Adjunct Faculty Retention

Fall 2008

2

Table of Contents

Team Members………………………………………………………………… 3 Background…………………………………………………………………….. 4 Project Statement………………………………………………………………. 6 Operational Definitions………………………………………………………... 7 Adjunct Faculty at CMC……………………………………………………….. 9 How Many Do We Have? ……………………………………………… 9 Continuing Adjuncts and New Hires……………………………………. 10 Credit Load: Full Time and Adjunct Faculty…………………………….. 11 Keys to Adjunct Retention……………………………………………………... 12 AQIP Criteria Applied to Adjunct faculty Retention…………………………… 14 Survey of Current Adjunct Faculty and Instructional Supervisors……………… 15 Methodology……………………………………………………………. 15 About the Adjunct Faculty Respondents………………………………... 16 Why Do They Teach for CMC?…………………………………………. 17 Why Would They Stop Teaching for CMC?..................................................... 18 Support Areas for Adjunct Faculty……………………………………… 19 Feedback from Instructional Supervisors……………………………….. 20 Current CMC Practices………………………………………………………… 21 View of Current Processes……………………………………………………... 23 Improvement Theory………………………………………………………….. 25 Communication…………………………………………………………. 25 Orientation Processes…………………………………………………… 26 Professional Development………………………………………………. 28 Return on Investment and Recommendations…………………………………. 30 Gantt Chart: Implementation & Follow Up……………………………………. 32 Steering Committee Feedback…………………………………………………. 33 Acknowledgements……………………………………………………………. 34 References……………………………………………………………………… 35 Appendix……………………………………………………………………….. 36

2007/08 Faculty Counts and Totals by Site & Position Type (FT/PT) & Cumulative Credit Adjunct Faculty Survey and Instructional Supervisor Survey Full Size Charts Survey Raw Data

3

Team members

Dave Askeland, M.A, Division Director, Summit Campus, Team Leader Linda English, C.P.A., Chief Finance Officer

Bruce Kime, Ph.D., Associate Professor, Recreation, Roaring Fork Campus Skip Lee, M.S., Assistant Campus Dean of Student Services, Timberline Campus

Jen McGill, B.S., Human Resources Generalist, Team Scribe David Reker, A.A., Physical Plant Manager, Roaring Fork Campus

Team Co-Sponsors

Kelly Johnson, Chief Human Resources Officer Sam Skramstad, A.S., Director of Facilities

4

Background This AQIP team started with a 1,000 acre field of “Employee Recruitment and Retention.” We quickly determined that this was just too much and we would have to focus on either recruitment or retention. Other groups were currently in the process of looking at the recruitment side of this, so our team chose to look at employee retention. As a team we began to discuss issues related to keeping good employees in all areas of the college – faculty, staff, and administration. Defining the five acre field to work on was difficult for the team so we decided to focus in on what we thought might give us the “biggest bang for the buck” on a college wide basis and that was adjunct faculty retention. At Colorado Mountain College, adjuncts teach 72% of the college-wide credit hours compared with the 28% of the credit hours taught by full time faculty. Nationally the statistics are close to the same. Community Colleges rely heavily on adjunct faculty to meet the demands of enrollment and provide flexibility in course offerings. It is, therefore, important to retain qualified and committed adjunct faculty in order to provide quality education to our students. There are two ways to look at the total adjunct faculty population at CMC. Our Institutional Research department is able to tell us that 66% of our total faculty members at CMC are adjuncts noted as the instructor of record of the course. Reports through the payroll system show us that those who are paid through adjunct account numbers make up 85 – 87 % of the total faculty at CMC. These figures include the instructor of record, instructors who may be “team teaching,” assistant instructors, and teaching assistants. Whichever way you view the numbers as the “right” way, this population is significant and important in the delivery of instruction to our students. We are able to see that each semester, up to 14% of the people on the adjunct payroll are newly hired. Although we do not have the data as to what percent of these new faculty are teaching a newly offered class, it is known that adjuncts come and go each semester. The hiring process related to turnover is time and money intensive. Direct costs associated with turnover include advertising and interviewing, while one of the most expensive indirect costs is training of new adjunct faculty. Considering the College’s heavy reliance on adjunct faculty to deliver instruction to our students, and the necessary time spent by instructional supervisors recruiting and

5

retaining them, it is vital to our interest to create effective and efficient retention strategies. These strategies include or improve upon such important areas as: evaluation and feedback, appropriate training, orientation and professional development opportunities, adequate salary, access to technology and teaching materials, flexibility of schedule, relationships with full time faculty and staff, adequate work space, benefits, and strong leadership. Through improved retention processes and ongoing efforts to provide adjunct faculty with the tools, incentives and motivation to teach courses at Colorado Mountain College, retention of adjunct faculty should improve college-wide. Later in this report, our team will provide recommendations on how to increase the retention rate of adjunct faculty.

6

Project Statement

The Recruitment and Retention Team will work to improve adjunct faculty retention. Our first five acre parcel focuses on issues related to adjuncts continuing their role at CMC which includes communication and instructional support, orientation processes, and professional development. This team will make recommendations related to these areas that can be implemented immediately and recommendations for future teams to develop further. Success will be measured by improvements in these areas as evidenced through ongoing adjunct faculty surveys and exit interviews. Our goal, over time, is to see a decrease in the percentage of newly hired adjuncts each semester.

7

Operational Definitions Faculty At CMC, this refers to a person employed on a contract basis to provide educational instruction to students through academic and workforce/technical programs and courses. Adjunct Faculty In this document, the term “adjunct faculty” shall apply to temporary appointments extended to persons of satisfactory professional qualifications who perform temporary teaching functions. Such persons are appointed for one academic term at a time and possess no continuing contractual relationship with the college. Persons with adjunct appointments are typically employed with a maximum load of 11 credits during any one semester. Part time is considered synonymous with adjunct. Included within this group are those who provide instructional support such as assistant instructors and teaching assistants. Full Time Faculty Full time faculty are employed for a 170 day annual contract and have an implied workweek of at least 40 hours and are fully benefited employees of the College. Full time contracted faculty members are typically assigned a teaching load of 30 credit hours or 600 instructional contact hours during the academic year. The balance of time is dedicated to professional service activities, which would include but are not limited to: course, program and curriculum development; course preparations; college committee and/or senate preparation; academic advising; professional development; community activity on behalf of the College, and student activity sponsorship. Release time may be given for certain responsibilities. Retention In this document, the term “retention” shall be defined as remaining employed by the College in the same role for more than one semester.

8

CFI (Council for Instruction) CFI is a group of instructional supervisors, certain faculty, and other administrators who have responsibilities in instruction, such as the Vice President of Instruction, Dean of Arts and Science, etc., who meet on a regular basis. This group makes decisions and recommendations regarding college-wide instructional matters. The regular meeting schedule of this group also provides a networking opportunity for those who administer instruction throughout CMC. Instructional Supervisor An Instructional Supervisor at CMC is one who administers instruction and supervises full time and/or adjunct faculty. Positions that would fall into this category would be Division Directors, Faculty Chairs, Instructional Chairs, Assistant Campus Deans of Instruction, and certain program coordinators.

9

Adjunct Faculty at CMC

How Many Do We Have?

According to data taken from the CMC payroll system, individuals in an adjunct role represent 85 – 87% of the total CMC faculty during the academic year. This includes all individuals paid through an adjunct faculty account number. In addition to the instructor of record, these figures include those who provide instructional support, such as assistant instructors and teaching assistants.

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

04 05 05 06 06 07 07 08 08 09

FTFall ADJSpg ADJSmr ADJ

Faculty Members 04-05 05-06 06-07 07-08 08-09 Full Time 81 95 91 97 98

Fall Adjunct 549 568 550 567 597 Spring Adjunct 580 566 550 578 TBD

Summer Adjunct 316 318 263 338 TBD

10

Adjunct Faculty by Semester: Continuing Adjuncts and New Hires

The percentage of newly hired adjuncts versus returning adjuncts varies each semester from 5 – 14% (25 – 65 people). The highest percentage typically occurs each fall. Again, this information was gained through the CMC payroll system, which includes all individuals paid through an adjunct faculty account number. In addition to the instructor of record, these figures include those who provide instructional support, such as assistant instructors and teaching assistants.

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

F 04 SP 05 SU 05 F 05 SP 06 SU 06 F 06 SP 07 SU 07 F 07 SP 08 SU 08 F 08

Total AdjNew Hires

Adjunct New Hires: by Semester

Fall semester: 11.2 – 14.3% Spring: 9.6 – 12.8% Summer: 5.5 – 10%

Though we have what seems a relatively low number of new hires each semester, 30% of the adjuncts who responded to a survey from this team reported being with CMC for five semesters or less (survey feedback follows).

11

Credit Load: Full Time and Adjunct Faculty, Academic Year 07-08

Adjunct faculty members play a significant role in delivering instruction for our students. They are responsible for 72% of the total credit hours taught college-wide. These numbers were obtained by the Institutional Research Department and were pulled from the instructor of record field. These numbers represent the 2007/08

academic year, all semesters. Raw data is available in the appendix.

Full time vs. Adjunct Faculty Count and Credit Load

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

Aspen

Brecke

nridg

e

Carbon

dale

Chaffe

eDillo

n

Distan

ce

Grand J

acks

on

Glenwoo

d

Lead

ville

Rifle

Steambo

at

Spring

Valley

Vail/E

agle

Totals

Location

Perc

enta

ge: 1

equ

als

100%

Percent of Adjunct facultyPercent of Adjunct CreditsPercent of FT facultyPercent of FT Credits

12

Keys to Adjunct Retention

Team discussions of the key elements of retaining adjunct faculty members resulted in the two following illustrations of cause and effect. The Relationship Diagram below highlights Communication/Feedback/Evaluation and Adequate Orientation as the

strongest causes for adjunct faculty retention.

Flexibility of Schedule

C – 4 E– 4

Adequate Orientation C – 6 E– 2

Relationship with Faculty

& Staff C – 4 E –4

Commitment to Teaching C – 3 E – 7

Professional Development Opportunities C – 1 E – 7

Communication Feedback

Evaluation C – 7 E – 2

Adequate Pay & Benefits

C – 3 E – 3

Adequate & Appropriate Resources

C – 4 E – 3

C = Cause E = Effect

13

The Fishbone Diagram below details each major category of causes and then lists sub-

causes under each. It organizes our brainstorming session in a visual way.

Retention of Adjunct

Faculty

Flexible Schedule Adequate Orientation

Relationship with Faculty and Staff

Realistic

Convenient

Advance Notice

Choices

Timely

Thorough

Relevant

Mentorship

Inclusive

Welcoming

Positive Attitude

Appreciation

Part of Team

Understand Student Development Care about Students

Passion Preparation

Subject Matter Expert Learning Mentality

Motivation

Professional Development Opportunities

Communication/ Feedback/ Evaluation

Adequate Pay and Benefits

AvailableResources

Awareness Funding

Relevance

Convenient

Accountability

Motivation

Strong Leadership Timely

Relevant Consistent

Comprehensive Multiple Methods

Formative Summative

Competitive Relevant to Cost of Living

Awareness of Benefits Meaningful Flexible

Health Insurance Benefit Options

Financial Resources Teaching Tools

Technology Office Space

Access Training

Mentors

Commitment to Teaching

14

AQIP Criteria Applied to Adjunct Faculty Retention

AQIP Quality Criteria Project Relationship UNDERSTANDING STUDENTS' AND OTHER STAKEHOLDERS' NEEDS

Students expect the same quality of classroom instruction from an adjunct faculty as they do from a full time faculty. Focusing on the retention of good adjunct faculty supports the quality of the classroom instruction.

VALUING PEOPLE If adjunct faculty feel included, communicated with and valued they are more likely to continue teaching for the College.

SUPPORTING ORGANIZATIONAL OPERATIONS

The College needs to create an organizational support process that helps adjunct faculty contribute to an environment in which learning can thrive.

BUILDING COLLABORATIVE RELATIONSHIPS

Having a collaborative relationship with adjunct faculty will make them feel more a part of the College. The longer they are with us the easier it is to build relationships between adjuncts and full time faculty and Instructional Chairs.

HELPING STUDENTS LEARN Since most of the College’s courses are taught by adjunct faculty, it is essential that we support them so they can be effective in the classroom and help students learn. Retention recommendations in this report have direct impact on students in the classroom.

15

Survey of Current Adjunct Faculty and Instructional Supervisors

Methodology

The Retention Committee conducted two paper-form surveys, one each for adjunct faculty and instructional supervisors. The directions for each survey were aimed at the target group; however, the questions and topical areas were the same (see the appendix for the surveys). The surveys were anonymous, with no attempt made to identify participants by teaching discipline, instructional supervisor disciplines, or campus location. Adjunct faculty returned 124 surveys by the submission deadline. With 597 people included in the current adjunct payroll, this would represent a 20% response rate. Instructional Supervisors returned 15 surveys. Respondents included those with traditional program/supervision duties and a few faculty chair/coordinators. A comprehensive distribution of the surveys to these faculty supervisors at various campuses would have been helpful for data gathering purposes. However, due to the time constraints and lack of a comprehensive distribution system across the college to reach this group, data from faculty chair/coordinators is not fully represented. The total number of people with these responsibilities is not clear to the team; however, it was felt the 15 returned surveys represented the majority of appropriate CFI (Council for Instruction) members to be surveyed. The returned surveys were numbered and coded for entry into the data analysis process using Excel and SPSS. Each survey was numbered in the analysis process, in order that references could be made back to specific surveys for clarification purposes. The data was then entered into an Excel spreadsheet and transferred into SPSS format according to numic or qualitative coding. Numic data was further calculated as percentage categories. Qualitative data was listed as raw verbatim comments to capture each participant’s words. These comments were further coded into major theme categories and are presented in this report.

16

About the Adjunct Faculty Survey Respondents

Intentions as Adjunct

Continue as an adjunct, only

wanting to teach one semester a year.

3%

Continuing as an adjunct, but trying to teach the maximum number of classes

allowed each semester.

11%

Keep teaching part time with the aim to become a full time instructor at CMC.

37%

Continue as an adjunct, only

wanting to teach 1 class or 2 classes a

semester49%

How Many Semesters Teaching

5 or less semesters30%

6 to 10 semesters20%11 to 15 semesters

13%

15 to 20 semesters17%

21 or more semesters20%

17

Why Do They Teach for CMC?

Multiple Response, Why You Teach At CMC

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

All is great

Learning

CMC support is good

Need Money

Staff is good

Students

Love Teaching

18

Why Would They Stop Teaching for CMC? The adjunct faculty members were asked what would cause them to stop teaching for CMC. Responses below are grouped in categories of CMC related reasons and reasons outside of CMC and displayed side by side. Full size versions of these illustrations can be found in the appendix.

Why would you stop teaching at CMC - CMC Related Reasons

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

No supplies

Interpersonal conflict

Lack of faculty contact (Mentoring

Transport

Frustrated w ith students

Want to be Full Time

Lack of adequate support services

Lack of benefits

No Health coverage

The pay

Scheduling of classes

Classes not going (low enrollment

Raw Numbers

Why would you stop teaching at CMC - Relocation Reasons

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Retirement

Time

Relocating

To further youreducation

TransportationIssues

Cost of Living inthe area

Health Reasons

Family Reasons

For employment

Raw Numbers

19

Support Areas for Adjunct Faculty

The respondents to the survey were asked to comment on what areas of support would help adjunct retention. Multiple responses were allowed and reported in raw numbers. The comments were grouped into themes as illustrated below.

What Support Areas Need Improvement

0 5 10 15 20 25

Better Scheduling

Night class support

Safety

Need to have Benefits

Enrollment issues

Transportation costs

More full time positions

Better Janitorial Service

Better pay

Student retention

Help with supplies Equipment

More help with IT training support

More space, storage, office

More pedagogical/ departmental support

Better EDU Training Course

Recognition for Adjuncts

Better office/ admin support

General more support from CMC

Every thing is good, no complaints

Communication needs improvement

20

Feedback from Instructional Supervisors

Side by side below are snapshots of the feedback from the responding instructional supervisors and the responding adjunct faculty members. We have no doubt that the instructional supervisors work hard to connect with the adjunct faculty they employ. The instructional supervisors, however, have a slightly different perspective on why the adjuncts would stop teaching for CMC than what the adjuncts actually reported. Full size versions of these illustrations can be found in the appendix.

Instructional Supervisor Survey Why Adjuncts Leave All Reasons

0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00 80.00

Lack of adequate support services

Lack of faculty

Health

Interpersonal conflict

Transportation Issues

Scheduling of classes

Family Reasons

To further your education

Cost of Living in the area

The pay

Lack of benefits

No Health benefits

Classes not going

For employment

Percent of

Adjunct Survey, All reasons for Leaving

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

TransportInterpersonal conflict

Frustrated w ith studentsTime

RelocatingRetirement

Want to be Full TimeFacilities

Lack of faculty contact (MentoringTransportation Issues

CommunicationTraining

To further your educationLack of adequate support services

No Health coverageLack of benefits

Cost of Living in the areaThe pay

Health ReasonsFamily Reasons

Scheduling of classesFor employment

Classes not going

Percent of Responses

21

Current CMC Practices

Many of the current processes that appear to have an impact on the retention of adjunct faculty, such as communicating with them, supporting, orienting and developing them are the responsibility of each campus and instructional supervisor. This allows much flexibility for each campus and instructional supervisor, yet also creates a situation where the pitfalls of inconsistency are present. Communication Outside of campus processes, the team learned that a section of Blackboard is dedicated to communicating with adjunct faculty. Information and periodic letters are sent through this medium from the Vice President of Adjunct Affairs. Other ways to reach adjuncts are always being explored. The team learned that though the use of CMC email is expected of the adjunct faculty, many do not use it. Many adjunct faculty members prefer to communicate with their instructional supervisor and their students via other email accounts or other means of communication. Though they are supposed to be “required” to use CMC email, it is difficult to regulate, and therefore, it is hard to be sure they can be communicated with as a group. Orientation The team learned that though a face to face meeting between the adjunct faculty member and instructional supervisor is expected, there is not a college-wide standardized orientation process. The process is left to the discretion of the campus as to how it takes place and what information is included. Professional Development All adjunct faculty members are invited to participate in the two college-wide faculty in-services each year. They have been invited via their campuses as well as via their CMC email addresses. Attendance by adjuncts at these in-services is minimal. Adjuncts are eligible and may apply for the same professional development award as full time faculty, which is most often used for conference attendance. The total college-wide fund for this is currently $40,000. Grant funding is often available for special programs such as ESL (English as a Second Language) and Developmental Education. Other professional development activities and opportunities for adjunct faculty are campus decisions.

22

The Office of Innovations for Teaching and Learning provides training for faculty each semester in Blackboard, Smart boards, Elluminate, Virtual Library, Pedagogy Techniques, Social Bookmarking, Safe-Assign and the issues related to research design, plagiarism, and questioning techniques. The geography at CMC, with all the miles between each of our campuses, poses a constant challenge for centralized efforts. Evaluation process It is the understanding of the team that student evaluations are done regularly and at standardized intervals. The sharing of the information gained through the student evaluations and regular classroom observation of each of our adjunct faculty members, however, is an ongoing challenge. The challenge exists due to many factors ranging from daily competing priorities, the number of instructional supervisor positions that have been vacant and the length of time of these vacancies, the volume of adjunct faculty reporting to each, a lack of a consistent process and even a lack of consequences for instructional supervisors.

23

View of Current Processes

24

25

Improvement Theory Based on the data, feedback we have received, cause and effect relationship discussions, and related AQIP criteria, our team has developed recommendations which we believe can be implemented quickly, for little or no cost, and have a positive impact on adjunct retention. The team has also developed recommendations for projects for the consideration of future teams.

Communication and Instructional Support Literature regarding how to engage adjunct faculty supports the results we saw from our own adjunct faculty survey. In the area of communication most adjunct faculty tend to have little or no contact with their department beyond their classroom. However, in order for the adjunct to be effective they need to understand what is expected of them and how it fits into the department or college programs or goals. It is important to develop policies which integrate the adjunct faculty into the culture of the college. Though not intentional, adjunct faculty tend to feel left out or excluded. They are hired casually and are rarely reviewed by other faculty. Sometimes they do not have adequate office space, access to technology, or support services available to them. In order for adjunct faculty to be as effective in the classroom as full time faculty they must be treated with the same kind of respect. A student should not experience a difference in the quality of instruction between an adjunct and a full time faculty member. Adjunct faculty should also know enough about the institution that they can provide students with the support they need. Our survey results show adjunct faculty members are looking for better communication from the College in a variety of ways. Feedback on how they are doing in the classroom from both the students and their supervisor is desired first and foremost. Other things noted are more information about benefits available to them, professional development opportunities, and campus “happenings.” They want involvement in campus meetings, input on the class scheduling, and support services available to them. Orientation to college policies and procedures and classroom expectations also needs improvement. Beefing up our communication with adjuncts will go a long way in making them feel they are part of the college or campus.

26

The following recommendations can be done immediately:

1. An Adjunct Newsletter done twice a semester and mailed in their paycheck. 2. Exit interviews with adjunct faculty who taught one semester and are not

teaching the next semester. 3. Full time staff support for adjuncts in the early evening hours. 4. ID cards for adjunct faculty. 5. On-going annual surveys of adjunct faculty for feedback.

The following are additional recommendations for Instructional Supervisors to implement or continue:

• Seek input from adjuncts when scheduling classes. • Talk to adjuncts and get to know them. Identify their desired outcome of

working for CMC, so you can help them reach that goal. o Provide opportunities for faculty to share knowledge (regular

department meetings). o Involve adjuncts in appropriate campus level decisions. o Provide performance feedback (preferably twice a semester at a

minimum) These recommendations cannot be done immediately and will need another team to take a look at them:

• An adjunct faculty website • A standardized adjunct faculty evaluation system • A standardized adjunct faculty orientation process • A formalized professional development plan for adjunct faculty

The CMC survey also shows that 37% of our adjunct faculty would like to become full time faculty. The College should identify these individuals and work with them to develop them so they will be prepared to step into a full time position if one were to become available. It is far less costly in the long run to develop our own faculty over time than to bring someone in with no experience at the college.

Orientation Processes Research into “best practices” for an orientation program for adjunct faculty show many similarities among colleges who have made developing a successful orientation a priority. Following is a summary of the findings. Recommendations here cannot be

27

achieved immediately and would need to be acted on by future teams or other existing groups. Given the conditions of adjunct faculty employment, the use of orientation to integrate adjunct faculty into the educational programs is critical for the quality and consistency of students’ educational experiences. Adjunct faculty are all too often institutionally disconnected, some unaware of curriculum expectations and practices. A well designed adjunct faculty orientation can address the unique needs of these instructors and provide a successful integration into the college community. A strong adjunct orientation will provide a support system of peers, encouragement, information and an introduction to college principles and practices. The recommendations for developing and implementing a comprehensive adjunct orientation include the following suggestions:

• Check list to insure selected topics are covered • Continuous orientation follow up process/checking in • Mandatory or incentive for attendance • A full day committed to adjunct orientation • Adjunct office space, mail boxes, contact information • Set up time for new adjuncts to meet student services personnel in functional

areas • Library representative to review resources • Student learning styles/diverse learning • Service learning • Student code of conduct, disruption in the classroom and student

rights/responsibilities • FERPA • Technology in the classroom • Strategic direction- college-wide/campus • College/campus organizational structure • Any evaluation processes • Issuance of ID card (one-card for access) • Assign a mentor or a “go to” supportive colleague (in same courses or

discipline) • A closing that includes such things as a raffle, or presentation to campus

adjunct faculty member of the year • Evaluation by participants

28

The College should begin follow-up research related to adjunct faculty and their needs. Much work needs to be done here; however, one approach is to conduct research that “tracks” first year adjuncts over a period of semesters. This would provide a more comprehensive lens as to how their orientation and training needs change over time and to the success of the strategies.

Professional Development The team recommends one item for immediate implementation:

1. Ongoing professional development for instructional supervisors through CFI functions. Instructional supervisors will be better able to support the needs of the adjunct faculty (as well as full time faculty) with regular development opportunities on topics such as hiring practices, faculty evaluation, pedagogy, management, and so on. We recommend that these opportunities take place up to three times a semester.

The following areas could be their own 5 acre field within the category of professional development for adjunct faculty. They may not require a team, but may be able to be handled by existing groups:

• A systematic approach to offering a minimum of two professional development opportunities per semester on campus for the adjunct faculty. These should be offered at a time that they can attend (probably not the middle of the day).

• Consider offering adjunct faculty pay increases based on participation in professional development, overall department curriculum and assessment and/or involvement in college committees. Perhaps this would be in the form of a stipend if it is not on-going work.

• There are 37% of our adjunct faculty members who say they would like to become full time faculty for CMC. Develop a system to track adjunct faculty with full time intentions, and work with them to provide a career path that may lead to a full time position in the future. Invest in them and develop them.

• Explore mentoring opportunities with experienced full time faculty. This should be systematic so that these opportunities exist at all campuses for the adjunct faculty.

• Evaluate the use of the Effective Teaching Course and whether or not it should be required of all adjuncts to take. Develop a system to ensure adjunct faculty get some kind of training in effective teaching. According to our survey’s results, the Effective Teaching course may not be meeting the

29

needs of adjunct faculty. In some cases, other community colleges are offering multiple strands of modules for effective teaching related to several areas. These include multi-culturalism, pedagogy, and institutional culture. Experienced adjunct faculty members do not need the introductory orientation content that new faculty do. However, experienced faculty are interested in pedagogical-type trainings, including classroom teaching techniques and the use of various instructional technology mediums like SmartBoard and Blackboard. Other colleges and universities have Websites that offer a variety of orientation and training related resources, for both new and experienced faculty. The College might look at offering such resources in another format besides Blackboard, which for first-time users is more difficult to use than a traditional Website.

30

Return on Investment and Recommendations With adjunct faculty providing 72 % of instruction at Colorado Mountain College it is essential that we invest in them in order to provide an optimal learning environment for our students. Costs Associated with NOT retaining adjunct faculty The typical costs associated with adjunct faculty turnover include, but are not limited to: Direct costs:

1. Recruitment/marketing (ads, etc) 2. Application process and hiring (time, paperwork, references, etc) 3. Interview process (time, travel, etc.) 4. Orientation/training (personnel time, materials, travel, time off normal tasks,

etc.) 5. Mentoring (time) 6. Technology support and training (time, resources, etc)

Indirect Costs:

1. Productivity (loss of intellectual capital, knowledge, experience, etc.) 2. Morale (other adjuncts)

Opportunity Costs:

1. Loss of business (limited course offerings, etc) 2. Loss of students (followers of particular adjunct faculty and limited courses,

etc.) 3. Loss of more adjuncts (if environment is not a positive one) 4. Loss of reputation (as student enrollment drops, etc.)

If the following recommendations are implemented, we expect to see improved quality of teaching to the extent that there is no difference in instruction between full time and adjunct faculty.

31

Team Recommendations:

1. Adjunct Faculty Newsletter Cost: Time and paper (eventually email) Return on Investment: More informed adjunct faculty. Relay a feeling of inclusion for the adjunct faculty. 2. Exit Interviews Cost: Paper, postage and time to evaluate the feedback Return on Investment: CMC gains the knowledge of why the faculty leave and can use that knowledge to create a better working environment for future adjunct faculty. 3. Full Time Staff Support for Adjuncts Cost: None, if stagger existing staff schedules so that no overtime is needed. Return on Investment: Adjunct faculty feel valued and included when supported by a knowledgeable full time staff member. 4. ID Cards for Adjunct Faculty

Cost: $1 or less per card and time to create the cards Return on Investment: Adjunct faculty feel as though they are officially part of the College and the campus. They feel valued and included.

5. Professional Development for Instructional Supervisors Cost: Approximately $1,000 - $1,500 per professional development opportunity. To offer 3 per year would be $4,500 on the high end. Ann Harris is committed to providing this amount from her existing budget. Return on Investment: Instructional Supervisors can better support their adjunct faculty through better evaluations, mentoring, etc. This will also help full time faculty.

6. Ongoing Adjunct Faculty Survey Process Cost: Paper, postage, and time to administer and evaluate the feedback. Return on Investment: Survey results will allow CMC to adapt practices and instructional support to meet the changing needs of our faculty.

32

Gantt Chart: Implementation & Follow Up

When 2009-2010 Activity Who J F M A M J J A S O N D J F

ID Cards Campus CEO’s who have one-card system in place.

Action Team to continue to gather support from CEOs.

CEOs in support begin adjusting schedules.

Full Time Support Staff Schedule Adjustment

CEOs opposed respond with other recommendations.

Action Team will develop exit interview

Payroll will generate reports/mailing labels to coincide with the largest adjunct payrolls of the spring and fall.

Exit Interview

Feedback forwarded to VP of Instruction and CFI.

The Assistant to the VP of Instruction will create newsletter twice a semester. The responsibility will transition to the PT/Adjunct Specialist if the proposed position is approved.

Newsletter

Payroll will stuff newsletters and mail with paychecks.

VP of Instruction and CFI members determine schedule and content

Professional Development for Instructional Supervisors VP of Instruction and

CFI members deliver through CFI events

Check in with CLT Action Team Institutional Research to develop and administer survey.

Follow Up Surveys of Adjunct Faculty

Results forwarded to VP of Instruction and CFI.

Report on Results Action Team to CLT

33

Steering Committee Feedback

Team Name: Adjunct Faculty Retention Date: November 17, 2008 Co-Sponsors: Kelly Johnson and Sam Skramstad Ideas for Improvement Support

1. Adjunct Faculty Newsletter ______ 2. Adjunct Faculty Exit Interviews ______

3. Full Time Staff Support for Adjuncts ______ 4. ID Cards for Adjunct Faculty ______ 5. Professional Development for Instructional Supervisors ______ 6. Ongoing Adjunct Faculty Survey Process ______

34

Acknowledgements We would like to thank our adjunct faculty and instructional supervisors for their time and interest in completing the survey, the CMC IR department (Veneeya Kinion) for their assistance with reports and data, the Office of Instruction (Ann Harris and Warren Munick) for helping us understand the current practices and challenges, Campus CEOs for responding to our inquiries and supporting some of our recommendations, our payroll specialist (Mike Rhoades) for assistance with reports, and Melissa DeHaan for her assistance with the survey design, interpretation and result illustration, Joe Blanc and Emory White for saving our document at the 11th hour, and everyone else who provided support to our team.

35

References

Academic Senate for California Community Colleges. (2002). Part-Time Faculty- A principled Perspective.

Betts, K. & Sikorski, B. Financial Bottom Line: Estimating the Cost of Faculty/Adjunct Turnover and Attrition for Online Programs. Retrieved October 30, 2008.

Center for Teaching and Learning. (2008). An Orientation for Part-Time Faculty: Best Practices in Community

College Leadership. Community College of Baltimore County. (1998). Learning Community for New Faculty. Community College of

Baltimore County, MD.

Hickson, D. W. & Stacks, D. Effective Communication for Academic Chairs. Retrieved October 28, 2008. Office of the Provost and V.P. for Academic Affairs. Report from the Adjunct Commission. Boise State University.

Retrieved October 30, 2008. Owens Community College. (2007). Retention and recruitment of adjunct faculty. Paradise Valley Community College. (2000).The Forum- Adjunct Faculty Collegial Support Partnership Program.

Paradise Valley Community College, CA. Pearch, W. J. & Marutz, L. (2005). Retention of adjunct faculty in community colleges. Retrieved October 7, 2008,

from http://findarticles.coom/p/articles/mi. San Juan College. San Juan College AQIP Action Project. Retrieved October 30, 2008. Silverstein, L. (2008). Engaging Adjunct Faculty. Community College of Denver. Denver, CO. State of Washington. (2005). Best Employment Practices for Part-time Faculty: Taskforce Report and

Recommendations. Story, N. & Moore, J. Devil’s in the Details: Creating a Meaningful Adjunct Faculty Development Program.

Retrieved October 30, 2008. Wallin, D. (Ed.). (2005). Adjunct faculty in community colleges: An academic administrator’s guide to recruiting,

supporting, and retaining great teachers. Bolton, MA: Anker Publishing. Williams, K. Proposal for an Adjunct Faculty Development Program at a Community College. Retrieved October

30, 2008. Windham, P. (2005). Part-Time Faculty in the Florida Community College System: A Status Report. Florida

Community Colleges and Workforce Education, Florida Department of Education. Tallahassee, FL.

36

Appendix