Skip to main content
Log in

Ignis Fatuus Effect of Faculty Category: Is the Tenure Versus Non-Tenure Debate Meaningful to Students’ Course Experiences?

  • Published:
Innovative Higher Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The American professoriate is shifting its majority makeup from tenure track to non-tenure track faculty members. Less known, though, is what the implications of this shift are for students’ course experiences. We sought to examine the extent to which the teaching practices, with regard to academic rigor and cognitively responsive teaching, differ between faculty category using observational measures of teaching in the classroom. We found that broad categorizations of faculty may not be meaningful unless they are examined in particular contexts, such as discipline and class size.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. For a detailed description of the observational protocol, including training, rubric tuning, and validation, contact the corresponding author.

References

  • Alexander, P. A., & Winne, P. H. (2006). Handbook of educational psychology. Mahwah, N.J: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2004). Entering the mainstream: The quality and extent of online education in the United States, 2003 and 2004. Sloan Consortium. Newburyport, MA: Sloan.

  • Astin, A. W. (1993). What matters in college? Four critical years revisited. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • Ballantyne, R., Bain, J., & Packer, J. (1999). Researching university teaching in Australia: Themes and issues in academics’ reflections. Studies in Higher Education, 24, 237–257.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benjamin, E. (2002). How over-reliance on contingent appointments diminishes faculty involvement in student learning. Peer Review, 5(1), 4–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biglan, A. (1973). Relationships between subject matter characteristics and the structure and output of university departments. Journal of Applied Psychology, 57, 204–213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bloom, B. S., Englehart, M. B., Furst, E. J., Hill, W. H., & Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives, the classification of educational goals – Handbook I: Cognitive domain. New York, NY: McKay.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.). (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

  • Brint, S. (2011). Focus on the classroom: Movements to reform college teaching, 1980-2008. In J. C. Hermanowicz (Ed.), The American academic profession: Transformation in contemporary higher education (pp. 44–91). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, C. M. (2017). An inside view: The utility of quantitative observation in understanding college educational experiences. Journal of College Student Development, 58, 290–299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, C. M., & Dortch, D. (in press). Reconsidering academic rigor: Posing and supporting rigorous course practices at two research institutions. Teachers College Record.

  • Campbell, C. M., & O’Meara, K. (2014). Faculty agency: Departmental contexts that matter in faculty careers. Research in Higher Education, 55, 49–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Centra, J. A. (2003). Will teachers receive higher student evaluations by giving higher grades and less course work? Research in Higher Education, 44, 495–518.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cicchetti, D. V. (1994). Guidelines, criteria, and rules of thumb for evaluating normed and standardized assessment instruments in psychology. Psychological Assessment, 6, 284–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, B. (1987). The academic life: Small worlds, different worlds. Princeton, NJ: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.

    Google Scholar 

  • Figlio, D. N., Schapiro, M. O., & Soter, K. B. (2015). Are tenure track professors better teachers? Review of Economics and Statistics, 97, 715–724.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fruscione, J. (2014, July 25). When colleges rely on adjuncts, it’s the students who lose. PBS News Hour. Retrieved from http://www.pbs.org/newshour/making-sense/when-a-college-contracts-adjunctivitis-its-the-students-who-lose/

  • Hallgren, K. A. (2012). Computing inter-rater reliability for observational data: an overview andtutorial. Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 8, 23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hancock, G. R., & Mueller, R. O. (Eds.). (2006). Structural equation modeling: A second course. Greenwich, CT: Information Age.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ignis fatuus (2015). In Merriam-Webster.com . Retrieved from http://www.merriam-webster.com/

  • 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.

  • Jung, I., & Rha, I. (2000). Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of online education: A review of the literature. Educational Technology, 40(4), 57–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kezar, A. J. (2012). Embracing non-tenure track faculty: Changing campuses for the new faculty majority. Florence, KY: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kezar, A., & Sam, C. (2010). Special Issue: 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kezar, A., & Sam, C. (2011). Understanding tenure track faculty: New assumptions and theories for conceptualizing behavior. American Behavioral Scientist, 55, 1419–1442.

  • Kuh, G. D., Laird, T. F. N., & Umbach, P. D. (2004). Aligning faculty activities & student behavior: Realizing the promise of greater expectations. Liberal Education, 90(4), 24–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lohr, S. L. (2009). Sampling: Design and analysis (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.

    Google Scholar 

  • Milem, J. F., Umbach, P. D., & Liang, C. T. (2004). Exploring the perpetuation hypothesis: The role of colleges and universities in desegregating society. Journal of College Student Development, 45, 688–700.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neumann, A. (2014). Staking a claim on learning: What we should know about learning in higher education and why. The Review of Higher Education, 37, 249–267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neumann, A., & Campbell, C. (2016). Homing in on learning and teaching. Current approaches and future directions for higher education policy. In M. Bastedo, P. Altbach, R. Berdahl, & P. Gumport (Eds.), American higher education in the 21st century (pp. 401–431). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neumann, A., & Terosky, A. L. (2007). To give and to receive: Recently tenured professors' experiences of service in major research universities. The Journal of Higher Education, 78, 282–310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O'Meara, K., Terosky, A. L., & Neumann, A. (2008). Faculty careers and work lives: A professional growth perspective. ASHE Higher Education Report, 34(3), 1–221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (2005). How college affects students: Findings and insights from twenty years of research. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stallings, J. A., & Mohlman, G. G. (1988). Classroom observation techniques. In J. P. Keves (Ed.), Educational research, methodology, and measurement: An international handbook (pp. 469–474). Oxford, England: Pergamon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Umbach, P. D. (2007). How effective are they? Exploring the impact of contingent faculty on undergraduate education. Review of Higher Education, 30, 91–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waxman, H. C., Tharp, R. G., & Hilberg, R. S. (Eds.). (2004). Observational research in US classrooms: New approaches for understanding cultural and linguistic diversity. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by a National Academy of Education/Spencer Foundation fellowship.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jessica Ostrow Michel.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Michel, J.O., Chadi, D., Jimenez, M. et al. Ignis Fatuus Effect of Faculty Category: Is the Tenure Versus Non-Tenure Debate Meaningful to Students’ Course Experiences?. Innov High Educ 43, 201–216 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-017-9420-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-017-9420-0

Keywords

Navigation