Reporting Strategies of Full-Time Faculty Adequacy for Regional Accreditation

Nhung Pham, Ph.D. - University of Central Missouri • Valerie Paton, Ph.D. - Texas Tech University

Abstract

Adequacy of full-time faculty is an indicator utilized by all regional accreditors in the United States to ensure quality instruction. In order to demon- strate compliance with accreditors’ requirements related to adequacy of full- time faculty, institutions need to assess this requirement in light of their institutional missions. This research study analyzed self-study documents submitted by 18 institutions during their SACSCOC regional reaffirmation of accreditation processes conducted in 2014 and 2015. Three major components of self-study report (faculty characteristics, institutional assessment measures of full-time faculty, and faculty responsibilities) and recommendations are discussed to support institutional examination of the reaffirmation of accreditation requirement.

Results The analysis of 18 participant narratives identified three major themes: faculty characteristics, assessment measures of adequacy of full-time faculty to support the institution's mission, and faculty responsibilities.

Purpose of This Research The purpose of this study was to examine institutional responses to the SACSCOC 2.8 standard “The number of full-time faculty members is adequate to support the mission of the institution and to ensure the quality and integrity of each of its academic programs.”

Methodology A qualitative design was utilized to provide a deep understanding of the institutional narratives (Creswell, 2014). Institutional names were masked by assigning pseudonyms. To identify common themes in the 18 responses, manual coding and NVivo10, a qualitative research software platform, was used to code and categorize the qualitative data. Data Sampling

Conclusion This study examined 18 institutional self-studies submitted as evidence of compliance to a major U.S. regional accreditor. The findings indicated that the institutions used multiple institutional assessment measures to evidence the adequacy of full-time faculty to support the institutional mission, as well as the quality and integrity of academic programs. In addition, institutions provided diverse information related to faculty characteristics and responsibilities at their institutions, which was influenced by the nature of their degree-granting authority.

References Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Middaugh, M. F. (2002). Faculty productivity: Different strategies for different audiences. Planning for Higher Education, 30(3), 34-43

Pham, N. (2016). Adequacy in Faculty Standards of U.S. Regional Accreditation Commissions (Thesis). Retrieved from https://ttu-ir.tdl.org/ttu-ir/handle/2346/72747

Faculty Characteristics The content analysis of narratives identified a major theme related to how institutions described faculty groupings by utilizing common characteristics or terms such as “full-time”, “part-time faculty (Level I-IV) or tenured and non-tenured track faculty, and graduate student (Level V-VI). In addition, most institutions also provided the definition of different faculty types, the expected workload and faculty qualifications and credentials. The table summarizes the faculty characteristics that emerged from the analysis of the data across all six institutional levels.

Faculty Characteristics Level I Level II Level III Level IV Level V Level VI

Full-time x x x x x x Credentials/Qualifications x x x x Workload x x x Part-time x x x Adjunct x x x Graduate faculty x x Full-time undergraduate x Tenured and Non-tenured x Instructional and non-instructional x

Ranked and non-ranked x Special appointment x Regular full-time x Temporary full-time x Others E&G,

Institutional Assessment Measures The institutions used many different assessment measures to provide evidence that the number of full-time faculty was adequate to support the institution’s mission. The table summarizes the assessment measures used to document the adequacy of full-time faculty.

Faculty adequacy Level I Level II Level III Level IV Level V Level VI

Course and section size x x

Teaching overload x x Total number of faculty headcount x x x x

% of credit hours taught by full-time and part- time faculty

Distance Education, Sections, Credit proportion production by full-time faculty

x Program x

Distance Education, college/ department, Tenured & non-tenured, grad student, undergrad and grad,

Student to faculty ratios x Program x x x By discipline Peer review (program accreditation, internal program review)

x State requirements; report & faculty growth

Predictive Modeling x

Other measures Institutional Effectives process

Faculty responsibilities Level I Level II Level III Level IV Level V Level VI

Instruction (professional service)

Distance, Dual credit, developmental studies

Distance Learning x x x Regional teaching

sites

Academic advisement x

Service Committee, Organization College Institution Institution Community, institution

Advanced research x Assessment of student learning x

Program assessment x

Student performance Grades, passing rate, employment, satisfaction

Student satisfaction Student satisfaction,

instruction

Curriculum x x

Professional development Adjunct x Graduate student, quality assurance

Research and scholarly activity x Source: Pham (2016). Adequacy in Faculty Standards of U.S.

Regional Accreditation

Recommendations The characteristics of faculty and instructional personnel were found to be quite diverse depending upon the institution mission and characteristics. Multiple measures are needed to provide a comprehensive and deep understanding of how the institution is fulfilling its mission. The findings from this study and related literature suggest four recommendations for institutional assessment measures of adequacy of full-time faculty.

1.  Student-to-full-time faculty ratio at the institutional, college,

program and discipline levels; 2.  Percentage of credit hours taught by full-time faculty at the

institutional, college, program and discipline levels; 3.  Analysis of institutional, college, program and discipline data

by full-time and part-time faculty categories: headcounts, average course loads; average class sizes, student credit hour generation, undergraduate and graduate students, etc.;

4.  Use of full-time faculty equivalents (FTFE) obscures the analysis of adequacy of full-time faculty;

5.  Additional measures should be utilized to link analysis to student learning outcomes; peer review (program accreditation and program reviews); faculty workload policies; institutional policies, plans and predictive models related to expected ratios of full-time faculty to student headcounts.

Faculty Responsibilities The table summarizes the major responsibilities for faculty and instructional personnel. An “x” has been used to indicate regular instruction; however, if institutions provided specific details about other types of instruction (e.g.,dual credit or distance education),this is noted in words.

1 1 2 2

4

8

IV V II III VI I

No. of Degrees Offered by Level of Colleges

Level of Institutions

Deg

ree

Off

ered

M

aste

r's D

egre

es &

Edu

catio

n S

peci

alis

t Deg

rees

Thre

e or

Few

er

Doc

tora

l Deg

rees

Bac

cala

urea

te D

egre

es

Mas

ter's

Deg

rees

Four

or M

ore

D

octo

ral D

egre

es

Ass

ocia

te D

egre

es