PHAM 2017 - Assessment Institute: IUPUI
Transcript of PHAM 2017 - Assessment Institute: IUPUI
Reporting Strategies of Full-Time Faculty Adequacy for Regional Accreditation
Nhung Pham, Ph.D. - University of Central Missouri • Valerie Paton, Ph.D. - Texas Tech University
Abstract
Adequacy of full-time faculty is an indicator utilized by all regional accreditors in the United States to ensure quality instruction. In order to demon- strate compliance with accreditors’ requirements related to adequacy of full- time faculty, institutions need to assess this requirement in light of their institutional missions. This research study analyzed self-study documents submitted by 18 institutions during their SACSCOC regional reaffirmation of accreditation processes conducted in 2014 and 2015. Three major components of self-study report (faculty characteristics, institutional assessment measures of full-time faculty, and faculty responsibilities) and recommendations are discussed to support institutional examination of the reaffirmation of accreditation requirement.
Results The analysis of 18 participant narratives identified three major themes: faculty characteristics, assessment measures of adequacy of full-time faculty to support the institution's mission, and faculty responsibilities.
Purpose of This Research The purpose of this study was to examine institutional responses to the SACSCOC 2.8 standard “The number of full-time faculty members is adequate to support the mission of the institution and to ensure the quality and integrity of each of its academic programs.”
Methodology A qualitative design was utilized to provide a deep understanding of the institutional narratives (Creswell, 2014). Institutional names were masked by assigning pseudonyms. To identify common themes in the 18 responses, manual coding and NVivo10, a qualitative research software platform, was used to code and categorize the qualitative data. Data Sampling
Conclusion This study examined 18 institutional self-studies submitted as evidence of compliance to a major U.S. regional accreditor. The findings indicated that the institutions used multiple institutional assessment measures to evidence the adequacy of full-time faculty to support the institutional mission, as well as the quality and integrity of academic programs. In addition, institutions provided diverse information related to faculty characteristics and responsibilities at their institutions, which was influenced by the nature of their degree-granting authority.
References Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Middaugh, M. F. (2002). Faculty productivity: Different strategies for different audiences. Planning for Higher Education, 30(3), 34-43
Pham, N. (2016). Adequacy in Faculty Standards of U.S. Regional Accreditation Commissions (Thesis). Retrieved from https://ttu-ir.tdl.org/ttu-ir/handle/2346/72747
Faculty Characteristics The content analysis of narratives identified a major theme related to how institutions described faculty groupings by utilizing common characteristics or terms such as “full-time”, “part-time faculty (Level I-IV) or tenured and non-tenured track faculty, and graduate student (Level V-VI). In addition, most institutions also provided the definition of different faculty types, the expected workload and faculty qualifications and credentials. The table summarizes the faculty characteristics that emerged from the analysis of the data across all six institutional levels.
Faculty Characteristics Level I Level II Level III Level IV Level V Level VI
Full-time x x x x x x Credentials/Qualifications x x x x Workload x x x Part-time x x x Adjunct x x x Graduate faculty x x Full-time undergraduate x Tenured and Non-tenured x Instructional and non-instructional x
Ranked and non-ranked x Special appointment x Regular full-time x Temporary full-time x Others E&G,
Institutional Assessment Measures The institutions used many different assessment measures to provide evidence that the number of full-time faculty was adequate to support the institution’s mission. The table summarizes the assessment measures used to document the adequacy of full-time faculty.
Faculty adequacy Level I Level II Level III Level IV Level V Level VI
Course and section size x x
Teaching overload x x Total number of faculty headcount x x x x
% of credit hours taught by full-time and part- time faculty
Distance Education, Sections, Credit proportion production by full-time faculty
x Program x
Distance Education, college/ department, Tenured & non-tenured, grad student, undergrad and grad,
Student to faculty ratios x Program x x x By discipline Peer review (program accreditation, internal program review)
x State requirements; report & faculty growth
Predictive Modeling x
Other measures Institutional Effectives process
Faculty responsibilities Level I Level II Level III Level IV Level V Level VI
Instruction (professional service)
Distance, Dual credit, developmental studies
Distance Learning x x x Regional teaching
sites
Academic advisement x
Service Committee, Organization College Institution Institution Community, institution
Advanced research x Assessment of student learning x
Program assessment x
Student performance Grades, passing rate, employment, satisfaction
Student satisfaction Student satisfaction,
instruction
Curriculum x x
Professional development Adjunct x Graduate student, quality assurance
Research and scholarly activity x Source: Pham (2016). Adequacy in Faculty Standards of U.S.
Regional Accreditation
Recommendations The characteristics of faculty and instructional personnel were found to be quite diverse depending upon the institution mission and characteristics. Multiple measures are needed to provide a comprehensive and deep understanding of how the institution is fulfilling its mission. The findings from this study and related literature suggest four recommendations for institutional assessment measures of adequacy of full-time faculty.
1. Student-to-full-time faculty ratio at the institutional, college,
program and discipline levels; 2. Percentage of credit hours taught by full-time faculty at the
institutional, college, program and discipline levels; 3. Analysis of institutional, college, program and discipline data
by full-time and part-time faculty categories: headcounts, average course loads; average class sizes, student credit hour generation, undergraduate and graduate students, etc.;
4. Use of full-time faculty equivalents (FTFE) obscures the analysis of adequacy of full-time faculty;
5. Additional measures should be utilized to link analysis to student learning outcomes; peer review (program accreditation and program reviews); faculty workload policies; institutional policies, plans and predictive models related to expected ratios of full-time faculty to student headcounts.
Faculty Responsibilities The table summarizes the major responsibilities for faculty and instructional personnel. An “x” has been used to indicate regular instruction; however, if institutions provided specific details about other types of instruction (e.g.,dual credit or distance education),this is noted in words.
1 1 2 2
4
8
IV V II III VI I
No. of Degrees Offered by Level of Colleges
Level of Institutions
Deg
ree
Off
ered
M
aste
r's D
egre
es &
Edu
catio
n S
peci
alis
t Deg
rees
Thre
e or
Few
er
Doc
tora
l Deg
rees
Bac
cala
urea
te D
egre
es
Mas
ter's
Deg
rees
Four
or M
ore
D
octo
ral D
egre
es
Ass
ocia
te D
egre
es