This article was downloaded by: [Pennsylvania State University]On: 24 November 2014, At: 13:12Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number:1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 MortimerStreet, London W1T 3JH, UK

Community CollegeJournal of Research andPracticePublication details, including instructionsfor authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ucjc20

TEACHING METHODSUSED BY PART-TIMECOMMUNITY COLLEGEFACULTYMarybelle C. Keim, Peter Eric BiletzkyPublished online: 15 Dec 2010.

To cite this article: Marybelle C. Keim, Peter Eric Biletzky (1999)TEACHING METHODS USED BY PART-TIME COMMUNITY COLLEGE FACULTY,Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 23:8, 727-737, DOI:10.1080/106689299264422

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/106689299264422

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy ofall the information (the “Content”) contained in the publicationson our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and ourlicensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever asto the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose ofthe Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publicationare the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the viewsof or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content

should not be relied upon and should be independently verifiedwith primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall notbe liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands,costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with,in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and privatestudy purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction,redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply,or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Penn

sylv

ania

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

12 2

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

ôôôôôôôôôôôôôôôôôôôô

TEACHING METHODS USED BY PART-TIMECOMMUNITY COLLEGE FACULTY

Marybelle C. KeimDepartment of Educational Administration and Higher Education,Southern Illinois University at Carbondale, Carbondale, Illinois, USA

Peter Eric BiletzkyRend Lake College, Graduate School Information ServicesNorthern Illinois University

Part-time faculty teaching transfer courses in four community colleges in southernIllinois were surveyed to determine the teaching methods that they used. Onehundred thirty-eight instructors completed a mailed survey for a response rate of58%. The most popular teaching techniques were lecture, class discussion, writtenfeedback, and methods to engage critical thinking. Least favored were slides, �eldtrips, audiotapes, and guest lecturers. Faculty who had participated in pro-fessional development were more likely to use small group discussions, demonstra-tions, and activities to promote critical thinking.

The percentages and characteristics of part-time community collegefaculty have been documented by numerous authors and researchers,such as Cohen and Brawer (1996), Vaughan, (1995) and many others.Nationally, the percentages of part-timers are cited at varying levelsfrom 53% (Cohen & Brawer, 1996) to 65% (Vaughan, 1995). On someindividual campuses, the percentages are even higher—75% at Valen-cia Community College’s Osceola Campus (Williamson & Mulholland,1993) and 80% at Pima Community College (Iadevaia, 1991).

The gender, ethnic background, age, educational level, and teach-ing experience of part-time faculty have also been described in theliterature. In early research, based on three nationwide studies con-ducted by the Center for the Study of Community Colleges, Friedlan-der (1980) found that 55% of part-time instructors had three or moreyears teaching experience and that 55% had been at their current

Address correspondenc e to Marybelle Keim, Southern Illinois University, Depart-ment of Educational Administration and Higher Education, Carbondale, Illinois 62901-4606, USA.

Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 23: 727–737, 1999Copyright 1999 Taylor & FrancisÓ

1066-8926/99 $12.00 1 .00 727

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Penn

sylv

ania

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

12 2

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

728 M. C. Keim and P. E. Biletzky

college for two years or less. In her study of 688 full-time and part-time community college faculty from 51 colleges in 32 states, Keim(1989) divided the respondents into four categories depending on thefaculty member’s status (full-time or part-time) and teaching �eld(transfer or occupational/technical). In the part-time transfer cate-gory, 51% were women, 93% were Caucasian, 38% were 40–49 years ofage, 63% had completed a master’s degree, 7% had earned a docto-rate, and 26% had a bachelor’s. On average, these faculty had servedas part-time community college instructors for about six years andhad been at their current institution slightly more than �ve years.Sixty-four percent of part-time transfer faculty reported public schoolteaching experience, with an average of 12 years. In addition, 34%had four-year college teaching experience, with a mean of four years.In the Illinois Community Colleges, the gender of part-timers wasnearly equal, with men accounting for 50.2% and women for 49.8%(Illinois Community College Board, 1990). Also in Illinois, theaverage age of part-time faculty was 43.7 years, compared to 48.7 forfull-time faculty. Part-time faculty contained a larger percentage ofminorities (20%) than full-time faculty (11%) (Illinois CommunityCollege Board, 1991). The part-time faculty studied by Iadevaia (1991)at Pima Community College were characterized as white males, 44years of age, and master’s degree recipients, with �ve years teachingexperience. At Marshalltown Community College (IA), 65% of part-time faculty held a master’s degree or above, and 64% had been teach-ing for more than four years (McCright, 1983). A survey conducted atthe College of the Canyons (Mattice & Richardson, 1993) found that62.5% of part-time faculty wanted to teach full-time. Fifty-sevenpercent of transfer part-timers in Keim’s (1989) study wanted tobecome full-time.

Institutional policies directly a� ecting part-timers have also beenstudied, including reasons for hiring them, evaluation, and develop-ment policies. Vaughan (1995) commented that part-time faculty bringpractical experience to the classroom, as well as specialities that full-time faculty might not have. He reported that part-time faculty teachonly one course (three credits) a term. The Chancellor’s Office in theCalifornia Community Colleges (1987) conducted a study to learn thereasons for using part-time faculty and determined that part-timefaculty were hired for their speci�c knowledge, to provide �exiblestaffing, and to teach odd-hour and o� -campus classes.

As for evaluation policies, Cohen and Brawer (1996) concludedthat most community colleges evaluate part-time faculty members,oftentimes ‘‘in the context of faculty development programs’’ (p. 90).Black (1981) surveyed two-year college deans, department chairs, and

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Penn

sylv

ania

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

12 2

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

Teaching Methods of Part-Time Faculty 729

part-time faculty at 40 two-year colleges in eight states. The deansthought part-time instructors needed evaluation and development,but part-time faculty saw less need for evaluation and development.Seventy-�ve percent of respondents saw improved evaluation as anarea pertaining to part-time faculty in need of improvement.

In the category of development policies, Roueche, Roueche, andMilliron (1995) stressed the need for part-time faculty to be integratedinto the culture of the community college. In a national study aboutdevelopment programs for occupational-technical faculty, Hoerner,Clowes, and Impara (1991) found that more than 80% of two-yearinstitutions had professional development programs that includedorientation for full-time faculty, but that 48% rarely made such pro-grams available to part-time faculty. Nearly two-thirds (63%) of part-time transfer faculty in Keim’s (1989) study had attended a facultyorientation session.

Erwin and Andrews (1993) investigated the status of part-timefaculty in the North Central accrediting region (19 states). They sentquestionnaires to 353 vice presidents, with 283 responding, and foundthat 38 colleges planned to expand orientation, and 37 collegesclaimed that they would add in-service and faculty development daysfor part-time faculty. According to a sample of two-year collegeadministrators, full-time faculty, and part-time faculty, Ostertag(1991) found that student assessment, teaching methodology, and cur-riculum updating were needed. In a similar study with adjunctfaculty and part-time students at Phillips County CommunityCollege, Jones (1984) indicated faculty wanted development in courseplanning, providing printed handouts, and use of �lms, tapes, andslides. Pedras (1985) presented a planning model for sta� developmentneeds of part-time faculty based on research conducted at ClarkCounty Community College. He surveyed 15 administrators, 92 full-time faculty, and 289 part-time faculty, with response rates of 87%,79% and 70% respectively. In a prioritized ranking, he determinedthat the appropriate categories of sta� development should be (1)mission of the community college, (2) instructional development, (3)legal aspects, and (4) classroom and laboratory management of educa-tion.

Less studied has been the teaching techniques used by part-timetwo-year college instructors. Kelly (1990) surveyed part-time facultyat Fullerton College (CA) and reported that they employed a varietyof teaching methods, including lecture (93%), class discussion (75%),question and answer review (50%), hands-on activities (50%), smallgroup discussions (33%), transparencies (33%), videotapes (33%),writing activities (33%), and computer-aided instruction (less than

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Penn

sylv

ania

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

12 2

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

730 M. C. Keim and P. E. Biletzky

10%). In a similar study, Mattice and Richardson (1993) found thatpart-time faculty at the College of the Canyons (CA) used lecture(85%), class discussion (76%), hands-on activities (65%), question andanswer reviews (60%), demonstrations (54%), writing activitiesduring class (36%), overhead transparencies (31%), small group dis-cussions (29%), case studies (26%), videotapes/�lms (22%), simula-tions and role-playing (22%), and computer-aided instruction (13%).Used by less than 10% were �eld trips, audiotapes, slides, and guestlecturers. Digranes and Digranes (1995) lamented that part-timersrely on traditional pedagogy and often fail to incorporate newmethods of teaching. After a thorough review of ERIC documents,Banachowski (1996) concluded, ‘‘studies to support the contentionthat part-timers are less (or for that matter more) e� ective teachersthan full-timers are inconclusive’’ (p. 58).

Because of the paucity of research, the purpose of this study was todetermine the teaching methods used by typical part-time communitycollege instructors.

METHOD

The population (n 5 240) consisted of all part-time faculty teachingtransfer courses in the four community colleges located in southernIllinois. Non-faculty sta� or instructors who taught occupationalcourses or community services/continuing education classes were notincluded in the study. The participants were identi�ed by the chiefacademic officer at each institution.

A survey was developed by combining elements of previouslytested questionnaires (Borgsmiller, 1995; Mattice & Richardson,1993). The data that were collected consisted of the demographics ofrespondents and their teaching methods. The instrument was pilottested by part-time faculty employed at another Illinois communitycollege not included in the study, and several minor changes weremade based on their critiques.

After the Human Subjects Committee at the sponsoring universityapproved the study, the surveys and a cover letter were mailed to theinstitutional address of each instructor. A follow-up survey was sentto the home address of those faculty who did not respond to theinitial mailing. A �nal response rate of 58% (n 5 138) was obtained,with a range of 39% to 65% at each college.

DEMOGRAPHICS

The gender of respondents was predominantly female (58%). Morethan one-half (57%) of the instructors had worked at their currentinstitution for six semesters or less; women in this category outnum-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Penn

sylv

ania

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

12 2

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

Teaching Methods of Part-Time Faculty 731

bered men, 60% to 50%. Thirty-six percent of women and 35% of menhad taught between seven and 25 semesters at their employing com-munity college. Working for more than 26 semesters at their currentcollege were 14% of men and 4% of women.

Reporting previous community college teaching experience were28% of women and 38% of men with a mean of three years for womenand four years for men. Fifty-eight percent of women and 49% of menhad experience teaching in the K–12 sector with a mean of 14 yearsfor women and 19 years for men. In addition, 32% of women and 38%of men had taught at a four-year institution with a mean of two yearsfor each group.

The master’s degree was the most commonly held degree (56%),followed by a bachelor’s (26%), a doctorate (13%), a specialist (3%),and an associate’s (2%). The di� erences between men and womenwere master’s—men 58%, women 54%; bachelor’s—men 16%, women33%, doctorate—men 16%, women 10%; specialist—3% for each; andassociate’s—men 4% and women 0%.

The teaching load was nearly seven credit hours for both thecurrent and the previous semester, with only slight di� erencesbetween men and women (less than seven-tenths of a credit for onesemester and two-tenths of a credit for the other). The class sizesvaried with 38% teaching 15 or fewer students on average in a class,53% with classes of 16 to 30, and 9% teaching more than 31 studentsin a class.

Nearly all respondents (96%) had been evaluated by studentsduring the current semester. In addition, 29% were evaluated by thedepartment chair and 16% were evaluated by peers. Eighty-fourpercent of the part-timers found the evaluations helpful, 9% did notthink they were helpful, and 7% did not answer the question.

When asked about participation in professional development activ-ities, 53% reported that they had participated in such activitiesduring the previous two semesters. Approximately 40% ofrespondents were seeking full-time teaching positions at their com-munity college, 57% were not, and the remaining three percent didnot respond to the question.

TEACHING TECHNIQUES

Using a Likert scale of 1 to 5, with 1 indicating never and 5 indicatingalways, the faculty were asked to indicate how often they used 21di� erent teaching methods and practices. The means in descendingorder were: lecture (4.2), class discussions (3.9), written feedback on

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Penn

sylv

ania

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

12 2

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

732 M. C. Keim and P. E. Biletzky

tests and assignments (3.9), instructional methods to engage criticalthinking (3.9), question and answer reviews (3.5), writing activities(3.4), in-class quizzes (3.3), instructional methods to encourage multi-culturalism (3.1), hands-on activities (3.1), small group discussion(2.8), demonstrations (2.8), overhead transparencies (2.6), group pro-jects (2.5), videotapes/�lms (2.5), case studies (2.4), computer-aidedinstruction (2.3), simulations/role-playing (2.2), guest lecturers (1.9),audiotapes (1.7), �eld trips (1.5), and slides (1.4).

‘‘Always’’ or ‘‘Most of the Time’’ was the response given for thefollowing practices: lecture (83%), critical thinking (70%), writtenfeedback (69%), class discussion (62%), question and answer reviews(50%), writing activities (47%), and in-class quizzes (42%). ‘‘Rarely’’and ‘‘Never’’ were: slides (77%), audiotapes (74%), �eld trips (67%),guest lecturers (66%), simulation/role-playing (54%), overhead trans-parencies (47%), case studies (47%), group projects (47%), andcomputer-aided instruction (46%).

Statistical tests were run on the data to determine whether pre-vious teaching experience, participation in professional developmentactivities, desire to become full-time, teaching load, and facultyevaluations had an e� ect on teaching methods used. A multivariate

TABLE 1 Teaching Methods Used

Most NotAlways of time Sometimes Rarely Never possible

Methods % % % % % %

Lecture 43 40 14 1 1 0Class discussion 35 27 32 4 0 1Written feedback 45 24 13 8 8 2Encourage critical thinking 38 32 19 4 6 1Q & A reviews 21 29 31 10 6 3Writing activities 27 20 27 7 15 4In-class quizzes 23 19 29 18 10 1Encourage multicultural 18 19 27 11 17 8Hands-on activities 20 15 32 13 12 7Small group discussion 9 17 34 23 15 1Demonstrations 10 14 37 20 16 3Overhead transparencies 12 14 21 17 30 6Group projects 8 10 28 22 25 6Video/Films 5 7 43 18 21 6Case studies 8 12 22 14 33 11Computer instruction 7 7 19 14 32 22Simulation/role-playing 2 14 20 16 38 10Guest lecturers 0 6 21 23 43 7Audiotapes 5 1 11 17 57 8Field trips 0 1 12 14 53 19Slides 1 1 8 11 66 12

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Penn

sylv

ania

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

12 2

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

Teaching Methods of Part-Time Faculty 733

analysis of variance (MANOVA) on previous teaching experiencedetermined that three teaching methods were statistically signi�cant.The use of case studies had a p value of .004, methods that encouragemulticulturalism was .006, and demonstrations was .025. Use of casestudies showed a signi�cant di� erence between faculty with experi-ence at the K–12 level (M 5 1.7) and those at four-year colleges(M 5 2.8). Methods that encourage multiculturalism showed a signi�-cant di� erence between the same groups—K–12 (M 5 2.5), and four-year institutions (M 5 3.6). Use of demonstrations showed asigni�cant di� erence between faculty with previous experience atcommunity colleges (M 5 3.4) and faculty with experience at four-year institutions (M 5 2.6). Faculty from the four-year colleges usedcase studies and methods that encouraged multiculturalism morethan those from K–12 schools, and faculty with previous experienceat two-year colleges used demonstrations more than those from four-year institutions.

A two-tailed t test was used to determine whether professionaldevelopment activities had an e� ect on teaching methods used. Smallgroup discussions had a p value of .003, use of demonstrations was.024, and the encouragement of critical thinking was .030. Theseresults indicated that faculty who had participated in professionaldevelopment activities were more likely to use small group dis-cussions, demonstrations, and instructional methods to encouragecritical thinking than those who had not.

A two-tailed t test was used to determine whether there was a sta-tistically signi�cant di� erence in teaching methods between thosewho desired a full-time faculty position and those who did not. Sig-ni�cant at the .001 level was the use of overheads. Also signi�cantwere use of class discussion (p 5 .042), use of writing activities(p 5 .027), computer-aided instruction (p 5 .007), written feedback ontests and assignments (p 5 .003), instructional methods to encouragemulticulturalism (p 5 .002), and instructional methods to encouragecritical thinking (p 5 .031). The part-timers who wanted to becomefull-time used these teaching methods more than those who werecontent with their current employment.

A multiple regression analysis was used to determine the e� ectthat teaching load had on teaching methods. There were no sta-tistically signi�cant �ndings.

A multiple regression analysis was also used to determine thee� ect that faculty evaluations had on teaching methods. Only the useof videotapes/�lms was signi�cant (p 5 .049). Faculty who had beenevaluated by their peers or department chair reported an increaseduse of videotapes/�lms as a teaching method.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Penn

sylv

ania

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

12 2

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

734 M. C. Keim and P. E. Biletzky

A multiple regression analysis was used to determine the e� ectthat class size had on teaching methods. Three instructional methodswere shown to increase in usage with an increase in class size. Use ofvideotapes/�lms (p 5 .032), �eld trips (p 5 .048), and in-class quizzes(p 5 .030) were signi�cantly a� ected by class size. As class sizeincreased, part-time faculty were more likely to use videotapes/�lms,�eld trips, and in-class quizzes.

DISCUSSION

The demographics of part-time faculty in this research are similar insome respects to those in previous studies, but there are also di� er-ences. Whereas women outnumbered men in this study as in others,the percentage of women in this study is considerably higher (58%).This may be due to the proximity of a large state university insouthern Illinois.

The respondents appear to have had more teaching experiencethan part-timers in several studies; nearly 40% of women and 49% ofmen had been employed between seven and 50 semesters at theircurrent two-year college. More than half (58% of women and 49% ofmen) had taught in the K–12 arena, with an average of 14 years forwomen and 19 years for men. Friedlander reported two years or lessexperience for part-time faculty at their current college (55%) andthree or more years teaching experience (55%). Keim’s part-timershad slightly over �ve years at their current college and six yearscommunity college teaching experience. McCright’s Iowa faculty hadbeen teaching for more than four years and Iadevaia’s Arizonafaculty had �ve years teaching experience.

Part-time faculty were well-educated with 56% holding a master’sdegree and 16% with a specialist or doctoral degree. Again, the loca-tion of a state university nearby may have contributed to nearlythree-quarters of part-timers having graduate degrees.

The part-time teaching assignment was quite di� erent from thedata reported by Vaughan (1995). In this study the load was approx-imately seven credits a semester, which was more than twice the�gure cited by Vaughan (three credits). The di� erences may berelated to the rural nature of the community colleges in southernIllinois and the difficulty in locating a pool of prospective part-timeinstructors. Rather than hire an instructor for only one course, thepractice seems to be to employ a part-time faculty member to teachseveral courses.

The part-timers are not being exploited by their institu-tions with large numbers of students. Thirty-eight percent had

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Penn

sylv

ania

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

12 2

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

Teaching Methods of Part-Time Faculty 735

classes of less than 15 students, and 53% had from 16 to 30 students.The teaching methods used by part-time faculty appear to be very

traditional. Lecture was used 83% of the time and class discussion62% of the time. These percentages compare with those reported byKelly (1990) at Fullerton College (CA) (lecture—93%; classdiscussion—75%) and by Mattice and Richardson (1993) at College ofthe Canyons (CA) (lecture—85%; class discussion—75%). Facultywith community college experience used demonstration more thanthose from four-year institutions and faculty with four-year collegeexperience used case studies and methods that encourage multi-culturalism more than those from the K–12 level. Teaching strategieschanged somewhat with larger classes. As class size increased,videotapes/�lms, �eld trips, and in-class quizzes were more oftenused.

Active learning and technologies are rarely or never used by asmany as 60–70% of respondents, depending on the speci�c teachingstrategy. Even overhead transparencies were eschewed by 47%. Thisconclusion underscores the comment of Digranes and Digranes (1995)about part-timers relying on traditional pedagogy and neglectingnewer teaching strategies.

Professional development activities continue to be undervalued bymany community colleges, but perhaps the trend is changing slightly.More than one-half (53%) of respondents had participated in suchactivities during the previous two semesters. A signi�cant conclusionfrom this study is that professional development activities can resultin faculty using small group discussions, demonstrations, and instruc-tional methods to encourage critical thinking.

Although there was a sizeable number of faculty desiring tobecome full-time, the percentage was lower (40%) than in Keim’sstudy (57%) or at the College of the Canyons (62.5%). Again, the dif-ferences may be due to rural southern Illinois. Interestingly, the part-time faculty who aspired to a full-time status used more variety inteaching methods than those who did not. Those hoping to be hiredfull-time were much more likely to use overheads, class discussion,writing activities, computer-aided instruction, written feedback ontests and assignments, and instructional methods to encourage multi-culturalism and critical thinking.

Part-time faculty evaluation continues to rely mostly on studentfeedback. Of the participants in this study, 96% had been evaluatedby students, but only 29% by the department chair and 16% by peers.Faculty who had been evaluated by peers or a department chairreported an increased utilization of videotapes or �lms in theirclasses.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Penn

sylv

ania

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

12 2

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

736 M. C. Keim and P. E. Biletzky

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

In summary, it can be concluded from this study that faculty develop-ment activities and more complete teaching evaluations are desper-ately needed by part-time community college instructors.Administrators and faculty responsible for faculty development mustprovide appropriate workshops to educate their part-timers aboutnewer teaching strategies and technologies (computers, interactivemulti media, e-mail, distance learning, etc.). Part-timers also needfeedback from peers and administrators about the quality of theirteaching, because student end-of-course evaluations are oftentimessuspect and incomplete. Until progress is made in these two areas, itis possible that students at two-year institutions may su� er at thehands of their part-time faculty.

REFERENCES

Banachowski, G. (1996). ERIC review—Perspectives and perceptions: The use of part-time faculty in community colleges. Community College Review, 24(2), 49–62.

Black, L. K. (1981). Part-time community college faculty : Their needs for instructionrelated assistance. Community/Junior College Research Quarterly, 5, 275–285.

Borgsmiller, R. (1995). The degree of satisfaction among part-time faculty employed atSouthern Illinois community colleges. Master’s thesis, Southern Illinois Universityat Carbondale.

Chancellor’s Office. (1987). Part-time faculty. Sacramento : California Community Col-leges. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 287 531)

Cohen, A. M., & Brawer, F. B. (1996). The American community college (3rd ed.). SanFrancisco : Jossey-Bass.

College of the Canyons. (1993). Survey of part-time faculty, 1992. Valencia, CA : Collegeof the Canyons. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 354 950)

Digranes, J. L. A., & Digranes, S. H. (1995). Current and proposed uses of technologyfor training part-time faculty. Community College Journal of Research and Practice,19, 161–169.

Erwin, J., & Andrews, H. A. (1993). State of part-time faculty services at communitycolleges in a nineteen-state region. Community College Journal of Research andPractice, 17, 555–562.

Friedlander, J. (1980). Instructional practices of part-time faculty. In M. H. Parsons(Ed.), Using part-time faculty e� ectively: New directions for community colleges 30,27–36. San Francisco : Jossey-Bass.

Hoerner, J. L., Clowes, D. A., & Impara, J. C. (1991). Professional development pro-grams in community and technical colleges: Are occupational-technical facultywell served? Journal of Studies in Technical Careers, 13, 351–360.

Iadevaia, D. G. (1991). A comparison of full-time to part-time faculty and full-time topart-time science faculty in terms of student success at Pima Community College. (Ed.D. Major Applied Research Project, Nova University). (ERIC Document Repro-duction Service No. ED 339 403)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Penn

sylv

ania

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

12 2

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

Teaching Methods of Part-Time Faculty 737

Illinois Community College Board. (1990). Part-time faculty in Illinois public communitycolleges. Spring�eld, IL: Illinois Community College Board. (ERIC DocumentReproduction Service No. ED 322 964)

Illinois Community College Board. (1991). Characteristics of Illinois public communitycollege faculty based on their primary testing assignments. Spring�eld, IL: IllinoisCommunity College Board. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 331 534)

Jones, S. W. (1984). Determining e� ective teaching behaviors and sta� developmentopportunities for adjunct faculty. (Ed. D. Practicum, Nova University). (ERIC Docu-ment Reproduction Service No. ED 251 131)

Keim, M. C. (1989). Two-year college faculty : A research update. Community CollegeReview, 17(3), 34–43.

Kelly, D. K. (1990). A human resources development approach to part-time faculty in thecommunity college. Master’s thesis, Claremont Graduate School. (ERIC DocumentReproduction Service No. ED 316 279)

Mattice, N. J., & Richardson, R. C. (1993). College of the Canyons survey of teachingpractices, spring 1993. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 357 776)

McCright, G. J. (1983). A study of perceived professional development needs of part-timefaculty members at Marshalltown Community College. (ERIC Document Repro-duction Service No. ED 242 364)

Ostertag, V. (1991, February). Part-time faculty sta� development model for the nineties.Paper presented at the University of South Carolina and South Carolina Commis-sion of Higher Education Conference. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.ED 350 066)

Pedras, M. J. (1985). A planning model for the design and implementation of a sta�development program for community college part-time faculty. Community/JuniorCollege Quarterly of Research and Practice, 9, 71–77.

Roueche, J. E., Roueche, S. D., & Milliron, J. D. (1995). Strangers in their own land:Part-time faculty in American community colleges. Washington, DC: The CommunityCollege Press.

Vaughan, G. B. (1995). The community college story : A tale of American innovation.Washington, DC: The American Association of Community Colleges.

Williamson, L. V., & Mulholland, K. (1993, May). Adjuncts disjunct? Your institution’sdefunct. Paper presented at the 15th Annual International Conference of theNational Institute for Sta� and Organizational Development on Teaching Excel-lence and Conference of Administrators, Austin, TX. (ERIC Document Repro-duction Service No. ED 382 262)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Penn

sylv

ania

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

12 2

4 N

ovem

ber

2014