many courses as one wishes since there is no limit to the number of institutions one can work for (Carvnevale, 2004). Therefore, for those willing to put in the hours, there is the potential for high earnings. Unfortunately, this opportunity, which may be perceived as quite positive by adjuncts, is also one of the many causes for concern.
It is no secret that adjuncts are (for the most part) underpaid, with an average salary of $20,000 or less (Williams, 2009). For those who have full-time jobs in their professional fields, teaching to supplement their income or simply for the love of teaching, this may not represent much of a problem. However, for those who solely rely on the money they receive from their course-load, it represents a significant problem with serious consequences and is an area of focus for critics concerned about the impact adjuncts may be having on the quality of higher education. The current rate of compensation encourages adjuncts to take on large teaching loads, which reduces the amount of time an instructor can dedicate to course development and student assessment (Pannapacker, 2000). Because it is often the case that adjuncts teach at more than one college, and are likely to be transient, they are less integrated into their institution(s). This too has implications; for instance, they are likely to spend less time with students and colleagues than full-time faculty. They are also less likely to have a comprehensive grasp of their institution’s mission, values, and expectations, as well as being less likely to know the basic functions, resources, and structures of the college. It has been argued that these tendencies could result in frustration among students who may feel neglected and uninformed (Pannapacker, 2000). More concerning indicators that the reliance on adjuncts may indeed be having a negative impact on higher education can be found in recent research investigating student drop out rates and student assessment. Specifically, it has been found that students are more likely to drop out of “high stakes gate keeper courses” if they are taught by part-time faculty (Glenn, 2008). It has also been found that adjuncts grade students more leniently than due full-time faculty, which has been of particular interest in the grade inflation debate (Kezim, Pariseau, & Quinn, 2005).
Though discussions warning of the disastrous effect adjuncts may have on higher education are large in number, it is important to keep in mind that comprehensive quantitative research on the matter is sparse at best. Research findings, such as those provided in the above discussion, are largely correlational. This is significant because one can not conclusively determine a cause and effect relationship among the variables of interest, in this case, the adjunct as an instructor and student success and assessment. There is little doubt that more rigorous quantitative studies must be done in order to get a clearer picture of the impact adjuncts are having on higher education. However, this objective is complicated by the challenging nature of this research area. Also complicating the matter is the reality that this trend is still relatively new, particularly when one considers the development of distance education. This means that we are in uncharted territory, perhaps ignoring issues and questions that should be addressed, but are not yet readily apparent.
References
Bergom, I. & Waltman, J. (2009). Satisfaction and discontent: voices of non-tenure-
track faculty. On Campus with Women, 37 (3). Retrieved from
http://www.aacu.org/ocww/volume37_3/feature.cfm?section=2
Carnevale, D. (2004, April 30). For Online Adjuncts, a Seller's Market. The Chronicle of Higher
Education, 50 (34).
Garii, B. & Petersen, N. (2005). Adjuncts happen: strong faculty; weak system. Academic
Exchange Quarterly, 9 (2). 285-290.
Glenn, D. (2008, April 4). Keep Adjuncts Away From Intro Courses, Report Says. The Chronicle
of Higher Education, 54 (30).
Kezim, B., Pariseau, S., & Quinn, F. (2005). Is grade inflation related to faculty status? Journal
of Education for Business, 80 (6), 358-364.
Pannapacker, W. (2000, December 1). The Adjunct Rip-off: 10 Reasons Why the Use of
Adjuncts Hurts Students. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from
http://chronicle.com/article/The-Adjunct-Rip-off-10-Rea/46365/
Puzziferro, M. (2004). Online adjunct faculty: issues & opportunities. Academic Exchange
Quarterly, 8 (3).
No comments:
Post a Comment