STUDY BACKGROUND

A major finding of the Liberal Arts Core

Assessment Task Force convened by Provost

Wacker between Spring 2013-Spring 2014 was

that adjunct faculty teach the majority of LAC

courses at UNC. Yet our institution knew very

little about adjuncts’ understanding of how the

specific courses they teach fit into that

curriculum, or their understanding of the nature

and purposes of the LAC curriculum as a whole.

Even less was known about adjuncts’ interest in

and commitment to LAC teaching and student

learning, rather than teaching students about

the specific academic disciplines in which they

are trained. Results from the UCLA Faculty

Survey administered at UNC in 2013/14, and

comments from various informal meetings

convened by the Task Force, also suggested

that some full-time faculty, staff and

administrators had concerns about whether

adjuncts are adequately prepared and

supported in their LAC teaching. Whether that

concern was warranted was also unclear, as the

campus has not collected comparative data

about either course design, delivery and

assessment practices or student learning

outcomes in core courses taught by adjuncts

versus those taught be full time (tenure, tenure-

track or contract renewable) faculty.

CETLCETL

Here are the key findings in relation to the bulleted goals identified to the left:

LAC teaching and learning goals and expectations are not well communicated to adjunct faculty.

Adjunct faculty know relatively little about the role of their specific courses and the more general purposes of the LAC as a whole.

Adjunct faculty are motivated by a desire to enhance students’ general education (understood as broadly distributed content learning combined with general intellectual skills).

Adjuncts are unsure about how much students learn from the LAC curriculum, and most are unsure about how or whether this learning can be meaningfully assessed.

Adjuncts do not feel adequately prepared and supported in their LAC teaching at UNC.

Adjuncts are interested in faculty development, and many would like to be part of an LAC teaching community.

Does Core Teaching and Learning Matter to Adjuncts at UNC? The answer to this question is a more qualified yes. Adjunct faculty enjoy sharing disciplinary knowledge with students and are committed to broadening students’ minds and cultivating their general intellectual skills. However, they have limited awareness of the specific LAC goals for the areas in which they teach, and do not specifically align their course outcomes with those goals. This lack of intentional alignment appears to stem more from lack of awareness than from concerns about the appropriateness of the goals themselves, and in fact, many adjuncts seem eager to have more guidance about what to emphasize in the courses they teach, as well as about how to engage students more effectively. In all of these ways, too, adjunct attitudes appear quite similar to those of the full time faculty. They are certainly not hostile to the LAC curriculum, but the fact that their courses happen to be part of that curriculum does not seem to make a significant impact on how they think about those courses or their motivation to engage in teaching work.

To answer these questions two methods of data collection were used. The first was an anonymous, online survey distributed to all adjunct faculty members. The second method was a series of focus group interviews designed to gather data about adjuncts’ actual experiences.

The target study population included any faculty member classified as having adjunct teaching status who delivered at least one LAC course in the fall of 2014. A total of 68 eligible participants were identified. Of those, 23 (34% of the target population) completed the online survey, and 12 (18% of the target population) participated in interviews.

Interviews were conducted in October, November and December of 2014. Because survey participationwas completely anonymous, there was no way to track whether participants who completed the survey also participated in an interview. In the end, we were able to conduct two group sessions (one with five participants, and another with four), each containing participants from several different Core Committees. The remaining three participants completed one-on-one interviews.

It was anticipated that potential participants might be difficult to reach by phone, due to variable adjunct teaching schedules and locations. However, what was surprising was the general breadth and degree of disconnect between the university and adjunct faculty members.

For example, when study recruitment calls were made to several departments, calls were not always picked up, or were transferred to the wrong extension, or to an extension with no personal identification, or there would be no record of their employment, despite HR records to the contrary.

Sometimes, department personnel would have no listed contact tel # for an adjunct, and did not know how to reach the instructor directly. In a few cases, an adjunct would have no voice mail box of their own. In summary, 15 different academic departments either had no personal phone extensions or voicemailboxes available for individual instructors, transferred me to incorrect or non-working extensions, or literally did not know of the individuals I asked for, despite their active working status, according to campus HR. (Michael Weddington)

To generate additional program-level data that could be included in HLC accreditation visit materials, and used by the Liberal Arts Council in decision-making about the LAC. More specific goals included:

• understanding what adjuncts know about the role of their individual courses within the LAC, and howhiring departments and the Liberal Arts Council communicate with adjuncts about LAC courses• understanding the motivations that lead adjuncts to teach LAC courses at UNC• understanding how adjuncts assess student learning in their courses• Identifying any gaps in adjunct knowledge and training for general undergraduate teaching (distinctfrom gaps in their knowledge of the LAC), and• assessing adjuncts’ level of interest in faculty development activities and/or being part of a LACteaching community.These goals can be grouped broadly under two main study questions: What is the experience of adjunctsteaching LAC courses? and Does core — as opposed to disciplinary — teaching matter to adjuncts at UNC?

PURPOSES and GOALS

METHODS FINAL NOTE: RECRUITMENT ISSUES

CONCLUSIONS (Cont.)FINDINGS

Adjunct Teaching in the LAC at UNCAdjunct Teaching in the LAC at UNCNancy J. Matchett, PhD (Associate Professor of Philosophy, Member of the 2014-15 LAC

Assessment Task Force)Michael Weddington, HESAL Doctoral Student (CETL Graduate Assistant)

What is the experience of adjuncts teaching LAC courses at UNC?

Results from this study suggest it is quite similar to that of UNC’s full time faculty: while there is little campus-wide communication regarding the specific goals and expectations embedded in the LAC, there is a strong commitment to providing a broad general education. Like the full time faculty, adjuncts have concerns about how successful UNC is in fulfilling this mission, especially with respect to writing. Also like the fulltime faculty, adjuncts are unsure about the extent to which more rigorous assessment practices might improve the situation, and areconcerned that many of our students seem to lack adequate time (due primarily to the need to work fulltimejobs in addition to carrying a full-credit load) and/or adequate preparation for college-level work. Manyadjuncts genuinely enjoy the teaching they do and are ghenuinely interested in learning to do it better; however, they do not feel adequately supported in their work or deeply connected to the campus.

CONCLUSIONS