Dyer, K. D., and R. E. Hall. 2019. “Effect of Critical Thinking Education on Epistemically Unwarranted Beliefs in College Students.” Research in Higher Education 60 (3): 293–314.

SUMMARY

The purpose of this study was to assess the efficacy of critical thinking courses on helping students reduce their epistemically unwarranted beliefs, defined as “beliefs not founded on reliable reasoning or credible data” (p. 293). By using a longitudinal design with control groups, the authors were able to associate unwarranted belief reductions with exposure to and participation in a course titled “Science and Nonsense.” In addition, the authors also examined whether this association was due to demographic characteristics or other specific profiles. They conclude that their classroom-based intervention “has the potential to reach all students” and is “good news for educators” (p. 311).

DISCUSSION OF THE FINDINGS

IMPLICATIONS FOR Action by CAMPUS LEADERS

Hossler, D., E. Chung, J. Kwon, J. Lucido, N. Bowman, and M. Bastedo. 2019. “A Study of the Use of Nonacademic Factors in Holistic Undergraduate Admissions Reviews.” The Journal of Higher Education 90 (6): 833–859.

SUMMARY

This study examined the use of nonacademic factors on holistic admissions decision making. The authors adopted a multi-pronged approach to investigate the ways admissions officers use nonacademic factors when making decisions. They surveyed more than 300 admissions professionals; of those, they interviewed 19 who worked at one of ten private and public institutions with varying degrees of selectivity. Results indicated that these factors were often used differentially, based on the selectivity of the institution. While all institutions used nonacademic indicators of success as admissions criteria, officers from less selective institutions were more likely to use these factors to “admit students who might not otherwise be admitted” thus providing “an explanation for admitting students whose profile does not suggest that [they] will be academically successful” (p. 19).

DISCUSSION OF THE FINDINGS

The authors frame their study as critically important given the increased scrutiny institutions are facing regarding admissions on college campuses. They draw from Sedlacek’s (2011) work to define nonacademic factors (NAFs) as “variables relating to adjustment, motivation, and student perceptions, rather than the traditional verbal and quantitative (often called cognitive) areas typically measured by standardized tests” (p. 17). Of course, the challenge the authors note in studying the use of these factors in admissions is that the factors are often introduced arbitrarily, resulting in inconsistent application across cases and in a lack of transparency surrounding their use. That said, the authors used a mixed-methods approach to answer the following research questions: “(1) What types of NAFS are most frequently used? (2) How important are NAFs relative to student and high school contextual factors? And (3) How do institutional control and selectivity influence the use of NAFs?” (p. 4).

In response to the first question, the following NAFs were ranked based on the importance admissions officers ascribed to them in making decisions: performance factors, attitudinal factors, creativity, and grit. Performance factors encompass a host of ideas, including but not limited to level of engagement, ability to manipulate specialized knowledge, ability to link knowledge across domains, and the degree to which the applicant devotes extra time to task completion, avoids negative behaviors, sets goals, and supervises tasks. Attitudinal factors include “self-concept, self-efficacy, attribution tendencies, interests, social attitudes/values/beliefs, ethics/morality, intercultural sensitivity, and adaptability/flexibility” (p. 14). Creativity and grit also were important, although they received less attention in the study’s narrative.

Turning to the second research question, the NAFs were third in importance when making an admissions decision. Indeed, academic factors received the most weight for admissions. Next came contextual factors, including whether a student identified as first-generation or as someone from a single-parent home. The aforementioned NAFs were given less weight than these other two factors but may have played more of a role at less selective institutions when compared with their highly selective counterparts.

The most salient response to the third research question included use of NAFs among institutions that were not as selective as others. Among these institutions, the NAFs were used to push otherwise non-admissible students toward a more positive admissions profile. The authors postulate that admissions officers at less selective institutions may be “looking for a story” (p. 19) to justify admitting students whose academic and contextual profiles would otherwise discourage a positive admissions review.

IMPLICATIONS FOR ACTION BY CAMPUS LEADERS

Bolitzer, L. A. 2019. “What We Know (and Don’t Know) about Adjunct Faculty as Teachers at Four-Year Institutions.” The Review of Higher Education 43 (1): 113–142.

SUMMARY

The purpose of this paper was to provide an analytic review of research examining adjunct faculty members at bachelor’s-degree-granting institutions. This conceptual piece briefs readers on what is known about adjuncts and how institutions can best support these critical players in the higher education system. Accordingly, the major questions driving this effort underscore the importance of teaching in undergraduate education and also serve as the organizational framework for this review. The author notes, “Over the past 20 years individual researchers, or research teams, have begun to ask questions such as ‘What motivates adjunct faculty? Are they effective teachers? And how might institutions better support their efforts?’ Yet little research has brought these works together to present a larger view of adjunct faculty as teachers at bachelors-granting institutions, where they are increasingly concentrated” (p. 144). The author concludes with a series of thoughtful recommendations for educators interested in adjunct faculty. (For a separate analysis, see CIC’s report, Changes in Faculty Composition at Independent Colleges.)

 

DISCUSSION OF THE FINDINGS

The author frames the study in terms of its utility in understanding teaching, especially from the purview of adjunct faculty. Using a variety of scholarly frames and empirical pieces, she discusses teaching as an amalgam of four components: the engagement of students in subject matter content in ways that maximize learning, the pedagogical range of activities that accompany this engagement (from syllabus creation to grading), the articulation of learning outcomes congruent with the nature of the pedagogical exercise, and the openness of the teacher to learning from the teaching experience itself.

With these principles as a guide, the author describes her process of conducting the literature review. Through a systematic process, she identified 126 empirical studies and 16 books regarding adjunct instructors at bachelor’s-degree-granting institutions. She then mapped these works onto the four components discussed above and emerged with the following pieces that informed this study: 36 empirical articles, four analytic discussions, and six dissertations. Importantly, she excluded works that discussed the “treatment of adjunct faculty by institutions” (p. 116), including practices related to recruitment, hiring, and compensation; pieces that addressed adjunct experiences at community colleges or graduate institutions; and efforts designed to understand adjunct faculty hired beyond a semester-by-semester basis (for example, clinical faculty appointments). With these caveats in mind, the author organized her review into five parts: qualifications to teach, motivations to teach, institutional support for teaching, job satisfaction, and teaching effectiveness.

What qualifications do adjunct faculty at bachelor’s-degree-granting institutions need to teach? After reviewing the literature, the author suggests that these faculty are less likely to hold doctorates than full-time faculty. She concludes that often these credentials—or the lack thereof—do not result in more effective teaching.

What motivates adjunct faculty members at bachelor’s-degree-granting institutions? In short, the author concludes that they are motivated by many extrinsic factors such as the freedom, flexibility, and status that come from working in academia. Of critical note is that many adjuncts view this type of position as a point of entry into a potential full-time appointment within the university. Of course, these faculty members are motivated intrinsically as well, with many commenting about the deep satisfaction they receive from teaching.

How are institutions supporting their adjunct faculty members at bachelor’s-degree-granting institutions? In short, not well, as many faculty members struggle to find the office space needed to work effectively, including meeting with students for office hours and having space to meet with other faculty about teaching. By not providing these faculty members with the spaces needed to do their job well, institutions alienate many of them; the adjuncts consistently feel as though they are not respected, not real teachers, and not part of the academic community in which they work (p. 122). Although perceived needs vary based on the types of appointments adjunct faculty members hold (for instance, career-enders, freelancers, or aspiring academics), it is clear that institutions that care about teaching—and by extension student learning—should care about anyone hired to teach.

What leads to job satisfaction among adjunct faculty members at bachelor’s-degree-granting institutions? The answer to this question may seem intuitive: Teaching is their primary source of satisfaction, and lack of institutional support is the primary driver of their dissatisfaction. That said, the anxiety these faculty members feel over the temporary nature of their employment complicates the story, with many becoming less confident in their teaching abilities—despite excellent course evaluations—over time. This complication is especially the case for adjuncts who aspire to become full-time faculty members: Being hired on a year-to-year or semester-by-semester basis may make some of these excellent adjunct teachers feel as though they are not good enough for full-time teaching work.

How effective at teaching are adjunct faculty members employed by bachelor’s-degree-granting institutions? Results are mixed, as some studies report that they are more effective teachers than their full-time counterparts and others suggest they are “fairly similar to their full-time colleagues in terms of their instructional practices” (p. 130). In the context of student behaviors, the author did note research that suggests that students’ exposure to adjunct teaching may not have a profound differential effect on their learning, but may on their likelihood of persisting.

IMPLICATIONS FOR ACTION BY CAMPUS LEADERS

How institutions treat faculty members is symbolic of the importance institutions place on teaching which, by definition, includes anyone paid to instruct students in the classroom. Although the needs of adjunct faculty members vary based on their professional aspirations (whether experts or career-enders, etc.), institutions must provide the accommodations instructors need to teach effectively. At minimum, accommodations should include space for meeting with students, institutional email addresses, and access to library services on campus. Institutions should also develop pipeline strategies for excellent adjunct faculty members who may eventually desire full-time positions. Hiring good teachers is easier than training bad ones (Mayhew et al. 2016). If institutions find a good teacher, it would be of long-term strategic value to curate the professional development of this individual, in the ways this individual sees fit. Too often, institutions adopt a one-size-fits-all approach to the recruitment and development of adjuncts: It may be time to recognize the intrinsic and extrinsic motivations that differentiate adjuncts and ensure that the excellent ones are having their needs properly met.

Administrators need to pay attention to their use of adjuncts over the course of a student’s journey. Students may not persist if overly exposed to adjunct instructors over the course of their four years in college. Even if they are excellent teachers, adjuncts may not carry important institutional messages in the same ways as full-time faculty, and as a result, students may not feel as integrated into the community if overexposed to adjunct instructors.

About the Authors

Liza Ann Bolitzer is a full-time, non-tenure-track assistant professor in the Austin W. Marxe School of Public and International Affairs of Baruch College, City University of New York.

---

Literature Readers May Wish to Consult

Aaron, M., and N. Pallas. 2019. Convergent Teaching: Tools to Spark Deeper Learning in College. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Beach, A. L., M. D. Sorcinelli, A. E. Austin, and J. K. Rivard. 2016. Faculty Development in the Age of Evidence: Current Practices, Future Imperatives. Herndon, VA: Stylus Publishing.

Morphew, C., K. Ward, and L. Wolf-Wendel. 2016. Changes in Faculty Composition at Independent Colleges. Washington, DC: The Council of Independent Colleges.

Neumann, A. 2009. Professing to Learn: Creating Tenured Lives and Careers in the American Research University. No. 475. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Stupnisky, R., N. Hall, and R. Pekrun. 2019. “The Emotions of Pretenure Faculty: Implications for Teaching and Research Success.” Review of Higher Education 42 (4): 1489–1526.

SUMMARY

“I think I only submitted one [manuscript] in the first two years and it got rejected. I did not want to write because I did not want to get rejected. I did not want to produce something that sucked [was of poor quality]. So yeah, that fear really had a big impact.” (p. 1502).

The emotions pretenure faculty members experience as part of their journey toward tenure are varied and often extreme. To complicate this even further, pretenure faculty members regulate emotions about research and teaching differently, according to the findings from this mixed methods study. Combining information from over 100 surveyed pretenure faculty members with 11 interviews from this same population, the authors discovered that faculty found more “enjoyment, happiness, pride, satisfaction and relaxation regarding teaching; conversely more frustration, anxiety, worry, fear, envy, shame, loneliness and hopelessness in research” (p. 1490). In addition, the authors suggest that emotion often mediates pretenure faculty members’ approach to their colleagues and to their work and life balance with self-reported success.

 

DISCUSSION OF THE FINDINGS

The authors of this study center emotion and its regulation as an important component to creating more supportive pretenure programs that spur faculty members toward success. Although emotions are highly subjective and individualized, they play a distinctive role in how pretenure faculty members make meaning of their experiences not only with regard to different aspects of their profession (namely, research and teaching), but with their approach to working with colleagues and issues related to work-life balance. Remaining uninterested in—or in some cases dismissive of—faculty emotion is unrealistic and irresponsible, given its importance in shaping pretenure faculty members’ process toward tenure.

Faculty member participants worked at two public flagship universities in the Midwest. Although this specification “limits the generalizability of results to similar institutions” (p. 1498), many of the emotions faculty members experience are based on their designation as pretenure or on the tenure track. As a result, lessons from this study can be extrapolated and applied to faculty members across many university contexts.

In fall 2014, the authors administered a series of scales to 108 pretenure faculty members and drew a purposeful sample of 11 from this group for interviews. Based on analysis of the quantitative data, the sample for the interviewed faculty was grouped into four categories: high teaching/low research motivations, low teaching/high research motivations, high teaching/high research motivations, and low teaching/low research motivations. From this portion of the study, the authors concluded, “Overall, these results identify a more positive emotional pattern for faculty with respect to teaching than for research” (p. 1505). Findings from this part of the study also informed its quantitative component, which was designed to answer the questions: How do emotions mediate the relationships faculty members have with their peers and self-reported success in research and teaching, respectively, and how do emotions mediate the relationship between faculty members’ experience of work/life balance and self-reported success in research and teaching, respectively?

To answer these questions, the authors surveyed 102 pretenure faculty members, representing a 26.2 percent response rate. Of particular note, the surveyed faculty members “had average contractually-expected efforts of 46.6% teaching, 37.1% research, and 15.9% service” (p. 1503). In addition, these faculty members were mostly female (53 females and 49 males), mostly white (82.4 percent), had an average age of 39, represented at least 12 disciplines, and reported working an average of 50.85 hours per week.

Path models were constructed for the teaching and research domains. Across these models, it was clear that collegiality exerted an effect on emotion that then influenced faculty members’ success in both teaching and research. Interestingly, work/life balance and its influence on emotion as a predictor of success was only notable in the context of research, not teaching.

IMPLICATIONS FOR ACTION BY CAMPUS LEADERS