Contingent Instructors and Student Outcomes: An Artifact or a Fact?

Abstract

This study addresses methodological problems surrounding existing research on exposure to contingent instructors and student outcomes. By applying non-aggregated and aggregated measures of exposure to contingent instructors to the same data, this analysis demonstrates that effects of commonly used measures of exposure to contingent instructors have little to do with actual contingent instructor effects on student outcomes. Two multi-level approaches-cross-classified and multiple membership models-are applied in the single-institution analysis of faculty status effect on student outcomesgrades and first year retention. The analysis showed no variability in student retention and a significant variability in grades by faculty characteristics. Compared to their tenured and tenure-track peers, contingent instructors are more likely to assign higher grades, which may lead to lowered levels of academic challenge and student motivation to do their best work.

Evolving Impressions: Undergraduate Perceptions of Graduate Teaching Assistants and Faculty Members over a Semester

“…However, studies directly exploring instructor impact on student retention are rare, and ones investigating differential effects of faculty members and GTAs on retention even rarer. Johnson (2011) found that instructor type does not differentially impact student retention, yet O’Neal et al . (2007) documented that GTAs can positively impact student retention by creating a positive laboratory atmosphere.…”

“…The term “contingent instructor” typically refers to part-time, non–tenure track faculty or graduate teaching assistants (GTAs; Johnson, 2011). Contingent instructors may constitute nearly half of the instructors used by undergraduate institutions (Jaeger, 2008; Baldwin and Wawrzynski, 2011), revealing the great dependence higher education can have on contingent instructor employment.…”

“…One study documented that contingent instructors typically give higher grades (Johnson, 2011), yet another found that contingent instructors do not differentially impact final student grades (Bolge, 1995). It has been documented that out-of-class interactions are beneficial for student learning.…”

Predictors of depression, stress, and anxiety among non-tenure track faculty

“…Part-time contingent faculty are less likely to engage in student-centered and learning-centered classroom activities that have been shown to promote student learning (Umbach, 2007; Baldwin and Wawrzynski, 2011); TT and NTT full-time faculty do not differ in regard to frequency of use of these activities (Umbach, 2007). NTT faculty tend to give higher final grades than TT faculty, possibly in response to pressure to show strong course evaluations in order to secure a future teaching appointment (Sonner, 2000; Johnson, 2011). The negative outcomes which are sometimes associated with part-time NTT positions occur not because part-time NTT faculty don't care about students—to the contrary, evidence suggests that NTT faculty are dedicated, highly qualified teachers (Gappa and Leslie, 1993; Baldwin and Chronister, 2001).…”

Contingent Faculty Perceptions of Organizational Support, Workplace Attitudes, and Teaching Evaluations at a Public Research University

“…For example, Johnson (2011) found that contingent faculty tended to give higher grades, which may lower students' motivation for hard work. A study on contingent faculty's teaching practices revealed that, whereas part-time contingent faculty's teaching practices were somewhat different, full-time contingent faculty had teaching practices similar to those of TTTF, such as assigning term/research papers and requiring multiple drafts of written work and oral presentations (Baldwin & Wawrzynski, 2011).…”