USF Libraries
USF Digital Collections

Part-time faculty job satisfaction

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
Part-time faculty job satisfaction a study of the influence of instructional technology on part-time faculty in post-secondary institutions
Physical Description:
Book
Language:
English
Creator:
Kurnik, John P
Publisher:
University of South Florida
Place of Publication:
Tampa, Fla.
Publication Date:

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Distance learning
Electronic course delivery
Gender
Liberal arts
Teaching experience
Dissertations, Academic -- Higher Education -- Doctoral -- USF
Genre:
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )

Notes

Summary:
ABSTRACT: In 1990, two-year colleges nationwide reported that approximately 38% of their faculty were part-time. According to the National Center for Educational Statistics' (NCES) 1999 National Study of Post-Secondary Faculty (NSOPF), this percentage continues to rise, and currently exists at 40% or more in some two-year and four-year institutions. To retain competent, qualified, and successful teachers, it is critical for higher education administrators to determine factors that may contribute to part-time faculty's job satisfaction. This study investigated whether the use of instructional technology for curriculum delivery affected part-time faculty job satisfaction by investigating four specific areas that may be affected. The first component explored whether the use of a technology-based educational delivery system in higher education contributed to overall part-time faculty job satisfaction in and four- year institutions. The second examined whether the use of a technology-basededucational delivery system in higher education contributed to the overall job satisfaction of part-time faculty in their first year of teaching. Third, it was the intent of the researcher to determine whether the use of a technology-based educational delivery system in higher education contributed to the overall job satisfaction of part-time male and female faculty. In the fourth component, by applying an adaptation of the Center for the Study of Community Colleges (CSCC) curriculum classification scheme to group teaching fields, the researcher observed whether the use of a technology-based educational delivery system in higher education influenced the overall job satisfaction of part-time faculty in each teaching discipline. The results of this study confirmed in eight of the research questions the notion that the use of instructional technology when teaching had no effect on the overall job satisfaction of part-time faculty. Two areas of statistical significance evolve aroundthe Computer Science and Social Sciences disciplines. Although both null hypotheses were statistically rejected, a closer look at both of these areas demonstrates the need for further understanding of their statistical significance. The results of this study demonstrate that during the moment in time when the 1999 NSOPF survey was conducted, instructional technology may not have been a large enough component in the total package of teaching deliverables to make a measurable difference in job satisfaction (NCES, 2005). This observation applies to most liberal arts teaching disciplines and affects the variables of gender, years of teaching experience, and type of institution equally with little exception.
Thesis:
Dissertation (Ph.D.)--University of South Florida, 2006.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references.
System Details:
System requirements: World Wide Web browser and PDF reader.
System Details:
Mode of access: World Wide Web.
Statement of Responsibility:
by John P. Kurnik.
General Note:
Title from PDF of title page.
General Note:
Document formatted into pages; contains 163 pages.
General Note:
Includes vita.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of South Florida Library
Holding Location:
University of South Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
aleph - 001915787
oclc - 180766986
usfldc doi - E14-SFE0001860
usfldc handle - e14.1860
System ID:
SFS0026178:00001


This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
record xmlns http:www.loc.govMARC21slim xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.loc.govstandardsmarcxmlschemaMARC21slim.xsd
leader nam Ka
controlfield tag 001 001915787
003 fts
005 20071106134541.0
006 m||||e|||d||||||||
007 cr mnu|||uuuuu
008 071106s2006 flu sbm 000 0 eng d
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a E14-SFE0001860
035
(OCoLC)180766986
040
FHM
c FHM
049
FHMM
090
LB2322 (ONLINE)
1 100
Kurnik, John P.
0 245
Part-time faculty job satisfaction :
b a study of the influence of instructional technology on part-time faculty in post-secondary institutions
h [electronic resource] /
by John P. Kurnik.
260
[Tampa, Fla.] :
University of South Florida,
2006.
520
ABSTRACT: In 1990, two-year colleges nationwide reported that approximately 38% of their faculty were part-time. According to the National Center for Educational Statistics' (NCES) 1999 National Study of Post-Secondary Faculty (NSOPF), this percentage continues to rise, and currently exists at 40% or more in some two-year and four-year institutions. To retain competent, qualified, and successful teachers, it is critical for higher education administrators to determine factors that may contribute to part-time faculty's job satisfaction. This study investigated whether the use of instructional technology for curriculum delivery affected part-time faculty job satisfaction by investigating four specific areas that may be affected. The first component explored whether the use of a technology-based educational delivery system in higher education contributed to overall part-time faculty job satisfaction in and four- year institutions. The second examined whether the use of a technology-basededucational delivery system in higher education contributed to the overall job satisfaction of part-time faculty in their first year of teaching. Third, it was the intent of the researcher to determine whether the use of a technology-based educational delivery system in higher education contributed to the overall job satisfaction of part-time male and female faculty. In the fourth component, by applying an adaptation of the Center for the Study of Community Colleges (CSCC) curriculum classification scheme to group teaching fields, the researcher observed whether the use of a technology-based educational delivery system in higher education influenced the overall job satisfaction of part-time faculty in each teaching discipline. The results of this study confirmed in eight of the research questions the notion that the use of instructional technology when teaching had no effect on the overall job satisfaction of part-time faculty. Two areas of statistical significance evolve aroundthe Computer Science and Social Sciences disciplines. Although both null hypotheses were statistically rejected, a closer look at both of these areas demonstrates the need for further understanding of their statistical significance. The results of this study demonstrate that during the moment in time when the 1999 NSOPF survey was conducted, instructional technology may not have been a large enough component in the total package of teaching deliverables to make a measurable difference in job satisfaction (NCES, 2005). This observation applies to most liberal arts teaching disciplines and affects the variables of gender, years of teaching experience, and type of institution equally with little exception.
502
Dissertation (Ph.D.)--University of South Florida, 2006.
504
Includes bibliographical references.
516
Text (Electronic dissertation) in PDF format.
538
System requirements: World Wide Web browser and PDF reader.
Mode of access: World Wide Web.
500
Title from PDF of title page.
Document formatted into pages; contains [163] pages.
Includes vita.
590
Advisor: Jan M. Ignash, Ph.D.
653
Distance learning.
Electronic course delivery.
Gender.
Liberal arts.
Teaching experience.
690
Dissertations, Academic
z USF
x Higher Education
Doctoral.
773
t USF Electronic Theses and Dissertations.
4 856
u http://digital.lib.usf.edu/?e14.1860



PAGE 1

Part-Time Faculty Job Satisfac tion: A Study of the Influence of Instructional Technology on Part-Time Faculty in Po st-Secondary Institutions by John P. Kurnik A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Adult, Career, and Higher Education College of Education University of South Florida Major Professor: Jan M. Ignash, Ph.D. Frank Breit, Ph.D. Donald Dellow, Ed.D. W. Robert Sullins, Ed.D. Date of Approval: November 3, 2006 Keywords: distance learning, electr onic course delivery, gender, liberal arts, teaching experience Copyright 2006, John Kurnik

PAGE 2

Dedication I dedicate this work to my loving wife Mary and the best children a father could have, Krystyn Pauline and John Stephen. W ithout your love, understanding, and support I probably would not be Dr. Daddy. I also want to express how happy I am that my love for education, learning, and hard work was th e inspiration of my mother Pauline and father John (aka J.C.). Mom, you also taught me that there is a time to sit back and smell the roses. I think Ill try a li ttle more of that now with my own family. Thank you all!

PAGE 3

Acknowledgments I wish to thank Dr. Jan Ignash, who believe d in me and my ability to get the job done. You knew exactly the right time to give me an intellectual kic k in the behind to get me charged up for the finish-line. My fam ily and I are forever in your debt! Thanks also to you Dr. Bob Sullins! You helped me reach my goal of a Ph.D. by keeping me focused on attainable results. Dr. Breit, you have never wavered! Your words of encouragement helped me research instruct ional technology because it really matters to me. Dr. Dellow, your kind words and friendly manner always made me feel I was among friends who wanted to see me succeed. I thank you for that. To Colleen Rossbach in the Universi ty of South Florida ACHE command center, Jesse Corragio in the Educational Measurement and Research department, and all the other faculty and staff in the College of Education whose friendship and help made my time at the university worthwhile. You are special people. I am also very appreciative of the help and support of my colleagues and fr iends at St. Petersburg College especially Ginger Tendl and Theresa Dimmer in the info rmation systems and Institutional Research Departments. To the memory of my very good friend Martha Adkins, without your help and support, I would have not had the opportunity to complete my studies. Thank you is not enough.

PAGE 4

i Table of Contents List of Tables................................................................................................................. ....iv List of Figures....................................................................................................................vi Abstract....................................................................................................................... ......vii Chapter One Introduction...............................................................................................1 Statement of the Problem.........................................................................................3 Significance of the Problem.....................................................................................3 Purpose of the Study................................................................................................5 Research Questions..................................................................................................6 Null Hypotheses.......................................................................................................7 Limitations...............................................................................................................9 Delimitations..........................................................................................................10 Definition of Terms................................................................................................10 Summary................................................................................................................13 Chapter Two Review of the Literature.........................................................................14 Motivations of Part-time Faculty...........................................................................16 Defining Part-time Job Satisfaction.......................................................................22 Part-Time Faculty Utilizing Technology to Teach................................................29 Summary................................................................................................................31 Chapter Three Methodology...........................................................................................33 Introduction............................................................................................................33 Research Questions................................................................................................34 Null Hypotheses.....................................................................................................35 Method...................................................................................................................37 Purpose of the Study..............................................................................................39 Research Design.....................................................................................................42 Population..............................................................................................................42 Quality of the Data Source.....................................................................................43 Validity..................................................................................................................44 Data Analysis/Procedures......................................................................................46 Summary................................................................................................................49

PAGE 5

ii Chapter Four Results.....................................................................................................51 The NSOPF Study..................................................................................................52 Survey Distribution and Responses.......................................................................53 Treatment of Data..................................................................................................54 Survey Participant Categorical Information..........................................................54 Data Analysis: Quantitative Design.......................................................................56 Research Question 1..................................................................................56 Research Question 2..................................................................................59 Research Question 3..................................................................................61 The Framework of Research Questions 4 through 10...........................................63 Research Question 4..................................................................................64 Research Question 5..................................................................................65 Research Question 6..................................................................................67 Research Question 7..................................................................................69 Research Question 8..................................................................................70 Research Question 9..................................................................................72 Research Question 10................................................................................74 Summary................................................................................................................75 Chapter Five Summary of Findings, Conclu sions, and Implications for Practice and Research ..............................................................................................................79 Method summary...................................................................................................79 Summary of findings..............................................................................................80 Summary of research questions one through three................................................81 Research Question 1..................................................................................81 Research Question 2..................................................................................81 Research Question 3..................................................................................82 Summary of research qu estions four through ten..................................................82 Research Question 4..................................................................................83 Research Question 5..................................................................................83 Research Question 6..................................................................................84 Research Question 7..................................................................................84 Research Question 8..................................................................................85 Research Question 9..................................................................................86 Research Question 10................................................................................86 Conclusions............................................................................................................87 Limitations.............................................................................................................90 Implications for Part-Time Job Satisfaction..........................................................91 Implications for Instructional Technology in Higher Education...........................93 Implications for Future Research...........................................................................95 Summary................................................................................................................97

PAGE 6

iii References..........................................................................................................................99 Appendices.......................................................................................................................105 Appendix A: 1999 National Study of Postsecondary Faculty: Faculty Questionnaire....................................................................................106 Appendix B: 1999 National Study of Postsecondary Faculty: List of Restricted Use Data............................................................................135 About the Author...................................................................................................End Page

PAGE 7

iv List of Tables Table 1 Liberal Arts, Disc ipline-Based Categories................................................40 Table 2 Liberal Arts, Discipline-Bas ed Categories with History as a Separate Field.......................................................................................41 Table 3 NSOPF Non Self-Explanator y Categories Coding Table.......................41 Table 4 Primary Survey Questions used to establish the Study Population...........47 Table 5 Categorical Distri bution of Part-time Facu lty using IT to Teach .............55 Table 6 Distribution of Part-time Faculty by Discipline Who Do and Do Not Use IT to Teach.............................................................................57 Table 7 Distribution of Part-Time Faculty by Type of Institution Who Use IT to Teach ....................................................................................58 Table 8 Distribution of Part-Time F aculty by Satisfaction and Type of Institution Who Use IT to Teach.........................................................58 Table 9 Distribution of the Years of Experience of Part-Time Faculty Who Use IT to Teach...........................................................................60 Table 10 Distribution of Part-Time Faculty by Satisfaction and Years of Experience Who Use IT to Teach........................................................61 Table 11 Distribution of Part-Time Male and Female Faculty Who Use IT to Teach................................................................................................62 Table 12 Distribution of Part-Time Faculty by Gender and Satisfaction Who Use IT to Teach...........................................................................63 Table 13 Distribution of Part-Time Computer Science Faculty Who Do and Do Not Use IT to Teach................................................................64 Table 14 Distribution of Part-T ime Computer Science Faculty by Satisfaction Who Do and Do Not Use IT to Teach.............................65

PAGE 8

v Table 15 Distribution of Part-Time English and Language Arts Faculty Who Do and Do Not Use IT to Teach.................................................66 Table 16 Distribution of Part-Time English and Language Arts Faculty by Satisfaction Who Do and Do Not Use IT to Teach.............................67 Table 17 Distribution of Part-Time Fine and Perf orming Arts Faculty Who Do and Do Not Use IT to Teach..........................................................68 Table 18 Distribution of Part-Time Fine and Performing Arts Faculty by Satisfaction Who Do and Do Not Use IT to Teach.............................68 Table 19 Distribution of Part-Time Humanities Faculty Who Do and Do Not Use IT to Teach .............................................................................69 Table 20 Distribution of Part-Time Humanities Faculty by Satisfaction Who Do and Do Not Use IT to Teach.................................................70 Table 21 Distribution of Part-Time Mathematics and Statistics Faculty Who Do and Do Not Use IT to Teach.................................................71 Table 22 Distribution of Part-Time Mathematics and Statistics Faculty by Satisfaction Who Do and Do Not Use IT to Teach.............................71 Table 23 Distribution of Part-Time Natural and Physical Sciences Faculty Who Do and Do Not Use IT to Teach .................................................72 Table 24 Distribution of Part-Time Natural and Physical Sciences Faculty by Satisfaction Who Do and Do Not Use IT to Teach........................73 Table 25 Distribution of Part-Time Social Sciences and History Faculty Who Do and Do Not Use IT to Teach.................................................74 Table 26 Distribution of Part-Time Social Sciences and History Faculty by Satisfaction Who Do and Do Not Use IT to Teach.............................75 Table 27 Liberal Arts, Discipline-Based Categories Sorted by Size........................77

PAGE 9

vi List of Figures Figure 1. Part-Time Facultys Work Preferences......................................................17 Figure 2. Reasons for Part-Time Preferences............................................................18 Figure 3. Part-Time Faculty with Other Jobs............................................................18

PAGE 10

vii Part-Time Faculty Job Satisfac tion: A Study of the Influence of Instructional Technology on Part-Time Faculty in Po st-Secondary Institutions John P. Kurnik ABSTRACT In 1990, two-year colleges nationwide reported that approximately 38% of their faculty were part-time. According to the National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES) 1999 National Study of Post-Secondary Faculty (NSOPF), this percentage continues to rise, and currentl y exists at 40% or more in some two-year and four-year institutions. To retain competent, qualifie d, and successful teachers, it is critical for higher education administrators to determin e factors that may contribute to part-time facultys job satisfaction. This study investigated whet her the use of instructi onal technology for curriculum delivery affected part-time faculty job satis faction by investigating four specific areas that may be affected. The first component explored whether the use of a technologybased educational delivery system in highe r education contributed to overall part-time faculty job satisfaction in and fouryear institutions. The second examined whether the use of a technology-based educational delivery system in higher education contributed to the overall job satisfaction of part-time faculty in their first year of teaching. Third, it was the intent of the re searcher to determine whethe r the use of a technology-based educational delivery system in higher educati on contributed to the overall job satisfaction of part-time male and female faculty. In th e fourth component, by applying an adaptation

PAGE 11

viii of the Center for the Study of Community Colleges (CSCC) curriculum classification scheme to group teaching fields, the research er observed whether the use of a technologybased educational delivery system in higher education influe nced the overall job satisfaction of part-time faculty in each teaching discipline. The results of this study confirmed in ei ght of the research questions the notion that the use of instructiona l technology when teaching had no effect on the overall job satisfaction of part-time facu lty. Two areas of statistical significance evolve around the Computer Science and Social Sciences disciplines. Although both null hypotheses were statistically rejected, a closer look at both of these areas demonstrates the need for further understanding of their st atistical significance. The results of this study demonstrate th at during the moment in time when the 1999 NSOPF survey was conducted, instructiona l technology may not have been a large enough component in the total package of t eaching deliverables to make a measurable difference in job satisfaction (NCES, 2005). This observation applies to most liberal arts teaching disciplines and affects the variables of gender, years of teaching experience, and type of institution equa lly with little exception.

PAGE 12

1 Chapter One INTRODUCTION Higher education is increasingly reli ant upon part-time facultyor adjunct facultyfor the delivery of its curriculum. Beginning in 1990, two-year colleges nationwide reportedly hired a s ubstantial number of part-time faculty, or approximately 38% of their college-wide teaching force (Mangan, 1991). According to the National Center for Educational Statistics (NCE S) 1999 National Study of Post-Secondary Faculty (NSOPF), the percentage continues to ri se and currently exists at 40% or more in some institutions. Preliminary data from the 2004 NSOPF reveals numbers exceeding 50% at some institutions. The job of recrui ting and retaining comp etent individuals is labor intensive. To retain competent, qualifie d, and successful teachers, it is critical for higher education administrators to determine factors that may contribute to part-time facultys job satisfaction. Vandermast (1998) states in Hiring Faculty for the Next Century that part-time faculty employment remains higher in the comm unity colleges than in four year colleges although the numbers for part-timers are incr easing at four-year institutions as well (Schneider, 1998). Community colleges typical ly place the part-time faculty member in the roles of teacher, mentor, and counselor rath er than solely researcher and instructor. Recent reports also suggest that these duties cu rrently exist for part-time faculty at four year institutions, too. According to the NCES part-time faculty acr oss two and four-year institutions are spending 18 hours of their time on other non-college paid activities such

PAGE 13

2 as advising clubs, mentoring and course de velopment and spend less than 14 hours on their college-related jobs. Three out of four part-time instruct ors work part or full-time in positions outside the college or university to supplement their income (Anderson, 2002). Additionally, in present societys tech nologically driven wo rld, instructional technology plays a key role in course deliver y; thus, colleges consider it crucial for employees to maintain current knowledge in the instructional technology field. The process of presenting courses that effectivel y employ technological advances presents a significant challenge to the faculty and mu st be managed by higher education in an efficient and timely manner (U.S. Department of Education, 2002). Note that for the purpose of this study, instruc tional technology includes these two components identified by the NCES: Computer-based medium TV-based medium Another challenge for college s hiring part-time faculty who work outside of the institution exists when part-timers must st ay current with instru ctional technology. This represents a vital part of the faculty me mbers education process and should be continuous, especially for those persons w ith a weak technology background (Berger, Kirshstein, Zhang, and Carter, 2002). Consider the impact on part-time faculty by retiring full-timers. Data from the Community College Journal of Research & Practice estimate that as many as 50,000 fulltime instructors 50 years of age or older and are planning to retire within the next five to 10 years (Harris, A. & Prentice, M, 2004). This wave of retiring full-time faculty takes with them their established pattern of availa bility for student inte raction and support. To

PAGE 14

3 interact with students more effectively, part -time faculty will have to rely on teaching methods using instructional technology to fill the void left by the retiring full-time faculty. To compound this problem, colleges and uni versities increasingly offer their fulltime faculty incentives to retire early, resulti ng in effective cost reduction (Bahrami, B. & Stockrahm, J. W., 2001). Few institutions enc ourage retiring faculty to remain even parttime; however, they certainly represent a technologically-trained and competent source for part-time faculty instead of training new adjuncts. Another issue facing colleges over the next decade includ es their ability to hire competent, qualified, part-time faculty who can meet the expectations of the technologyminded student. Striking a balance between the pride an institution takes in the credentials of its faculty members and the ab ility to perform in a highly diverse system illustrate two key issues facing hi gher education (Mendelowitz, 1998). Statement of the Problem Many colleges and universities use part-tim e faculty to teach up to 50% or more of the courses they offer. These part-time f aculty decide to stay or leave the teaching profession for various reasons. This study ex amined whether the overall job satisfaction of part-time faculty is influe nced by the use of instructi onal technology in their course delivery. Significance of the Problem Administrators face staffing challenges mainly due to the dramatic increase in part-time faculty employment in higher educ ation. Relying heavily on part-timers without consideration of their work needs eventually results in job dissatisfaction. Additionally,

PAGE 15

4 this job discontent contributes to an un acceptable turnover rate of reliable and welltrained faculty (Twigg, 1989). Ye t the institution hopes to reduce the cost of education by increasing the number of part-time faculty who dont receive be nefits (Anderson, 2002; Leslie, 1998). As the numbers of part-time f aculty increase in highe r education and their amount of responsibility grows in size and scope (Anderson, 2002), it is crucial to determine which factors help nurture a nd satisfy these part-time faculty. Thus, consideration of these factors could help retain them as effective and loyal employees. The literature addresses a number of fact ors that either encourage part-time faculty retention or encourages dissatisfact ion. Increasing numbers of adjuncts reveal dissatisfaction with the typical non-existent potential for lo ng-term or even full-time employment. Other commonly-reported factor s negatively influencing the part-time educators outlook include incr eased responsibilities in student advising, the lack of academic support services, and non-financia l rewards (Anderson, 2002; NSOPF, 1999; & Schrecker, 1998). However, one aspect that has not been reported in the literature is whether knowledge of technology and provi ding training in its use influences part-time faculty job satisfaction. The last decade exhibited a ma rked increase in the use of instructional technology to deliver higher e ducation courses. Through the development and refinement of learning management software systems, several college courses are now available through some form of alternative distan ce learning system (NCES, 2002). Not all instructors using these delivery methods have mastered the skills needed for efficiency and effectiveness. However, all faculty at some point in their course development or delivery must interact with some form of technology (NCES, 2002). Any stress or

PAGE 16

5 satisfaction created by employing technology reflects in the faculty members job satisfaction level (Cahill, Landsbergis, and Schnall, 1995). Moreover, whether part-timers are technology proficient, if they teach in a technology-related field, or if they lack a sufficient technological background, parttime faculty must still contend with instructional technology and consider it a contri buting factor to overall job satisfaction. The issue of technology affecting overall job satisfaction is a relatively new concept over the last decade and is not sufficiently addressed in most literature on faculty. This researcher has 19 years of fu ll-time teaching experience at a community college in central Florida with the ancillar y responsibility of selecting, training, and mentoring part-time faculty. Anecdotally, he has observed evidence of a relationship between the overall job satisfaction of these pa rt-time faculty and the use of instructional technology. Therefore, this study is intended to help the researcher determine whether the job satisfaction of part-time faculty is infl uenced by the use of instructional technology. Purpose of the Study The researcher investigated whether the use of instructional technology for curriculum delivery affected part-time faculty job satisfaction. This study (1) explored whether the use of a technologybased educational delivery system in higher education contributed overall to part-time faculty j ob satisfaction in twoyear and four-year institutions, (2) examined whether the use of a technology-based e ducational delivery system in higher education contributed to the overall job satisfaction of part-time faculty in their first year of teac hing, (3) determined whether the use of a technology-based educational delivery system in higher educati on contributed to the overall job satisfaction of part-time male and female faculty, and (4), by applying an adaptati on of the Center for

PAGE 17

6 the Study of Community Colleges (CSCC) cu rriculum classification scheme to group teaching fields, observe whether the use of a technology-based educational delivery system in higher education contributed to the overall job satisfaction of part-time faculty in seven discipline clusters. Research Questions Ten quantitative research questions were th e focus of this ex-post-facto study to examine whether instructional technology infl uences part-time faculty job satisfaction. They include the following: 1) Is there a difference in the overall job sa tisfaction of part-t ime faculty who use instructional technology to deliver their coursework at two-year community colleges and those at four-year institutions? 2) Is there a difference in the overall job sa tisfaction of part-t ime faculty who use instructional technology to deliver their coursework during their first year of teaching versus those who have taught for more than one year? 3) Is there a difference in the overall job sa tisfaction of part-t ime faculty who use instructional technology to deliver their coursework when comparing males to females? 4) Is there a difference in the overall job sa tisfaction of part-t ime faculty who use instructional technology to deliver their coursework in the Computer Science discipline versus those w ho do not use this method? 5) Is there a difference in the overall job sa tisfaction of part-t ime faculty who use instructional technology to deliver th eir coursework in the English and Language Arts discipline versus th ose who do not use this method?

PAGE 18

7 6) Is there a difference in the overall job sa tisfaction of part-t ime faculty who use instructional technology to deliver th eir coursework in the Fine and Performing Arts discipline versus those who do not use this method? 7) Is there a difference in the overall job sa tisfaction of part-t ime faculty who use instructional technology to deliver th eir coursework in the Humanities discipline versus those w ho do not use this method? 8) Is there a difference in the overall job sa tisfaction of part-t ime faculty who use instructional technology to deliver their coursework in the Mathematics and Statistics discipline versus t hose who do not use this method? 9) Is there a difference in the overall job sa tisfaction of part-t ime faculty who use instructional technology to deliver th eir coursework in the Natural and Physical Sciences discipline versus those who do not use this method? 10) Is there a difference in the overall job sa tisfaction of part-t ime faculty who use instructional technology to deliver their coursework in the Social Sciences discipline versus those w ho do not use this method? Null Hypotheses Since no literature exists to support an alternative hypothesis for each of the research questions, the null hypothesis will be assumed for each question as follows: 1) There is no difference in the overall job satisfaction of part-time faculty who use instructional technology to deliver their coursework at two-year community colleges versus those at four-year institutions?

PAGE 19

8 2) There is no difference in the overall job satisfaction of part-time faculty who use instructional technology to deliver th eir coursework during their first year of teaching versus those who have taught for more than one year? 3) There is no difference in the overall job satisfaction of part-time faculty who use instructional technology to deliver their coursework when comparing males to females? 4) There is no difference in the overall job satisfaction of part-time faculty who use instructional technology to deliver their coursework in the Computer Science discipline versus those who do not use this method? 5) There is no difference in the overall job satisfaction of part-time faculty who use instructional technology to deliver their coursework in the English and Language Arts discipline versus th ose who do not use this method? 6) There is no difference in the overall job satisfaction of part-time faculty who use instructional technology to deliver their coursework in the Fine and Performing Arts discipline versus those who do not use this method? 7) There is no difference in the overall job satisfaction of part-time faculty who use instructional technology to deliver their coursework in the Humanities discipline versus those w ho do not use this method? 8) There is no difference in the overall job satisfaction of part-time faculty who use instructional technology to deliver their coursework in the Mathematics and Statistics discipline versus those who do no use this method?

PAGE 20

9 9) There is no difference in the overall job satisfaction of part-time faculty who use instructional technology to deliver their coursework in the Natural and Physical Sciences discipline versus those who do not use this method? 10) There is no difference in the overall job satisfaction of part-time faculty who use instructional technology to deliver thei r coursework in the Social Sciences discipline versus those w ho do not use this method? Limitations This study was conducted as an ex-post-facto review of the 1999 National Study of Postsecondary Faculty (NSOPF) researc h. The primary limitation to this study was that the data to be analyzed are arch ival in nature. Responses were based on predetermined questions formulated by the National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES). It should be noted that the NC ES has concluded their 2004 NSOPF survey. However, at this time the first public-use data set will not be available until after an unspecified time in 2006. A second limitation to this study was defini ng overall job satisf action in a precise manner. Much of the literature associates part-time faculty job satisfaction with salary, benefits, job security, and professional adva ncement. Antony and Valadez (2002) refer to satisfied part-time faculty as individuals who are engaged in the kind of work they enjoy and that brings them an overall degree of satisfaction (p. 55). The NSOPF data is a self-reporting instrume nt with a variety of job satisfaction questions asked in Section D of the 1999 NSOPF survey (Appendix A). The target population of the 1999 NSOPF included faculty solely from public, private, and non-

PAGE 21

10 profit institutions. Their res ponses to the question of ove rall job satisfaction (Appendix A: Q66j) will be the dependent va riable for this quantitative study. Delimitations The 1999 NSOPF research is publicly av ailable data and uses a clearly categorized set of variables consistent across the entire survey population (Appendix B). No other data sets were used in the perfor mance of this study; th e researcher did not record any identifying information despite its presence within the re sults of the survey. Definition of Terms The following definitions are provided for use in interpreting this study: ANGELan acronym for A New Global Environment for Learning and represents a learning management soft ware system; ANGEL software utilizes MindClick TM Process Technology that incorpor ates the combination of keen educational methodology and technological advancements to improve distance learning outcomes BlackBoarda networked lear ning environment where any student, instructor or researcher can access learning materials at any time via the World Wide Web (Pittinski, 2004) Blended Learnera student who acquires trai ning or education in a specific field of study from a traditional classroom sett ing in addition to one or more other elearning sources (Smith, 2001) Computer-Assisted Instructionthe use of software programs to perform the activities of drill and practice, tutoring and testing (Websters New World Computer Dictionary, 2003)

PAGE 22

11 Distance Learning When someone comple tes coursework away from an actual school campus, it is generally called dist ance learning; an um brella term for various types of learning, including online classes a nd classes available through the mail; several distance learning programs are connected to traditional schools, others exist independe ntly (Littlefield, 2005) Electronic-Learning or E-Learninga process employing a wide variety of electronic interaction or delivery methods Hardwarethe actual machines, wiri ng, and other physical components of a computer, computer device, or other electronic system (Pournelle, 2004) Institutional Supportin this study, ins titutional support represents a financial and administrative commitment for faculty development in technology training; the outfitting of up-to-date computer equipment and connectivity; and related technical support Instructional TechnologyThe field of in structional technolo gy has its roots in several disciplines; these include the behavioral and cognitive sciences, communication theory, and constructivi sm; when technologies, such as computers, digital video and the World Wide Web, are applied to the art of teaching and the science of learning, the marriage produces a model that can solve instructional problems and enhance learning outcomes (Ursinus, 2005) Instructional Technology Course Delivery Methodsin this study and as determined relevant in the NSOPF 1999 survey, instructional technology course delivery methods include web-site acce ss for training and testing, homework and other file submission, email, and other non face-to-face delivery methods

PAGE 23

12 (NSOPF, 1999) Link or Hyperlinkallows a computer-u ser access to alte rnative resource locations on the World Wide Web (WWW) by clicking on a specially configured word, phrase, or other item (Newton, 1998) On-lineconnected to a computer or available through a computer or other similar device (Barrons Dictionary of Computer and Internet Terms, 2003) Restricted Use Dataa data set cont aining confidential and non-confidential information about the survey participants; use of th e data set is limited to qualified applicants and must be license d for use by a principal investigator Softwarea program that tells a computer what to do or how to operate; contrasts with hardware (Barrons Dictionary of Computer and Inte rnet Terms, 2003). Telecommunications Technologybroadly, th e transmission of any information over public or private networks (Webst ers New World Computer Dictionary, 2003) Web sitea file or related group of files available on the WWW (Barrons Dictionary of Computer and Internet Terms, 2003) Web-Based Educational Software System sa form of inst ructional technology system developed for use over on the WWW and maintained by a proprietary vendor; it provides faculty members with measurable time-saving teaching processes and helps develop productive learning experiences and outcomes (ANGEL Learning, 2005)

PAGE 24

13 WebCTan e-learning environment deve loped for academic and institutional delivery over the WWW; it enables every institution to achieve its unique elearning objectives (WebCT, 2003) Summary Job satisfaction for part-tim e faculty at colleges and universities has raised significant issues for decades. The major issues have revolved around traditional intrinsic/extrinsic values and rewards. The concept of job satisfaction is not a new one but one that can also be influenced by non-trad itional factors. Parttime faculty decide to stay or leave the teaching profession for va rious job satisfaction -related reasons. This study examined if the use of instructional technology in their cour se delivery affected part-time facultys job satisfaction. This dissertation is organized into fi ve chapters. Chapter 1 presents an introduction and background information co ntributing to the problem. Chapter 2 summarizes a review of the literature, Ch apter 3 describes the methodology by which the study was conducted, Chapter 4 states the finding s of the data analysis of this ex-postfacto study, and Chapter 5 presents a summa ry of this study with conclusions, implications and recommendations.

PAGE 25

14 Chapter Two Review of the Literature For more than 25 years, higher educati on increased its reliance on part-time faculty to fill a void. This void was created by reductions in institutional funding and as a method to infuse new teaching ideas into an old educational system (Schrecker, 1998). In the public interest, legislators must focus on funding a broader range of public services. Also, education, entitlement, and suppleme ntal government programs all compete for limited monies which must be divided fairly and equitably. This competition for funds can directly affect the deci sion to hire fullor part-time teaching professionals. Variability in hiring practices fr om year to year can relate di rectly to job insecurity for part-timers and can affect th eir job satisfaction (Stephens and Wright, 1999). Inconsistent funding policies can adversely affect higher ed ucation hiring practices by not placing the best interest of the part-faculty person as a top priority (Schrecker, 1998). Job satisfaction of part-time faculty s hould be a concern in higher educationby the end of the 1990s, part-time faculty comp rised more than 35% of the total higher education teaching faculty in the United St ates (Pisani and Stott, 1998). The National Study of Post-Secondary Faculty (NSOPF) re ports that currently the number exceeds 40% and steadily increases (NCES, 1999). Howe ver, usually the first to be affected by these cuts in higher educa tion include support programs fo r training part-time faculty. Consequently, this causes complications with long-term salary commitments and support

PAGE 26

15 programs. Higher education continues to f ace reductions in funding, and now it affects the educational quality and instructional delivery in all public institutions. When considering the community colle ge system of education, Roueche, Roueche, and Milliron (1995) asse rt that part-time faculty remain an essential part of the growing structure in educatio nal systems. The success and qu ality of this educational delivery depend on the culture and environment from which the part-time faculty emerge. Part-time faculty members play a significant role in dispensing the first teaching and learning experiences for students. Typically, part-time faculty teach more lower-division than upper-division students. The enthusiasm, motivation, and excitement of a new parttime faculty member in the classroom can help to spawn interest a nd excitement in the new learners mind. For part-tim e faculty members, achieving successful course content applications includes increasing pressures; th ese stem mainly from experiencing limited institutional resources and f aculty development opportunities usually intended solely for full-time faculty (Menges, 1994). Concerns ove r teacher effectiveness and whether they will experience repeated hire s often produces insecurities and dissatisfaction with the part-timers jobs. Mainly, the literature reviewed in this study echoes, in varying degrees, a lack of professional or personal appreciation and teaching support for part-time faculty members. This absence of appreciation and support is often reflected in the faculty members degree of job satisfaction. Over the last 25 years, the National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES) has performed its study of post-secondary faculty. They collected data that includes comprehensive information about part-time facu lty and is included w ith this literature

PAGE 27

16 review. Several correlations exist between particular teaching disciplines and job satisfaction; however, an insi gnificant amount of literature ha s been written addressing any academic field-related job satisfaction, sp ecifically when an in structional technology is incorporated in the course delivery. This literature overview c overs the following topics central to this study: Motivations of part-time faculty Defining part-time Job Satisfaction Part-time faculty u tilizing technology in the classroom Overview of the Literature Motivations of Part-time Faculty Not all part-time faculty need or desi re a full-time teaching appointment. The concept of part-time faculty teaching as a fo rm of personal philanthropy, or as a giving back to society, describes the teaching inten tion of several parttimers. Other faculty members have full-time employment elsewher e in a business or industry, which helps to supplement their teaching experience. These two categories represen t significant reasons why some faculty teach part-time; this help s dispel the myth of the desperate person traveling from campus to campus awaiting a full-time teaching job (Stephens & Wright, 1999; Antony & Valadez, 2002). A great extent of literature about parttime faculty indicates that these personnel work part-time for various traditional reas onslittle is stated about the effect of technology on teaching satisfacti on. A technology Department Ch air of a sizable central Florida community college repor ts that several of her part-time faculty state they are rounding out of their careers and professional expertise as their reason for teaching

PAGE 28

part-time. The backgrounds of these part-timers include business professionals, computer programmers, technologists, and computer operators. Their motivation to return to teach each semester relates to the quality and availability of instructional technology to deliver their course work. Several of her part-time faculty view teaching with technology as a way to enhance their effectiveness and satisfaction teaching (M. Adkins, personal communication, December 10, 2004). In an article released by the National Education Association (NEA, 1994) addressing a study of part-time faculty issues, 800 union and non-union member respondents provided the following reasons why they work part-time. From the entire group of part-time faculty surveyed in this study, slightly over one-half preferred part-time employment (see Figure 1). Figure 1. Part-Time Facultys Work Preferences Percent of Part-Time Faculty Preferring Part or Full-TimeFigure 13%46%51% Prefer P/T Prefer F/T Unsure Source: National Education Association (NEA, 1994) Of those who preferred full-time employment, an average of 76% indicated a full-time teaching position was not available. About nine percent lacked the proper degree to teach full time, other smaller groups indicated full-time pay was insufficient, some stated personal reasons, and others were unsure of their reasons (see Figure 2). 17

PAGE 29

Figure 2. Reasons for Part-Time Preferences Reason Those Who Prefer Full-Time Work, Work Part-TimeFigure2 76% 3% 6% 9% 6% FT Not Available Lack Degree Other/Not Sure Personal Reason FT Pay Insufficent Source: National Education Association (NEA, 1994) Additionally, data from this study indicated 39% held one or more additional part-time jobs, 24.5% had full-time jobs and 34.5% had no other employment (see Figure 3). Figure 3. Part-Time Faculty with Other Jobs Part-Time Faculty Holding Other JobsFigure 339.0%24.5%2.0%34.5% No Other Employment Other Part-Time Jobs Other Full-Time Job Unknown Source: National Education Association (NEA, 1994) According to NEA research presented in Community College Week (1999), the largest percent of part-time faculty desiring full-time positions work in the Humanities, followed closely by the natural sciences and math. This research also indicates women 18

PAGE 30

19 with children under the age of 18 prefer part-t ime teaching so they may play a more vital role in their families lives (Grenzke, 1998). In the debate addressing the reasons for part-time teachi ng, some researchers review traditional elements of a college instruct ors career structure. In his article, Its Not a Job; Its An Indenture: Graduate Students and the Academic Job Market (1998), Pfannestiel remembers when he was enteri ng the academic job market. H reveals the difficulties in securing a full-time faculty posi tion. Citing overproduction of Ph.D.s in his field of Humanities and other certain disciplines, Pfannestiel blames graduate programs for continuing to accept students while i gnoring market saturation. His experience supports the 1999 National Education Association research reporting the lack of full-time appointments across several disciplines. This prolificacy in certain areas creates an increase in part-time appointments, a lowering of wages, and stiff competition for employment. Ph.D. graduates with little or no skill sets in instru ctional technology, from as far back as 1992, compete for current posi tions offering steady employment in some fields. Current methods of course delivery in higher education inco rporate a greater use of technology for the growing population of classroom and distance learners. The last decade of surveys and subsequent reports of part-time faculty job satisfaction provide solely ancillary data addressing the use of technology in education, and it reveals no further analysis regarding its eff ect on job satisfaction (NCES, 2004). However, the process of hiring and retaining part-time faculty includes consideration of professional expertise, attitudes, and abilities that currently include knowledge of instructional te chnology for course delivery. Training outside of an institution to become an effective part-time faculty member is not common; therefore, it

PAGE 31

20 is crucial to establis h a system for hiring part-time facu lty with a practical knowledge of instructional technology (Collins, 1999). Hiring part-time faculty with these skill sets may be crucial as the pool of retired, welltrained faculty grows. In the literature, the issues of pay equity, paid me dical benefits, and faculty de velopment describe the main concepts influencing part-time faculty job sati sfaction. Therefore, this suggests that parttime faculty leave the profession for more lu crative opportunities due to a lack of job satisfaction over these previously mentioned issues (Mendelowitz, 1998). Yet the issue of satisfaction or dissatisfaction with the demands of technology in their jobs is not considered. Due to reduced funding in the academ ic job market, some colleges and universities now create two part -time positions when a full-ti me faculty member retires. The practice of cost downsizing reduces the related expenses of maintaining a full-time, tenure-track position. Pfannestiel explores the po ssibilities of utilizing specific graduate programs that direct their All But Disserta tion (ABD) students in to part-time positions at colleges and universities. Eventually, this process can lead to balance between the supply-and-demand faculty staffing needs of hi gher education, and the graduate students desire for a career. Although th e concept of balance in the educator supply-and-demand cycle appears in several current examples of the literature as a contributor to enhance job satisfaction, the use of technology is not mentioned. In another example of Pfa nnestiels idea, Californias community college system currently implements a part-time graduate student-training program for future college educators. In light of the first major wave of faculty retirements and a projected 40% increase in part-time faculty needed over th e next ten years, Calif ornia seeks to fill

PAGE 32

21 positions with academically and ethnically-diver se candidates. Their effort is viewed by some as a suitable attempt at eliminating the over production of teachers for higher education while improving job satisfaction. To facilitate the proce ss of hiring capable part-time faculty while being mindful of bala nce in the production of college educators, The San Diego and Imperial Counties Co mmunity College Association (SDICCCA) initiated an internship program in their nine -college consortium. The internship program was established with San Diego State Univ ersity to develop tr ained, prepared, and experienced community college faculty. Key el ements in the program include graduate student mentoring, intern training, program evaluation, and placement opportunities. No clear commitment to instructional technol ogy was mentioned in the mission of this program. Although this program was developed as a feeder program for the California community college system, not all graduates are working there. Si nce the start of the program, 75% of the graduates are teaching or counseling in higher education full-time, while 24% are working part-time. Further data from the program rev eals that 48% of all graduates are working outside Californias community college system (Piland et al, 1999). A further review of the literature rev ealed findings consistent with the data presented so far. A paper supporting the posit ion of educator produc tion, the balance of supply and demand, and job satisfacti on was presented by the editor of Academe. This document addressed a broader range of factor s affecting the utilization of part-time faculty (Schrecker, 1998). Pres ented originally by represen tatives from ten academic associations attending the Conference on th e Growing Use of Part-Time and Adjunct Faculty held in Washington, D.C., Septem ber 26-28, 1997, this document details goals

PAGE 33

22 and implementation plans for successfully integrating part-time faculty into the academic environment. Findings shared in the report de tailed the extent and pattern of increased reliance on part-time faculty over the last 25 years. Benefits and disadvantages relating to this increased use as well as practices to ensure the long-term quality of academic instruction were discussed. Again, ke y issues surrounding overproduction and underemployment of recent Ph.D. graduate s were presented with no mention of instructional technology as an influencer to part-time job satisfaction, considering the use of technology in the delive ry of coursework had begun to emerge on many college campuses by this time (NCES, 2001). Defining Part-time Job Satisfaction As a result of the Conference on the Growing Use of Part-Time and Adjunct Faculty (1998), a group discussion on maintain ing excellence in education, 16 guidelines for good practices in utilizing adjunct or part-time facu lty were developed and are detailed within the report. These guidelines included several issues of job satisfaction that reoccur throughout the li terature. This included selec ting and hiring part-time faculty based on clear criteria with standards matching the teaching assignment and the institutions mission. Hiring th e best available candidate was reported to maximize the part-timers teaching and work potential, and also to minimize hiring multiple individuals that simply create excessive overhead. Part-tim e faculty were also given assurances that they will be considered equally for full-tim e or tenure-track opport unities for which they are qualified (Schrecker, 1998). The conference members agreed that new part-time faculty should be included in the long-term curricular planning process wh enever possible. This opportunity would

PAGE 34

23 provide greater insight to the terms and conditions of th eir teaching appointments. It was also a consensus that this process would c ontribute to the inst itutions greater good and provide the faculty member with a feeling of investment in the coll ege, job security, and job satisfaction. After careful consideration of the institutions needs and mission, it was determined that there was no one size fits all ratio of full-time to part-time faculty suited to all academic teaching loads. Accordingly, it was recommended that the faculty of each institution should systematically re view the institutions policy regarding parttime faculty employment on a case-by-case basi s. This would ensure that the number of part-time faculty hired is based on educationa l goals and job satisfaction, not simply the bottom line of the institution (Schrecker, 1998, pp. 54 60). Other recommendations from the Confer ence on the Growing Use of Part-Time and Adjunct Faculty held in Washington, D.C. included providing each faculty member with a clear contractual st atement of job expectations a list of in-class teaching assignments and responsibilities, course pr eparation materials, student advisement schedule if appropriate, and ancillary servic e to the institution. The conference findings emphasized that part-time faculty will rece ive sufficient notice of appointment or reappointment to allow sufficient time for cour se preparation. One of the strongest cases was for providing part-time faculty with pr oper development. This included whole campus orientation, mentoring, professiona l support and devel opment opportunities, campus grant programs, sabbaticals, funding tr avel for research, and support to make presentations at professional conferences (Schrecker, 1998). The open-ended nature of the part-time faculty development reco mmendation allows for speculation that

PAGE 35

24 instructional technology could be included in the plan. As in other documents, no specific reference addresses the use of instructional technology as a job satisfaction component. The following list of recommendations, as compiled by Schrecker, 1998, comprised the balance of the groups findings to help promote a high level of job satisfaction. Listed are provisions for work conditions essential to perform assigned responsibilities. These include the following: A range of needs for part-time faculty office space, office supplies, clerical support services, telephone access, computer availability, parking permits, library access, after-hours access to buildin gs, and institution e-mail accounts A fair salary that remunerates for comme nsurate qualifications and parallels fulltime faculty salaries rather than per-course-hour rates Access to fringe benefits such as heal th and life insurance, sick leave, and retirement plans Opportunities for professional advanc ement, including merit increases and promotions Regular evaluations based on established cr iteria consistent with responsibilities; and the opportunities for an appeal or grie vance in the event allegedly substantial violations of procedure, discrimination or denial of academic freedom occurs Part-time faculty access to the collegial processes including faculty governance as it relates to contractual responsibilitie s for teaching and curricular planning Access to all regular department al meetings and communication (Schrecker, 1998).

PAGE 36

25 To guarantee the previously mentioned gui delines were established, disseminated, and implemented, an action agenda was develope d that listed eighteen steps to assure the broadest success. The agenda suggested issu ing a press release revealing the significance of creating a coalition of a ssociations expressing concern about the increasing part-time faculty appointments, and addressing its imp lications for the continued quality of higher educations instructional programs. It was inte nded that this statement be forwarded to the governing bodies of respect ive educational associations urging them to discuss, accept, and endorse the statement. They surm ised that working on these issues with educational associations coul d cause a heightened awarene ss to improve job satisfaction for part-time faculty among all constituenci es in roundtables, plenary sessions, and Department Chair meetings at national and re gional meetings. The statement was to be provided for department chairs, faculty senates, college and university presidents, system chancellors, and boards of trustees to ensure a sizable impact on change (Schrecker, 1998). The second set of action-agenda items from the conference focuses on faculties within community colleges, four-year colleges, and universities. In this grouping, administrators and faculty mentors are urge d to implement good practices within their respective institutions; this includes using disc retion in part-time faculty appointments as they relate to the educational goals of the institution. Having full-time faculty members act as mentors in all levels of their programs is a key issu e when making these part-time faculty appointment decisions. Costs and bene fits of using part-time appointments for both students and full-time faculty members we re also important i ssues. The cost of shifting increasing responsibility for curri culum development, advising students with

PAGE 37

26 department majors, and faculty governance to fewer full-time faculty members was another problem considered (Schrecker, 1998). Specifically, participants of the conference made the following recommendations to strengthen part-time f aculty job satisfaction: Formulate explicit means to evaluate e ffective teaching of part-time faculty members Use collective bargaining where it currently exists (or may exist in the future) to negotiate improved practices for part-time appointments Re-examine the education and pr oduction of doctoral students. Questions to be considered include but are not limited to the following: Consider whether doctoral students ar e adequately prepared to teach in a variety of educational institutions an d to obtain employment in nonacademic environments Ensure there is full disclosure of the placement of doctoral students in both academic and nonacademic positions Determine whether there is an overproduc tion of Ph.D.s, and if so, determine the responsibilities of the affected academic departments and professional associations to deal with this overp roduction in a rational and ethical manner (Schrecker, 1998) Thirdly, faculty within institutions and members of professional, scholarly, and higher-education associations are encouraged to develop long-term coalitions ensuring that part-time faculty members receive professional status and compensation

PAGE 38

27 commensurate with their role in higher educa tion. This coalition (or coalitions) should act on the following situations: To seek an institutional base for continuity To obtain more accurate data collection methods for part-time faculty To work in conjunction with campus and sy stem researchers, the larger research community, and interested federal and st ate agencies (particularly the U.S. Departments of Education and Labor) to develop data regard ing the types and distributions of academic appointments; these should include definitions and methodologies suitable for shared use among part-time faculty To work for labor equity and fair em ployment practices for colleagues who hold part-time faculty appointments To formulate statements of good practic e pertaining to part-time and adjunct faculty appointments; these would transmit up the institutional governing hierarchy to institutions of higher education for thei r consideration and response To collaborate with accred iting associations to secu re good practices regarding the use of part-time faculty appointments and enforcing mechanisms where such practices do not occur To undertake a variety of stra tegies to inform the genera l public of the use of parttime faculty appointments. One suggestion is to identify institutions in which adequate practices exist and to publici ze some as case studies. The publicity might take the form of an annually revise d list of model instit utions released to the media

PAGE 39

28 To define the appropriate ratio between full-and part-time faculty appointments that would ensure quality education, considering the diversity among disciplines and institutions of higher e ducation; then to reconsider this ratio at stated intervals with respect to the rapidly ch anging conditions within higher education To integrate the various types of institutions and their part-time faculty currently providing higher education, especially in community colleges and within professional associatio ns (Schrecker, 1998) The quality of the classes part-timers w ill teach, however, is called into question when they are delivered without regular ity, planning, and forethought (Mendelowitz, 1998). When considering new and maturing faculty, it is crucial to provide encouragement and mentoring to produce j ob satisfaction. Helping part-time faculty maintain quality in the delivery of subject matter, mastery of subject area, the maintenance of highly socialized faculty sk ills, and the association with professional affiliations are all the institutio ns responsibility. This is especially true when considering the constant concern over high anxiety, poor time management skills, no faculty development, unexpected isolation, repressing of stress, and lack of rewards or compensation that leads to poor job satisfaction (Menges, 1994). When a new graduate or industry professi onal begins to teach part-time in higher education, the issue of paying a fair salary can immediately affect job satisfaction. Too often salaries and benefits, if any, are pr e-determined and not negotiable; thus, no significant opportunities occur that would vary the initia l hiring terms (Lyons, R. et al, 1999). Serious consideration must be addressed in the employment process whether or not the terms will satisfy the new, part-time faculty member.

PAGE 40

29 Part-time faculty job satisfaction may assu me several forms and can be viewed in various ways. From the institutions standpoint, it is preferable to have an experienced, competent, and capable person in the role of adjunct. The part-time faculty member should meet the department, program, and fiscal requirements and shoul d also fit in with the culture and foster student success. This employee will provide the same services as the full-time teacher and will a dd a sense of value to the in stitution; hence, one should consider his or her job satisfaction. Part-Time Faculty Utiliz ing Technology to Teach The Conference on the Growing Use of Part-Time and Adjunct Faculty summarizes the issues and concerns on bot h sides of the part-time faculty paradox. Concerns over part-time teaching responsibilit ies, fiscal requirements, and accountability issues presented in much of the literatur e are reinforced by th e findings presented throughout the conference. Conference par ticipants present a concise plan for establishing guidelines and procedures to further necessary correc tive action in higher education; this positively affects overa ll part-time faculty job satisfaction. Yet the suggestions for establishing successf ul part-time faculty relationships, as outlined in the literature and presented at the Conference on the Growing Use of PartTime and Adjunct Faculty, ignor e several crucial factors. A significant shortage of parttime faculty exists for course concentrations utilizing effective inst ructional t echnology (NCES, 2004). Part-time faculty members w ho teach distance-learning courses using technology-based course delivery are especial ly difficult to acquire. Community colleges participating in the Florida, Developing a Curriculum (DACUM), Data Accessible Course conference in Daytona Beach, Florid a, 2002 reported similar problems filling

PAGE 41

30 their departments part-time faculty vacan cies with qualified persons having a strong background in instru ctional technology. In meetings and mentoring sessions dur ing the Florida, DACUM 2002, several of the highly qualified instruc tional technology-oriented faculty expressed their purpose for teaching. Love of the job, inte raction with students, working as a faculty member in a college environment, and making a differen ce in society illustrate only a few candid reasons. However, concerns over taking time aw ay from their technology jobs to teach are growing. The issue of lower than industry standards pay presents crucial concerns for several adjuncts. A multitude of departments proudly deliver quality classes to their students by using the most quali fied instructors available. Yet several professionals who are teaching part-time maintain full-time careers that requ ire their services beyond the standard work day. This places the added stre ss of time and availability to teach on both the part-time faculty member and the progr am directors that schedule the classes. Compounding this dilemma is the lack of suppor t services from their full-time employer for the part timers teaching jobs. Issues such as flexible hours, which help the part-time faculty report to class on time, and offering company computers for curriculum preparation after work hours represented spec ific concerns. College support for the parttime faculty included requests for available parking near the buildings where they will teach after hours; organized office space; and consistently reliable computers, software, and instructional technology with which to teach (DACUM, 2002). The needs and job satisfaction of part-time faculty are unique and were not thoroughly addressed in the research findings described in the Conference on the Growing Use of Part-Time and Adjunct Facu lty (1998). Recurring diffi culties exist when

PAGE 42

31 with limited technology-literate personnel. Several instituti ons under the current system supply varied resources and incentives offe red to the faculty member to accommodate and overcome current difficulties in part-time teaching (DACUM, 2002). For the last several years, textbook co mpanies spent thousands of dollars on research and development in instructional technology-based cour se-delivery systems (Course Technology, 2004). They hoped to de velop and support distance learning software and website support acknowledge; howe ver, this demands part-time faculty to deliver quality education to st udents who may require instru ctional technology assisted learning methods. Currently, only a few specialized edu cation programs address the technology competency issues of faculty by requiring that certain specifications be met. By detailing the exact hardware and software requirements used to effectively deliver courses, faculty must be trained according to certification guid elines. As a result, faculty gain greater exposure to quality computing and instructional technology resources (Microsoft Training and Certification, 2001), which then contributes to great er job satisfaction. Summary Academic institutions are restructuring their programs and offering accountability to the general public over the effectiveness of curriculum; thus, they initiated processes that address the needs of the technology-orie nted student. A sizable quantity of literature reveals studies of factors aff ecting part-time faculty job satisfaction; specifically those that focus on traditional influencers such as pay equity, promotions, benefits, and reasonable work loads. The significance of instructional technology resources has not been investigated as a c ontributor to part-time job satisfaction. Further study of

PAGE 43

32 technology in education is necessary to identif y those areas with the greatest impact on part-time faculty job satisfaction. Instructional technology resources in hi gher education are in demand across the majority of curriculum areas. It is the intent of the researcher to investigate whether or not instructional technology resources and teach ing methods affect th e job satisfaction of part-time faculty members.

PAGE 44

Chapter Three Methodology Introduction Four objectives exist for this quantitative, ex-post-facto study of the National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES) 1999 national study of postsecondary faculty. The first was to explore whether the use of a technology-based educational delivery system in higher education contributes similarly to the overall job satisfaction of part-time faculty in two-year and four-year institutions. The second examined whether the use of a technology-based educational delivery system in higher education contributes to the overall job satisfaction of part-time faculty in their first year of teaching. The third was designed to determine whether the use of a technology-based educational delivery system in higher education contributes similarly to the overall job satisfaction of part-time, male and female faculty. Lastly, by applying CSCCs adapted curriculum classification scheme (2002) to group teaching fields, this research determined whether the use of an instructional technology-based educational delivery system in higher education contributes to the overall job satisfaction of part-time faculty in seven discipline cluster groups. This chapter describes the research questions and hypotheses, survey participants, National Study of Post Secondary Faculty (NSOPF) survey instrument, and data analysis procedures. 33

PAGE 45

Research Questions Ten research questions were the focus this quantitative, ex-post-facto study to examine if instructional technology influences overall part-time faculty job satisfaction. They include the following: 1) Is there a difference in the overall job satisfaction of part-time faculty who use instructional technology to deliver their coursework at two-year community colleges and those at four-year institutions? 2) Is there a difference in the overall job satisfaction of part-time faculty who use instructional technology to deliver their coursework during their first year of teaching versus those who have taught for more than one year? 3) Is there a difference in the overall job satisfaction of part-time faculty who use instructional technology to deliver their coursework when comparing males to females? 4) Is there a difference in the overall job satisfaction of part-time faculty who use instructional technology to deliver their coursework in the Computer Science discipline versus those who do not use this method? 5) Is there a difference in the overall job satisfaction of part-time faculty who use instructional technology to deliver their coursework in the English and Language Arts discipline versus those who do not use this method? 6) Is there a difference in the overall job satisfaction of part-time faculty who use instructional technology to deliver their coursework in the Fine and Performing Arts discipline versus those who do not use this method? 34

PAGE 46

7) Is there a difference in the overall job satisfaction of part-time faculty who use instructional technology to deliver their coursework in the Humanities discipline versus those who do not use this method? 8) Is there a difference in the overall job satisfaction of part-time faculty who use instructional technology to deliver their coursework in the Mathematics and Statistics discipline versus those who do not use this method? 9) Is there a difference in the overall job satisfaction of part-time faculty who use instructional technology to deliver their coursework in the Natural and Physical Sciences discipline versus those who do not use this method? 10) Is there a difference in the overall job satisfaction of part-time faculty who use instructional technology to deliver their coursework in the Social Sciences discipline versus those who do not use this method? Null Hypotheses This researcher has 19 years of full-time teaching experience at a community college in central Florida with the additional responsibility of selecting, training, and mentoring part-time faculty. Anecdotally, he has observed some evidence of a relationship between the overall job satisfaction of these part-time faculty and the use of instructional technology; however, this researcher expected to find no statistically significant difference in the degrees of overall satisfaction among the study population based on the minimal amount of available literature relating overall job satisfaction to the use of instructional technology. Therefore, this researcher stated a null hypothesis for each of the ten research questions in this study. 35

PAGE 47

1) There is no difference in the overall job satisfaction of part-time faculty who use instructional technology to deliver their coursework at two-year community colleges versus those at four-year institutions? 2) There is no difference in the overall job satisfaction of part-time faculty who use instructional technology to deliver their coursework during their first year of teaching versus those who have taught for more than one year? 3) There is no difference in the overall job satisfaction of part-time faculty who use instructional technology to deliver their coursework when comparing males to females? 4) There is no difference in the overall job satisfaction of part-time faculty who use instructional technology to deliver their coursework in the Computer Science discipline versus those who do not use this method? 5) There is no difference in the overall job satisfaction of part-time faculty who use instructional technology to deliver their coursework in the English and Language Arts discipline versus those who do not use this method? 6) There is no difference in the overall job satisfaction of part-time faculty who use instructional technology to deliver their coursework in the Fine and Performing Arts discipline versus those who do not use this method? 7) There is no difference in the overall job satisfaction of part-time faculty who use instructional technology to deliver their coursework in the Humanities discipline versus those who do not use this method? 36

PAGE 48

8) There is no difference in the overall job satisfaction of part-time faculty who use instructional technology to deliver their coursework in the Mathematics and Statistics discipline versus those who do no use this method? 9) There is no difference in the overall job satisfaction of part-time faculty who use instructional technology to deliver their coursework in the Natural and Physical Sciences discipline versus those who do not use this method? 10) There is no difference in the overall job satisfaction of part-time faculty who use instructional technology to deliver their coursework in the Social Sciences discipline versus those who do not use this method? Method This study was a quantitative ex-post-facto analysis of data collected by the NCES in their 1999 NSOPF. The NSOPF data set was analyzed using the Pearson chi-square test of significance for all ten of the research questions. The Pearson chi-square test of significance is an appropriate analysis because all relevant variables are dichotomous. The Pearson chi-square test is a widely used statistical procedure to compare two components of categorical data. It is used to test the null hypothesis of a repeated and exclusive event where one of the outcomes occurs each time the specific experiment is performed (Agresti, 1996). A larger difference between the two outcomes indicates that the experimental result is more statistically reliable. A relative risk test was performed on any results which indicated statistical significance as a follow-up test to help establish the effect size in the Pearson chi-square analysis results. For the purpose of the relative risk results, the value of one (1.00) has the least strength or magnitude in 37

PAGE 49

support of the Pearson chi-square results. A resulting number farther away from one (1.00), either positively or negatively skewed, is an indicator of a stronger result. For the purpose of this study, it should be noted that the NSOPF questionnaire asked respondents about their primary, course-delivery medium and were given four choices (Q41-5, Appendix A). These included the following: 1) face-to-face; 2) computer; 3) TV-based; and 4) other. It was up to the respondent to decide which delivery method best described his or her teaching interaction and no additional information beyond these categories was listed (NSOPF, 1999). Questions Q41-5 and Q24-3 established the criterion for all 10 questions in this study and were used as follows: 1) To clearly identify faculty delivering coursework via instructional technology, the researcher filtered question Q41-5 Primary Medium Used to include only responses to 2) computer; and 3) TV-based delivery methods (Appendix A). 2) To clearly identify all part-time faculty members for consideration in this study, the researcher filtered question Q24-3 Employment Status to include only part-time teaching status (Appendix A). To clearly identify job satisfaction as a dichotomous, dependent variable, the researcher converted the four Likert scale responses to question Q66J How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with your job overall at this institution? into two groups to create a dichotomous variable (Appendix A). The responses to question Q66J were divided as follows: 1. The two negative responses very dissatisfied and somewhat dissatisfied were classified as a single dissatisfied response. 38

PAGE 50

2. The two positive responses somewhat satisfied and very satisfied were classified as a single satisfied response. The researcher did then apply the Pearson chi-square test of significance to investigate if a relationship exists between overall part-time faculty job satisfaction and the use of instructional technology as determined by responses to the NSOPF 1999 survey. Purpose of the Study The researcher investigated whether the use of instructional technology for curriculum delivery affected part-time faculty job satisfaction as an influencer to job retention. This study (1) explored whether the use of a technology-based educational delivery system in higher education contributes similarly to the overall job satisfaction of part-time faculty in two and four year institutions; (2) examined whether the use of a technology-based educational delivery system in higher education contributed to the overall job satisfaction of part-time faculty in their first year of teaching; and (3) observed whether the use of a technology-based educational delivery system in higher education contributed similarly to the overall job satisfaction of part-time, male and female faculty. The fourth area of investigation looked at seven discipline-based categories (Table 1). This grouping was adapted from CSCCs curriculum classification scheme (2002), supported by Schuyler (1999) and was used to cluster liberal arts teaching fields in the NSOPF survey (Appendix A) to observe whether the use of a technology-based educational delivery system in higher education contributed to the overall job satisfaction of part-time faculty in these broad discipline-based categories. 39

PAGE 51

Table 1 Liberal Arts, Discipline-Based Categories Order Discipline 1) Computer Science 2) English and Language Arts 3) Fine and Performing Arts 4) Humanities 5) Math and Statistics 6) Natural and Physical Sciences 7) Social Sciences (including History) Source: Adapted from the Center for the Study of Community Colleges, 2002. Cohen and Ignash (1994), and Schuyler (1999) assert that using a taxonomy such as the adaptation of CSCCs classification scheme shown in Table 1 provides the most complete and balanced look at the liberal arts disciplines with a logical and even distribution of categories. As an alternative to the distribution in Table 1, Ignash, Schuyler, and others suggest listing History as a separate category (Table 2) provided there is a large enough N-value to make the category significant for study. In the case of the 1999 NSOPF data set, the researcher did a preliminary statistical analysis on the History discipline and found that the N-value was not large enough to merit standing alone as a discipline. History was therefore included in the Social Sciences category where it can traditionally be placed and was indicated in the original adaptation of CSCC curriculum classification scheme (Table 1). 40

PAGE 52

Table 2 Liberal Arts, Discipline-Based Categories with History as a Separate Field Order Discipline 1) Computer Science 2) English and Language Arts 3) Fine and Performing Arts 4) Humanities 5) Math and Statistics 6) Natural and Physical Sciences 7) Social Sciences 8) History Source: Adapted from the Center for the Study of Community Colleges, 2002 For the purpose of the 1999 NSOPF survey four liberal arts disciplines were listed separately in a non self-explanatory category. By applying CSCCs adapted curriculum classification scheme, these non self-explanatory disciplines were included in the broad discipline-based group listed in Table 1. For all non self-explanatory liberal arts disciplines addressed in the 1999 NSOPF study, the coding schedule is listed in table 3. Table 3 NSOPF Non Self-Explanatory Categories Coding Table Non Self-Explained Category Assigned to CCSCs Scheme (Table 1) Engineering Natural and Physical Sciences (#6) Foreign Languages Humanities (#4) Philosophy, Religion & Theology Humanities (#4) Psychology Social Sciences (#7) Source: Adapted from the Center for the Study of Community Colleges, 2002 41

PAGE 53

Research design The researcher received permission from NCES for a restricted-use license to study and analyze restricted use data from the NCES 1999 NSOPSF, which employed an ex-post-facto research design in this investigation. The 10 research questions stated in this document were studied using the Pearson chi-square test of significance applied to the independent and dichotomous variables appropriate to each question at the .05 alpha-level. If statistical significance was indicated upon completion of the Pearson chi-square test, the researcher also ran a relative risk follow-up test to determine the difference in magnitude of the dichotomous variables. Population The 1998-1999 National Study of Postsecondary Faculty (NSOPF, 1999) included 960 degree-granting postsecondary institutions and an initial sample of 28,600 faculty and instructional staff from those institutions that were sent a questionnaire. Subsequently, a sub-sample of 19,213 faculty and instructional staff was drawn for additional survey follow-up. Approximately 18,000 faculty and instructional staff follow-up questionnaires were completed for a weighted response rate of 83% (NCES, 2005). The sample of faculty was stratified into systematic samples by gender and race/ethnicity. The sample for 1999 NSOPF was selected in three stages. In the initial stage, 960 postsecondary institutions were selected from the 1997 Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS). Each sampled institution was asked to provide a list of the entire full and part-time faculty that were employed by the institution during the 1998 fall term institutions provided this information. In the second stage of sampling, 28,576 faculty were selected from the lists provided by the institutions. Over 42

PAGE 54

1,500 of these sample members were determined to be ineligible for 1999 NSOPF as they were not employed by their institution during the 1998 fall term. The resulting sample was 27,044 faculty members. The third stage of sampling occurred in the final phases of data collection. To increase the response rate, a sub-sample of faculty who had not responded was selected for intensive follow-up efforts. Other non-respondents were eliminated from the sample, resulting in a final sample size of 19,213 eligible faculty providing reliable data as a source and means of performing a viable ex-post-facto study. Quality of the Data Source The National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES) has performed federally ordered educational research for more than 40 years. Specifically, the NSOPF survey instrument has been issued and revised several times since 1988 in response to recurring requests for in-depth information on the thoughts and attitudes of faculty and instructors, and also on other persons who directly affect the delivery and quality of education in postsecondary institutions (NCES, 2005). NCES defines the Center in this manner: The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) is the primary federal entity for collecting and analyzing data related to education in the U.S. and other nations. NCES is located within the U.S. Department of Education and the Institute of Education Sciences. NCES fulfills a Congressional mandate to collect, collate, analyze, and report complete statistics on the condition of American education; conduct and publish reports; and review and report on education activities internationally (2005). Regarding the integrity of the data collection process, The Office of the Commissioner sets policy and standards for the Center and oversees its operation, thus ensuring that statistical quality and confidentiality are maintained (NCES, 2005). The Deputy Commissioners office, which includes the Chief Statistician and the Chief Technology Officer, provides state-of-the-art technology and statistical support to the Center and to 43

PAGE 55

federal and nonfederal organizations and entities involved in statistical work in support of NCES. In addition, the staff develops and operates a licensing system for individuals and organizations that require access to confidential data for statistical purposes (NCES, 2005). NCES statistical standards define their quality assurance in this manner: NCES has an extensive Statistical Standards Program that consults and advises on methodological and statistical aspects involved in the design, collection, and analysis of data collections in the Center. NCES program staff also provides consultation and advice to the NCES Data Cooperatives and to other offices within the Department of Education as the need arises. (2005) NCES has repeated the NSOPF study four times. The first survey was conducted in 1988, once in 1993, again in 1999, and lastly, in 2004. The NSOPF sequence of survey data is considered reliable due to the repetitive and follow-up nature of the study. The sample of faculty was stratified into systematic samples. Validity Stressing validity, the 1999 NSOPF survey was the third in a series of recurring data collection by the National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES). The 1999 National Study of Postsecondary Faculty (NSOPF) Methodology Report addresses content validity in the NSOPF questionnaire by establishing items in the survey conceptually related to match each questioning category. Questions developed for each of the established categories in the first issue of the survey were refined for clarity and generalization to the target population, and then re-administered in the subsequent surveys. Multiple steps insured quality and accuracy of the results throughout the data collection and processing procedure. These steps included the following categories: 44

PAGE 56

Reviewing all lists of participants for completeness and readability for data sampling Monitoring the associated survey material for completeness in the data entry process Flagging all cases with missing or inconsistent data through automated consistency checks and indicating this accordingly in the data set Coding responses Conducting quality control checks of data entry Preparing documents for archival storage The institutions lists of participants were cross referenced with the 1999 NSOPF participant list upon completion of the surveys. An intensive follow-up was conducted with 28.6% of participating institutions whose reports exhibited a five percent or more variance between the overall list and the survey counts; this ensured an accurate representation of the target population (NSOPF, 1999). As the entire questionnaire counts were performed simultaneously at the institution and by NSOPF coordinators, no differences in the response rates were expected. However, when conflicting response counts emerged, other sources of data such as the 1997-1998 Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) enumerations and faculty counts from previous NSOPF studies provided a check on the quality of the 1999 NSOPF data. IPEDS was the original data source for pre-qualifying institutions and their faculty for the NCES survey. The overall item non-response rate for the faculty questionnaire was 6.2%. Fifty-five percent of the items on the questionnaire had an item non-response rate of less than five percent, one quarter of the items were between five and 10%, and 20% of the 45

PAGE 57

participants in the survey had a non-response rate greater than 10%. Of all the issues relating to job satisfaction the mean non-response rate was 6.6%, and the total of non-responders to items that were considered critical in this category was 2.3%. Through a multi-stage effort to rectify any inconsistency in an institutions participant list, NCES was able to determine which institutions lists were accurate and complete. Subsequently, they extracted a sample of faculty who were asked to participate in the study. Intensive locating was performed to ensure that an updated home or campus address was available for each sample member to insure thoroughness that could be generalized to the overall population. Addressing validity of the study, list counts for the 1999 NSOPF are dramatically closer to the IPEDS counts than the 1993 NSOPF. In 1999, the list differed only 3.3% from the IPEDS versus a 14.4% difference in 1993 (NSOPF, 1999). Data Analysis/Procedures All ten research questions were analyzed using analytical statistics applied to the 1999 NSOPF survey data according to the coding scheme developed by the NCES and as categorized in the broad discipline-based adaptation of CSCCs curriculum classification scheme A Pearson chi-square test of significance and a difference of proportions test were run on the data set using SAS statistical analysis software. An alpha of .05 was assigned by the researcher to the Pearson chi-square statistical test of significance for each question. Established criteria for each of the ten questions included responses to the four survey questions in Table 4. 46

PAGE 58

Table 4 Primary Survey Questions used to establish the Study Population 1999 NSOPF Survey Question Number Survey Question Content Q5 During the 1998 Fall Term, did this institution consider you to be employed part-time or full time? (Filtered to only include part-time faculty) Q66J How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with your job overall at this institution? (Filtered to identify very dissatisfied and somewhat dissatisfied as a dissatisfied response, and somewhat satisfied and very satisfied as a satisfied response) X43_41 (Do you teach) any class with computer as primary medium? (Filtered to a yes response) X44_41 (Do you teach) any class with TV as primary medium? (Filtered to a yes response) Note. Data from the National Study of Postsecondary Faculty survey (NSOPF 1999). Regarding Question One: Is there a difference in the overall job satisfaction of part-time faculty who use instructional technology to deliver their coursework at two-year community colleges versus those at four-year institutions? The researcher conducted a Pearson chi-square test of significance to examine the level of job satisfaction of part-time faculty who use instructional technology to deliver their coursework at two-year community colleges versus those at four-year institutions. The researcher also calculated a difference of proportions to examine the disparity in their size. 47

PAGE 59

Regarding Question Two: Is there a difference in the overall job satisfaction of part-time faculty who use instructional technology to deliver their coursework during their first year of teaching versus those who have taught for more than one year? The researcher conducted a Pearson chi-square test of significance to examine the level of job satisfaction of part-time faculty who use instructional technology to deliver their coursework during their first year of teaching versus those who have taught for more than one year. The researcher also conducted a difference in proportions calculation to determine the size difference in these dichotomous variables. Regarding Question Three: Is there a difference in the overall job satisfaction of part-time faculty who use instructional technology to deliver their coursework when comparing males to females? The researcher conducted a Pearson chi-square test of significance to examine the level of job satisfaction of part-time male faculty versus part-time female faculty who use instructional technology to deliver their coursework. The researcher once again conducted a difference of proportions follow-up calculation to determine the variability in the difference of gender. Regarding Questions Four through Ten: Is there a difference in the overall job satisfaction of part-time faculty who use instructional technology to deliver their coursework in each of the 7 broad discipline-based categories versus those who do not use these methods? 48

PAGE 60

The researcher conducted a Pearson chi-square test of significance on each discipline area to examine the level of job satisfaction of part-time faculty who use instructional technology to deliver their coursework in each of the seven categories listed in Table 1. The researcher further conducted a difference of proportions test to determine the dissimilarity in each dichotomous variable test broken down by discipline according to the adaptation of CSCCs curriculum classification scheme If statistical significance was indicated by the Pearson chi-square test, a relative risk test was calculated for the outcome to determine the effect size. Summary The researcher intended to discover from this study that overall part-time faculty job satisfaction is not influenced by instructional technology by exploring the ten research questions stated in this study. The researcher performed an ex-post-facto review of data using the 1999 NSOPF restricted use data set available through the National Center for Educational Statistics from the U.S. Department of Education. No subject identifying information was disclosed when performing the statistical analysis. To investigate these research questions, the researcher removed all missing values and converted any yes or no variables that are currently 1=yes / 2=no to 1=yes / 0=no. Addressing Question Q66, (How satisfied are you with your job overall?), the Likert scale responses were grouped in the following manner to create a dichotomous variablevery dissatisfied and somewhat dissatisfied equal a dissatisfied response, and somewhat satisfied and very satisfied equal a satisfied response. 49

PAGE 61

The researcher conducted a Pearson chisquare test of significance to examine the differences in the dichotomous variables in all ten questions. A difference of proportions test was used to determine the percent difference of satisfied faculty and relative risk test was performed on all results with statistical significance. The researcher then summarized all potential influencers on part-time faculty job satisfaction. 50

PAGE 62

Chapter Four Results The purpose of this ex-post-facto research study was to assess the overall job satisfaction of part-time instructional faculty in two-year and four-year colleges and universities throughout the United States who used instructional technology to deliver their course content. Specifically, the researcher investigated whether the use of instructional technology for curriculum delivery affected part-time faculty job satisfaction when coupled with a number of other variables. This study (1) explored whether the use of a technology-based educational delivery system in higher education contributed overall to part-time faculty job satisfaction in two-year and four-year institutions, (2) examined whether the use of a technology-based educational delivery system in higher education contributed to the overall job satisfaction of part-time faculty in their first year of teaching, (3) determined whether the use of a technology-based educational delivery system in higher education contributed differently to the overall job satisfaction of part-time male and female faculty, and (4) by applying an adaptation of CSCCs curriculum classification scheme to group teaching fields, observed whether the use of a technology-based educational delivery system in higher education contributed to the overall job satisfaction of part-time faculty in seven discipline clusters. This quantitative analysis was performed as an ex-post-facto study on the National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES) results from the 1999 National Study of Post-Secondary Faculty (NSOPF). The study examined how the characteristics of part51

PAGE 63

time faculty, specific demographic influencers, and liberal arts disciplines may have affected job satisfaction in this group. A quantitative analysis using the Pearson chi-square statistical method was used to respond to each of the ten research questions. The Pearson chi-square test is the most widely used statistical procedure to compare two elements of categorical data. It is used primarily to test the null hypothesis of a repeated and exclusive event where one of the outcomes occurs each time the specific experiment is performed (Agresti, 1996). The larger the difference between the two outcomes, the more likely the experimental result is statistically accurate. A relative risk test was performed on any results which indicated statistical significance as a follow-up test to help establish the effect size in the Pearson chi-square analysis results. For the purpose of the relative risk results, the researcher identifies the value of one (1.00) as having the least strength or magnitude in support of the Pearson chi-square results. Therefore a resulting number farther away from one (1.00), either positively or negatively skewed is an acceptable indicator. In this chapter, a summary of the data collection process and the analysis of the data are provided. The NSOPF Study The NSOPF data was collected from a self-reporting instrument administered by NCES in the fall of 1998 and spring of 1999 with a variety of job satisfaction questions asked in Section D of the 1999 NSOPF survey (Appendix A). The target population of the 1999 NSOPF includes faculty from public, private, and non-profit institutions. The 1999 NSOPF research is publicly available data and uses a clearly categorized set of variables consistent across the entire survey population (Appendix B). No other data sets 52

PAGE 64

were used in performing this study, and the researcher did not record any identifying information despite its presence within the results of the survey. Survey Distribution and Responses The 1998-1999 National Study of Postsecondary Faculty (NSOPF, 1999) included 960 degree-granting postsecondary institutions and an initial sample of 28,600 faculty and instructional staff from those institutions that were sent a questionnaire. Subsequently, a sub-sample of 19,213 faculty and instructional staff was drawn for additional survey follow-up. Approximately 18,000 faculty and instructional staff follow-up questionnaires were completed for a weighted response rate of 83% (NCES, 2005). This sample of faculty was stratified into systematic samples by gender and race/ethnicity. The population for 1999 NSOPF was selected in three stages. In the initial stage, 960 postsecondary institutions were selected from the 1997 Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS). Each sampled institution was asked to provide a list of the entire full and part-time faculty that were employed by the institution during the 1998 fall term institutions provided this information. In the second stage of sampling, 28,576 faculty were selected from the lists provided by the institutions. Over 1,500 of these sample members were determined to be ineligible for 1999 NSOPF as they were not employed by their institution during the 1998 fall term. The resulting sample was 27,044 faculty members. The third stage of sampling occurred in the final phases of data collection. To increase the response rate, a sub-sample of all faculty who had not responded earlier was selected for intensive follow-up efforts. After this effort all other non-respondents were eliminated from the sample, resulting in a final sample size of 53

PAGE 65

19,213 eligible faculty providing reliable data as a source and means of performing this ex-post-facto study. Treatment of Data The 1999 NSOPF data was obtained from the NCES in a statistical analysis format compatible with SAS 9.1 statistical analysis software. Since the focus of this study was on part-time faculty, the researcher used SAS 9.1 statistical analysis software to reduce the total eligible population of 19,213 full and part-time faculty to contain only part-timers. Through this computation the resulting population of eligible part-time faculty was reduced 72% further (n = 5,288). Of these eligible part-time faculty, 21% (n = 1,091) were classified as users of instructional technology and therefore were included in the analysis of questions one through three of this study. All 5,288 part-time faculty were used in analyzing questions 4 through 10. The resulting groups of faculty used in the Pearson chi-square tests varied in size by discipline and are listed in table 6. Survey Participant Categorical Information Incomplete or missing answers to the NSOPF questionnaire were treated as missing data and were not recorded in the analysis. This put the number of respondents for questions one and three at 1,091 and the number of respondents for question two at 1,029. A review of Table 5 indicates the distribution of part-time faculty as they relate to the variables in these three research questions. Of the 1,091 eligible part-time faculty, 100% (n = 1,091) responded to the questions of type of institution and gender and 94% (n = 1,029) responded to years of teaching experience. 54

PAGE 66

Table 5 Categorical Distribution of Part-Time Faculty Using IT to Teach. (Type of Institution, Number of Years Teaching, and Gender) Total Eligible IT Faculty Survey Category N (%) Type of Institution Two-Year 565 51.79 Four-Year 526 48.21 Total (Two-Year and Four-Year) 1091 100.00 Number of Years Teaching One-Year 104 10.11 More Than One Year 925 89.89 Total (One and >One) 1029 100.00 Gender Male 549 50.32 Female 542 49.68 Total (Males and Females) 1091 100.00 Note. Data generated from the researchers SAS 9.1 / Chi-Square analysis of the National Study of Postsecondary Faculty survey (NSOPF 1999). In total, 52% of these part-time faculty taught at a two-year institution and 48% taught for a four-year college or university. Gender was divided almost perfectly in half into 549 (50%) males and 542 (50%) females. Sixty-two eligible part-timers did not record number of years teaching experience which eliminated them from this part of the study. Of the 1,029 eligible faculty, 10% (n = 104) were in their first year of teaching and 90% (n = 925) had more than one year of teaching experience. As mentioned in the treatment of data section, the number of eligible part-time faculty to be analyzed for questions 4 through 11 varies by discipline. A study of Table 6 indicates the distribution of part-time faculty who use and do not use IT as they relate to each discipline. Each eligible discipline group is listed in Table 6 after being selected 55

PAGE 67

from the original group of 5,288 part-timers through SAS 9.1 analysis. Group sizes for this part of the analysis range from 239 to 516 members. Data Analysis: Quantitative Design Research question 1 The first research question was Is there a difference in the overall job satisfaction of part-time faculty who use instructional technology to deliver their coursework at two-year community colleges and those at four-year institutions? The responsibilities of two-year and four-year faculty can be very different depending on whether the schools emphasis is on teaching, research, or publishing. Part-time faculty are not usually immersed in the institutions requirements and culture as are its full-time employees (Menges, 1999). The 1999 NSOPF survey included information from both two-year and four-year college and university faculty nationwide. It was important for the researcher to establish a comparison between these groups based on their use of instructional technology. The data in Table 7 indicates the number of part-time faculty using instructional technology at 52% and 48% between the two-year and four-year populations respectively demonstrating a slightly higher adaptation rate in the use of instructional technology. Table 8 shows the number of satisfied part-time faculty at both types of institutions slightly above 88% for the total population (n = 1091). A Pearson chi-square test was performed at the .05 level to determine whether job satisfaction of the two groups was influenced by the use of instructional technology. 56

PAGE 68

Table 6 Distribution of Part-time Faculty by Discipline Who Do and Do Not Use IT to Teach. (Computer Science, English and Language Arts, Fine and Performing Arts, Humanities, Mathematics and Statistics, Natural and Physical Sciences, and Social Sciences) Total Eligible Faculty by Discipline Discipline N (%) Computer Science Non IT User 147 61.51 IT User 92 38.49 Total 239 100.00 English and Language Arts Non IT User 409 79.26 IT User 107 20.74 Total 516 100.00 Fine and Performing Arts Non IT User 339 79.39 IT User 88 20.61 Total 427 100.00 Humanities Non IT User 264 90.72 IT User 27 9.28 Total 291 100.00 Mathematics and Statistics Non IT User 262 76.83 IT User 79 23.17 Total 341 100.00 Natural and Physical Sciences Non IT User 239 89.18 IT User 29 10.82 Total 268 100.00 Social Sciences (including History) Non IT User 375 91.91 IT User 33 8.09 Total 408 100.00 Note. Data generated from the researchers SAS 9.1 / Chi-Square analysis of the National Study of Postsecondary Faculty survey (NSOPF 1999). 57

PAGE 69

Table 7 Distribution of the Type of Institution Where Part-Time Faculty Use IT to Teach. All Part-Time Faculty Type of Institution N (%) Two-Year Institution 565 51.79 Four-Year Institution 526 48.21 Total (Two-Year and Four-Year) 1091 100.00 Note. Data generated from the researchers SAS 9.1 / Chi-Square analysis of the National Study of Postsecondary Faculty survey (NSOPF 1999). Table 8 Distribution of the Type of Institution Where Satisfied Part-Time Faculty Use IT to Teach. Satisfied Faculty Dissatisfied Faculty Type of Institution N (%) N (%) Two Year 498 88.14 67 11.86 Four Year 466 88.59 60 11.41 Note. Data generated from the researchers SAS / Chi-Square analysis of the National Study of Postsecondary Faculty survey (NSOPF 1999). In question one, the researcher expected to find no significant difference between the two groups. It was observed that neither the two-year or four-year part-time faculty had a higher level of job satisfaction by using instructional technology as part of their course delivery. A difference of proportions was calculated for this group of satisfied faculty and the result was .45% (p1 p2) indicating a very small difference in the size of these two groups. Since the results of the Pearson chi-square analysis were not statistically significant, the researcher failed to reject the null hypothesis stated in question one x 2 (1, N = 1091) = .054, p = .816. 58

PAGE 70

Research question 2 Is there a difference in the overall job satisfaction of part-time faculty who use instructional technology to deliver their coursework during their first year of teaching versus those who have taught for more than one year? The expectations of part-time faculty in their first year of teaching versus teaching after many years of being on the job can be significantly different. Some institutions now look to hire first-year teachers with a broad range of skills and aptitude regardless of the discipline they are in and whether or not they will work partor full-time. Before they are considered for a position, part-time faculty are expected to meet the institutions requirements for technical ability just as their full-time counterparts are (NCES, 2005). The 1999 NSOPF survey included information from faculty covering a complete range of teaching experience, and it was important for the researcher to pose a question about first-year, part-time faculty based on their use of instructional technology. With the influence of instructional technology being the predominate variable, a Pearson chi-square test was performed at the .05 level to determine whether job satisfaction of part-time faculty in their first year of teaching contrasted with those having more than one year of experience. In question two, the researcher expected to find no significant difference between these two groups. 59

PAGE 71

Table 9 Distribution of the Years of Experience of Part-Time Faculty Who Use IT to Teach. All Part-Time Faculty Teaching Experience N (%) One Year 104 10.11 > One Year 925 89.89 Total (One Year and > One Year) 1029 100.00 Note. Data generated from the researchers SAS / Chi-Square analysis of the National Study of Postsecondary Faculty survey (NSOPF 1999). The data in Table 9 indicates 10% of technology users were first-year part-time faculty and 90% had greater than one year of experience over the entire group respectively (n= 1,029). This results in an 80% difference between these two groups. Table 10 shows the number of satisfied part-time faculty both in their first year of teaching and those with greater than one year of experience at 92% and 87% respectively. Based on the number of faculty in the teaching experience category who are satisfied, a difference of proportions of 4.96% was calculated between the two groups. This difference of proportions indicates a slightly higher satisfaction for the group with one year of experience when using technology to teach which may be an indicator of new or emerging faculty. 60

PAGE 72

Table 10 Distribution of Satisfied Part-time Faculty with One Year and Greater than One Year Experience Teaching Who Use IT to Teach. Satisfied Faculty Dissatisfied Faculty Years of Experience N (%) N (%) One Year 96 92.31 8 7.69 > One Year 808 87.35 117 12.65 Note. Data generated from the researchers SAS / Chi-Square analysis of the National Study of Postsecondary Faculty survey (NSOPF 1999). The Pearson chi-square analysis for job satisfaction as it relates to the number of years of teaching experience indicated that neither the first-year faculty or those with greater than one-year part-time experience had a higher level of job satisfaction by using instructional technology as part of their course delivery, x 2 (1, N = 1029) = 2.152, p = .142. With these test results, the researcher subsequently failed to reject the null hypothesis stated in question two. Research question 3 The third research question stated Is there a difference in the overall job satisfaction of part-time faculty who use instructional technology to deliver their coursework when comparing males to females? This is a timeless question of whether or not gender is an influence on an outcome. There are many viewpoints in academic publications and in education discussion forums debating the effects gender has on decision making, communication, the development of ideas, and more. Regarding the delivery of course material, the researcher felt it was important to understand if a difference in job satisfaction between 61

PAGE 73

males and females would be observed when associating gender with instructional technology. The 1999 NSOPF data has an established and thorough order of demographics including gender. Table 11 indicates the complete distribution of eligible part-time faculty by gender. This split between males and females indicates a perfectly balanced distribution over the part-time faculty population as it relates to gender. Table 11 Distribution of Part-Time Male and Female Faculty Who Use IT to Teach. All Part-Time Faculty Faculty Gender N (%) Males 549 50.32 Females 542 49.68 Total (Males and Females) 1091 100.00 Note. Data generated from the researchers SAS / Chi-Square analysis of the National Study of Postsecondary Faculty survey (NSOPF 1999). A Pearson chi-square test was performed at the 95% confidence level to determine whether job satisfaction as it relates to the use of instructional technology by part-time male and female faculty differed. As in the previous two questions, the researcher expected to find no significant difference between these two groups. Table 12 shows the number of satisfied part-time faculty bifurcated by gender. The number of satisfied faculty members was almost evenly distributed in both gender groups; just slightly over half of the satisfied population was part-time male faculty. This breakdown of members placed males just over 89% and females at just under 88% respectively. 62

PAGE 74

Table 12 Distribution of Satisfied Part-Time Male and Female Faculty Who Use IT to Teach. Satisfied Faculty Dissatisfied Faculty Faculty Gender N (%) N (%) Males 490 89.25 59 10.75 Females 474 87.45 68 12.55 Note. Data generated from the researchers SAS / Chi-Square analysis of the National Study of Postsecondary Faculty survey (NSOPF 1999). The Pearson chi-square analysis by gender further indicated that of the over 1000 respondents neither the male or female part-time faculty experienced a higher level of job satisfaction by using instructional technology as part of their course delivery. Since the difference of proportions, (p1 p2) was a small 1.8% and the chi-square indicated no statistical significance in the satisfied group x 2 (1, N = 1091) = .858, p = .354, the researcher failed to reject the null hypothesis stated in question three. The framework of research questions 4 through 10. Each of questions four through ten of this study were based on their categorization by discipline according to the adaptation of CSCCs curriculum classification scheme as it applies to the vast amount of data by discipline in the 1999 NSOPF (Appendix B). The researchers main interest in these remaining seven research questions is the job satisfaction of part-time faculty who do and do not use instructional technology to teach within each discipline cluster. Differences in the way faculty teach students in specific disciplines have been the focus of many pedagogical studies. Scholars debate that the effective manner by which learning occurs closely relates to the environment established by the institution and the 63

PAGE 75

faculty member teaching the course (Piland et al, 1998). The course content delivery method is predominately established by the instructor with guidelines from the institution. According to Antony and Valadez, part-time faculty job satisfaction is at its highest when a faculty member is happy with all aspects of her career including how she teaches her course (2002). The NCES, by establishing the NSOPF series of surveys (1988, 1993 and 1999), also relates the importance of breaking down the respondents survey information by discipline in their 1999 methodology report (2005). Research Question 4 Is there a difference in the overall job satisfaction of part-time faculty who use instructional technology to deliver their coursework in the Computer Science discipline versus those who do not use this method? This was the smallest group of eligible part-time faculty in all the disciplines studied (n = 239). The difference of proportions calculated from the percentages in Table 13 indicates 23.02% more of the Computer Science faculty are non-instructional technology users (p1 p2). However, the number of IT users in this group is significant and exceeds 30% of the total of eligible part-time faculty to be analyzed for this question. Table 13 Distribution of Part-Time Computer Science Faculty Who Do and Do Not Use IT to Teach. All Part-Time Faculty Computer Science N (%) Non IT User 147 61.51 IT User 92 38.49 Total (IT and Non IT Users) 239 100.00 Note. Data generated from the researchers SAS / Chi-Square analysis of the National Study of Postsecondary Faculty survey (NSOPF 1999). 64

PAGE 76

A Pearson chi-square analysis of the Computer Science discipline at the 95% confidence level the p-value indicated a statistically significant finding. When using instructional technology as part of their course delivery, these part-time faculty experienced a higher level of job satisfaction x 2 (1, N = 239) = 3.901, p = .048. Table 14 Distribution of Satisfied Part-Time Computer Science Faculty Who Do and Do Not Use IT to Teach. Satisfied Faculty Dissatisfied Faculty Computer Science N (%) N (%) Non IT User 125 85.03 22 14.97 IT User 86 93.48 6 6.52 Note. Data generated from the researchers SAS / Chi-Square analysis of the National Study of Postsecondary Faculty survey (NSOPF 1999). The difference of proportions (p1 p2), was 8.45 for the satisfied group and the group had a relative risk of .909 (p1 / p2) which was calculated from the data in Table 14. A magnitude of close to one (1) indicated a weak result in the test which may be explained by the p-value being just under the .05 level and the large Non-IT user test group. This close outcome triggers the question of practical significance. Statistically however the researcher rejected the null hypothesis stated in question four. Research Question 5 The fifth research question was Is there a difference in the overall job satisfaction of part-time faculty who use instructional technology to deliver their 65

PAGE 77

coursework in the English and Language Arts discipline versus those who do not use this method? Established in Table 15 are almost four times the amount of non-IT users in the part-time English and Language Arts discipline than are reported as instructional technology users. Overall, the number of part-time faculty in the English and Language Arts discipline is 516. As a result of this sizeable group, IT users in this discipline are also significant as their population is 107 of the eligible part-time faculty to be analyzed for this question. Table 15 Distribution of Part-Time English and Language Arts Faculty Who Do and Do Not Use IT to Teach. All Part-Time Faculty English and Language Arts N (%) Non IT User 409 79.26 IT User 107 20.74 Total (IT and Non IT Users) 516 100.00 Note. Data generated from the researchers SAS / Chi-Square analysis of the National Study of Postsecondary Faculty survey (NSOPF 1999). A Pearson chi-square analysis of the English and Language Arts discipline of eligible part-time faculty indicated that over 75% of both IT users and Non-IT users also experienced a high level of job satisfaction overall. The difference of proportions (p1 p2) was 2.42, as calculated from the satisfied users in Table 16. 66

PAGE 78

Table 16 Distribution of Satisfied Part-Time English and Language Arts Faculty Who Do and Do Not Use IT to Teach. Satisfied Faculty Dissatisfied Faculty English and Language Arts N (%) N (%) Non IT User 315 77.02 94 22.98 IT User 85 79.44 22 20.56 Note. Data generated from the researchers SAS / Chi-Square analysis of the National Study of Postsecondary Faculty survey (NSOPF 1999). The results of the Pearson chi-square x 2 (1, N = 516) = .285, p = .593, revealed no statistically significant findings. Therefore, the researcher rejected the null hypothesis stated in question five. Research Question 6 This research question asked Is there a difference in the overall job satisfaction of part-time faculty who use instructional technology to deliver their coursework in the Fine and Performing Arts discipline versus those who do not use this method? Listed in Table 17 is an almost 59% difference of non-IT users in the part-time Fine and Performing Arts discipline than are reported as instructional technology users. Overall, the number of part-time faculty in the Fine and Performing Arts discipline is substantial which proves advantageous for analyzing this question. 67

PAGE 79

Table 17 Distribution of Part-Time Fine and Performing Arts Faculty Who Do and Do Not Use IT to Teach. All Part-Time Faculty Fine and Performing Arts N (%) Non IT User 339 79.39 IT User 88 20.61 Total (IT and Non IT Users) 427 100.00 Note. Data generated from the researchers SAS / Chi-Square analysis of the National Study of Postsecondary Faculty survey (NSOPF 1999). A Pearson chi-square analysis of eligible part-time faculty in the Fine and Performing Arts discipline indicated that more than three-fourths of both IT users and Non-IT users experienced a high level of job satisfaction overall. A difference of proportions of 6.55% (p1 p2), is derived from Table 18 for the satisfied group in favor of the IT users. This could indicate an emerging trend or it simply could be an overstatement due to the comparatively small number of IT users. Table 18 Distribution of Part-Time Fine and Performing Arts Faculty Who Do and Do Not Use IT to Teach. Satisfied Faculty Dissatisfied Faculty Fine and Performing Arts N (%) N (%) Non IT User 259 76.40 94 22.98 IT User 73 82.95 22 20.56 Note. Data generated from the researchers SAS / Chi-Square analysis of the National Study of Postsecondary Faculty survey (NSOPF 1999). 68

PAGE 80

The results of the Pearson chi-square test revealed no statistically significant findings x 2 (1, N = 516) = .285, p = .593. Therefore, the researcher failed to reject the null hypothesis stated in question six. Research Question 7 Is there a difference in the overall job satisfaction of part-time faculty who use instructional technology to deliver their coursework in the Humanities discipline versus those who do not use this method? An eligible population of 291 part-time faculty from the NSOPF survey made up the group analyzed in question seven. The second smallest cluster of the seven disciplines studied in this section had only about 5% of the total of the satisfied IT users in the Humanities. Shown in Table 19 are 237 more Non-IT users in the part-time Humanities discipline than were reported as instructional technology users. The number of part-time faculty in the Humanities discipline, although lower than most of the other categories studied was substantial enough to satisfactorily analyze this question. Table 19 Distribution of Part-Time Humanities Faculty Who Do and Do Not Use IT to Teach. All Part-Time Faculty Humanities N (%) Non IT User 264 90.72 IT User 27 9.28 Total (IT and Non IT Users) 291 100.00 Note. Data generated from the researchers SAS / Chi-Square analysis of the National Study of Postsecondary Faculty survey (NSOPF 1999). 69

PAGE 81

The Pearson chi-square analysis of eligible part-time faculty in the Humanities discipline indicated that less than one-tenth of the discipline used instructional technology and that nearly 80% experienced job satisfaction overall. The difference of proportions p1 p2 calculated from Table 20 indicated very little disparity (1.77) between the satisfied groups. Table 20 Distribution of Satisfied Part-Time Humanities Faculty Who Do and Do Not Use IT to Teach. Satisfied Faculty Dissatisfied Faculty Humanities N (%) N (%) Non IT User 210 79.55 54 20.45 IT User 21 77.78 6 22.22 Note. Data generated from the researchers SAS / Chi-Square analysis of the National Study of Postsecondary Faculty survey (NSOPF 1999). The results of the Pearson chi-square analysis revealed nothing statistically significant. The findings of the test were x 2 (1, N = 291) = .046, p = .828. Given this result, the researcher failed to reject the null hypothesis stated in question six regarding the Humanities discipline. Research Question 8 Continuing with the research analysis by discipline, question 8 asks, Is there a difference in the overall job satisfaction of part-time faculty who use instructional technology to deliver their coursework in the Mathematics and Statistics discipline versus those who do not use this method? 70

PAGE 82

Table 21 shows that there were slightly more than three times the amount of non-IT users than IT-users in the part-time faculty of the Mathematics and Statistics discipline. Overall the group was sizeable and the population of IT users and non-users was significant which provided a solid basis for the Pearson chi-square analysis. Table 21 Distribution of Part-Time Mathematics and Statistics Faculty Who Do and Do Not Use IT to Teach. All Part-Time Faculty Mathematics and Statistics N (%) Non IT User 262 76.83 IT User 79 23.17 Total (IT and Non IT Users) 341 100.00 Note. Data generated from the researchers SAS / Chi-Square analysis of the National Study of Postsecondary Faculty survey (NSOPF 1999). A Pearson chi-square analysis of the Mathematics and Statistics discipline of the 341 eligible part-time faculty indicated that Mathematics and Statistics faculty experienced virtually the same level of job satisfaction whether they used instructional technology or not as part of their course delivery, x 2 (1, N = 341) = .0002, p = .989. Table 22 Distribution of Satisfied Part-Time Mathematics and Statistics Faculty Who Do and Do Not Use IT to Teach. Satisfied Faculty Dissatisfied Faculty Mathematics and Statistics N (%) N (%) Non IT User 232 88.55 30 11.45 IT User 70 88.61 9 11.39 Note. Data generated from the researchers SAS / Chi-Square analysis of the National Study of Postsecondary Faculty survey (NSOPF 1999). 71

PAGE 83

A variation of 0.06%, the smallest of all the disciplines analyzed was indicated by the difference of proportions for the satisfied Mathematics and Statistics faculty (p1 p2 in Table 22). At the 95% confidence level the researcher failed to reject the null hypothesis stated in question eight. Research Question 9 Is there a difference in the overall job satisfaction of part-time faculty who use instructional technology to deliver their coursework in the Natural and Physical Sciences discipline versus those who do not use this method? The total number and distribution of part-time faculty in the Natural and Physical Sciences discipline was ample enough to allow for a successful Pearson chi-square analysis of this question. According to the analysis of question 9, the population size of the Natural and Physical Sciences faculty was 268. As indicated by referring to Table 23, almost 11% of this group used instructional technology to teach and over 85% of these IT-users were considered satisfied, compared to almost 79% who were satisfied in the Non-IT group. Table 23 Distribution of Part-Time Natural and Physical Sciences Faculty Who Do and Do Not Use IT to Teach. All Part-Time Faculty Natural and Physical Sciences N (%) Non IT User 239 89.18 IT User 29 10.82 Total 268 100.00 Note. Data generated from the researchers SAS / Chi-Square analysis of the National Study of Postsecondary Faculty survey (NSOPF 1999). 72

PAGE 84

The difference of proportions reflects the total percentage of satisfied IT-users with a slightly higher job satisfaction compared to faculty not using IT to teach. Whether they used instructional technology or not, the results of the Pearson chi-squared analysis revealed nothing statistically significant as part of the analysis, x 2 (1, N = 268) = .9028, p = .342. The difference of proportions p1 p2 calculated from Table 24 indicated a 7.55% for the satisfied group. Although not statistically significant, the researcher considered this percentage a practical indication of job satisfaction and the use of instructional technology given the size of the group. Table 24 Distribution of Satisfied Part-Time Natural and Physical Sciences Faculty Who Do and Do Not Use IT to Teach. Satisfied Faculty Dissatisfied Faculty Natural and Physical Sciences N (%) N (%) Non IT User 188 78.66 51 21.34 IT User 25 86.21 4 13.79 Note. Data generated from the researchers SAS / Chi-Square analysis of the National Study of Postsecondary Faculty survey (NSOPF 1999). After reviewing the Pearson chi-square results (p = .342), the researcher failed to reject the null hypothesis stated in question nine regarding the Natural and Physical Sciences discipline. 73

PAGE 85

Research Question 10 The final research question in this study asks, Is there a difference in the overall job satisfaction of part-time faculty who use instructional technology to deliver their coursework in the Social Sciences discipline versus those who do not use this method? In the version of CSCCs adapted curriculum classification scheme used in this study, the researcher decided to include the History discipline with the Social Sciences category. His reason to include History was based on the low population value of that group as it stands alone (n = 122). A Pearson chi-square pre-test of History indicated a zero value in one of the output quadrants which rendered the test potentially ineffective. Consolidation of History in the Social Sciences area of the adapted curriculum classification scheme is perfectly acceptable when grouping is done according to proven taxonomies such as CSCCs. This group was ranked fifth largest in size as compared to the other six discipline groups. The number of eligible part-time faculty in the Social Sciences totaled 408 with a little more than 8% being users of instructional technology (Table 25). Table 25 Distribution of Part-Time Social Sciences and History Faculty Who Do and Do Not Use IT to Teach. All Part-Time Faculty Social Sciences and History N (%) Non IT User 289 91.91 IT User 32 8.09 Total 408 100.00 Note. Data generated from the researchers SAS / Chi-Square analysis of the National Study of Postsecondary Faculty survey (NSOPF 1999). 74

PAGE 86

A Pearson chi-square analysis of the Social Sciences discipline indicated that the vast majority of the part-time faculty using instructional technology experienced a higher level of job satisfaction when delivering their course work x 2 (1, N = 408) = 7.161, p = .0074. This p value is statistically significant at the .05 level and indicates a link between instructional technology and overall job satisfaction in the Social Sciences discipline Table 26 Distribution of Part-Time Social Sciences Faculty Who Do and Do Not Use IT to Teach. Satisfied Faculty Dissatisfied Faculty Social Sciences and History N (%) N (%) Non IT User 289 77.07 86 22.93 IT User 32 96.97 1 3.03 Note. Data generated from the researchers SAS / Chi-Square analysis of the National Study of Postsecondary Faculty survey (NSOPF 1999). The difference of proportions for the satisfied group was a large 19.9% (p1 p2 from Table 26). Relative risk was calculated for the satisfied group with a result of a .794 magnitude. Given the statistically significant Pearson chi-square and strength of these results, the researcher rejected the null hypothesis stated in question ten. Job satisfaction appeared to be influenced by the use of instructional technology in the Social Sciences discipline. Summary The purpose of this ex-post-facto research was to assess the overall job satisfaction of part-time instructional faculty in two-year and four-year colleges and universities throughout the United States who used instructional technology to deliver their course content. The data source for this research was the NCES 1999 National 75

PAGE 87

Study of Post-secondary Faculty. Through elimination of all non-respondents and those persons who did not qualify as faculty during the actual survey period from the database through statistical data processing, a working sample size of 19,213 was obtained. Using a similar method, this group was reduced further by elimination of all full-time members leaving 5,288 eligible part-time faculty. This pre-reduction of the survey population resulted in an accurate and reliable data source for performing the ex-post-facto study. The statistical analysis for questions one, two, and three investigated categorical and demographic information. For question 1, the results produced a significant number of eligible part-time faculty (n = 1,091) in two-year and four-year institutions to be studied. Less than 12% in each group who used I.T. was dissatisfied with their jobs and proportionally, their satisfaction percentages were almost identical with no indication from the Pearson chi-square analysis regarding significance. For question 2 regarding the number of years of teaching experience, the size of the test population once again was ample (n = 1,029). The number of members being studied in this group with one year of experience made up only 10% of the whole population. These first year faculty did show a slightly higher level of satisfaction on the job than the other members of the group but as in question one, the Pearson chi-square analysis indicated no statistical significance. These results may indicate that new part-time faculty members have an attraction to the use of technology or that their neophyte status and enthusiasm have not yet been tempered by experience. In question 3, the idea of a difference in satisfaction based on gender was explored. The groups of males and females who use IT to teach were split almost perfectly in half with no appreciable difference in either group between the proportion 76

PAGE 88

that was satisfied or dissatisfied (n = 1,091). After running the Pearson chi-square test, no indication of significance was found and the null hypothesis was rejected. Questions 4 through 10 were all based on job satisfaction by discipline arranged according to the adaptation of the CSCC discipline scheme. Here, the total number of members in each discipline varied by category. They were all more than adequate for the purpose of conducting this statistical analysis and are displayed in order of frequency in Table 27. Table 27 Liberal Arts, Discipline-Based Categories Sorted by Size Order Discipline Size 1) Computer Science 239 2) Natural and Physical Sciences 268 3) Humanities 291 4) Math and Statistics 341 5) Social Sciences (including History) 408 6) Fine and Performing Arts 427 7) English and Language Arts 516 Note. Data generated from the researchers SAS / Pearson Chi-Square analysis of the National Study of Postsecondary Faculty survey (NSOPF 1999). Two of these disciplines showed statistical significance as they relate to their respective questions. The results for Computer Science and Social Sciences (including History) suggest that those who used instructional technology experienced a statistically significant higher level of job satisfaction. This chapter presented the findings of the NSOPF data, as analyzed with the procedures outlined in Chapter 3. The results showed that even though there is a significant link between job satisfaction and the use of instructional technology in certain 77

PAGE 89

academic disciplines, the majority of part-time faculty members are satisfied in their jobs using whatever delivery methods they choose. 78

PAGE 90

Chapter Five Summary of Findings, Conclusions, and Implications for Theory, Practice, and Research The purpose of this study was to investigate if part-time faculty in two-year and four-year colleges and universities reported a higher level of overall job satisfaction when using instructional technology (IT) in their course delivery versus those who did not use IT to teach. The primary focus of this research was on overall job satisfaction as it relates to categorical, demographic, and educational discipline-based data. This was an ex-post-facto study of the National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES) 1999 National Study of Postsecondary Faculty (NSOPF). For the purposes of this study, instructional technology was identified from the survey as computeror television-based educational delivery methods. The faculty members partial or complete use of computers or television to deliver coursework qualified as using instructional technology. This compared to the standard classroom delivery method where students met with their instructor at an assigned place and time with no significant part of the course being delivered via computer or television. Method Summary In the 1999 NSOPF survey, over 19,000 faculty provided reliable survey data resulting in a large, national resource for performing this ex-post-facto study on overall job satisfaction. To manage this vast amount of data, the 1999 NSOPF results were grouped first by faculty with part-time teaching status, then further broken down by type 79

PAGE 91

of institution (two-year or four-year), years of teaching experience, gender, and teaching discipline. The ratio of eligible part-time to full-time faculty responding to the 1999 NSOPF survey was one-to-four respectively. According to the National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES), low or under reported response rates are expected for part-time faculty surveys. NCES performed extensive survey follow-up measures to ensure that part-timers were equitably represented establishing a total eligible population of just over 5,000. Seven broad-based liberal arts teaching disciplines were formed as the result of applying a grouping scheme adapted from CSCC curriculum classification scheme (2002). This process is accepted as a viable means of creating manageable discipline clusters to study by Cohen & Ignash (1994); Ignash (2005); and Schuyler (1999), and many educational researchers. Once the data was organized into appropriate groups for study, a Pearson chi-square test at the .05 confidence level was used as the primary method to analyze the data. Summary of Findings The researcher used the Pearson chi-square test as a primary means to investigate the dichotomous variables in ten research questions. The first three questions reflect categorical and demographic information, where questions four through ten address results by discipline. In all ten questions the researcher expected to find no significant difference at the .05 level that job satisfaction is influenced by the use of instructional technology when teaching. This summary discusses the results for each question in the study by first grouping questions one through three and then presenting the remaining seven. 80

PAGE 92

Research questions one through three. Research question one. Is there a difference between the overall job satisfaction of part-time faculty who use instructional technology to deliver their coursework at two-year community colleges and those at four-year institutions? The size of the population studied in this question was 1,091 with an almost even distribution of two-and four-year part-time faculty who were instructional technology users. Over 88% of both groups reported being satisfied overall with their jobs and neither of these two groups demonstrated any other key characteristics for job satisfaction. After performing the Pearson chi-square, no statistical significance was found. Research question two. Is there a difference in the overall job satisfaction of part-time faculty who use instructional technology to deliver their coursework during their first year of teaching versus those who have taught for more than one year? Once again over 1,000 persons made up this group. Ten percent or 104 individuals were in their first year of teaching at either two-year or four-year institutions. Slightly more than 92% of the first-year faculty were satisfied overall with their jobs compared to 87% of the part-time faculty with more than one year experience. Statistically, no significance was discovered after performing the Pearson chi-square test. Once again as in question one, this group demonstrated a large percentage from both categories experiencing overall job satisfaction (> 87%). The first year faculty demonstrated a five percent advantage over the group with more experience and this 81

PAGE 93

could be a notable characteristic toward overall job satisfaction or it could merely reflect a euphoric sense of satisfaction by being in a new career. Research question three. Is there a difference in the overall job satisfaction of part-time faculty who use instructional technology to deliver their coursework when comparing males to females? Relating the results from question three concerning the influence of IT on gender, a large group of 1,091 part-time faculty was eligible for study. In this group of satisfied faculty were 490 males and 474 females placing the percentage for each of these satisfied faculty groups above 87%. The results of the Pearson chi-square test had no statistical significance x 2 (1, N = 1,091) = .858, p = .354. In summary, the first three research questions addressing categorical and demographic data used a population exceeding 1,000 from the survey results of the 1999 NSOPF. This substantial group provided the basis for reliable results in the Pearson chi-square analysis of each question at the 95% confidence level (p = .05). In the group of questions one through three, there were no statistically significant outcomes and therefore no indication that the use of instructional technology increased the overall job satisfaction of part-time faculty. Research questions four through ten. Each of the remaining research questions were categorized by discipline according to the adaptation of CSCCs curriculum classification scheme. The population of each discipline group ranged in size from 239 to 516 members. This N provided a more than adequate number of subjects to validate the use of the Pearson chi-square test 82

PAGE 94

in all cases. Just as in the first three questions of the study, there was no expectation of statistically significant findings by the researcher in the seven remaining questions which consisted of the areas of Computer Science, Natural and Physical Sciences, Humanities, Math and Statistics, Social Sciences (including History), Fine and Performing Arts, and English and Language Arts. Research question four. Is there a difference in the overall job satisfaction of part-time faculty who use instructional technology to deliver their coursework in the Computer Science discipline versus those who do not use this method? Being the smallest of all the groups studied (n = 239) and being a technology oriented discipline it was surprising to note the narrow margin that made this group statistically significant. Computer Science did contain the largest percentage of satisfied IT users across all the disciplines in the adapted curriculum classification scheme. Results from the Pearson chi-square test show a p-value of .048 making this result statistically significant at the .05 level, thereby allowing the researcher to reject the null hypothesis stated in question four. While it is statistically significant, further research is needed to investigate the practical implications of this narrow outcome. Research question five. Is there a difference in the overall job satisfaction of part-time faculty who use instructional technology to deliver their coursework in the English and Language Arts discipline versus those who do not use this method? Instructional technology users made up a little more than 20% of the eligible English and Language Arts faculty studied in this question. More than 77% of IT-users 83

PAGE 95

and Non-users were satisfied on the job and their difference in proportions was 2.42%. The Pearson chi-square analysis of this question revealed no statistically significant results so the researcher rejected the null hypothesis. These numbers may, however, begin to establish a pattern of common results where there is no statistical significance. Irrespective of using instructional technology the range of part-time faculty who are satisfied on the job appears nominally between 70% and 90%. Further study is needed to determine if there is data available to support this assumption. Research question six. Is there a difference in the overall job satisfaction of part-time faculty who use instructional technology to deliver their coursework in the Fine and Performing Arts discipline versus those who do not use this method? The results for the Fine and Performing Arts almost identically mirror those of the previous question regarding the English and Language Arts discipline. Job satisfaction for both IT-users and Non-IT users falls within the same range; their percentages are 82.95 and 76.40 respectively. Since there was no statistical significance in the outcome of the Pearson chi-square, the researcher failed to again reject the null hypothesis stated in question six. Instructional technology does not play a role in the job satisfaction of part-time English and Language Arts faculty. Research question seven. Is there a difference in the overall job satisfaction of part-time faculty who use instructional technology to deliver their coursework in the Humanities discipline versus those who do not use this method? 84

PAGE 96

The findings around this question revealed no link between Instructional technology and job satisfaction. According to the 1999 NSOPF survey data, 9.28% of the eligible Humanities faculty used instructional technology to teach. This is the second lowest population of IT-users in all of the disciplines examined but it still represented a sizeable group for analysis (n = 27). The Pearson chi-square analysis revealed no statistically significant findings and consequently the researcher failed to reject the null hypothesis x 2 (1, N = 291) = .046, p = .828. It is interesting to note once again that the outcomes with no statistical significance for both satisfied IT-users and Non IT-users make up almost 80% of the specific disciplines population. Research question eight. Is there a difference in the overall job satisfaction of part-time faculty who use instructional technology to deliver their coursework in the Mathematics and Statistics discipline versus those who do not use this method? The part-time faculty who teach with instructional technology in the Mathematics and Statistics discipline make up 23.17% of their total population. This is the second largest group of IT-users in all the disciplines studied. Interestingly, 88% of both the IT-users and non IT-users are satisfied with their jobs overall. The researcher was surprised to see such a low interest in the application of technology in this area. Since the results of the Pearson chi-square analysis show nothing statistically significant, the researcher failed to reject the null hypothesis. 85

PAGE 97

Research question nine. Is there a difference in the overall job satisfaction of part-time faculty who use instructional technology to deliver their coursework in the Natural and Physical Sciences discipline versus those who do not use this method? The total number and distribution of part-time faculty in the Natural and Physical Sciences discipline was 268. A Pearson chi-square test determined that there was no statistical significance in this group, x 2 (1, N = 268) = .9028, p = .342. IT users made up 10.82% of the group out of which 88.61% were satisfied with their jobs compared to 78.66% of the Non IT-users. This difference of almost eight percent may indicate that the Natural and Physical Sciences discipline in some way supports and encourages the use of instructional technology. This is an assumption that should be referred for future research. Despite this encouraging observation, the researcher failed to reject the null hypothesis in question nine. Research question ten. Is there a difference in the overall job satisfaction of part-time faculty who use instructional technology to deliver their coursework in the Social Sciences discipline versus those who do not use this method? The last discipline to be analyzed in this adaptation of CSCCs curriculum classification scheme is the Social Sciences group. As mentioned in the methods chapter, History is combined with this group due to its low N-value. This is an acceptable practice when pre-tests indicate a valid result would not be possible using the Pearson chi-square 86

PAGE 98

test. It should also be noted that adding History to the Social Sciences group made no difference in its outcome based on pre-test calculations. The total population of the Social Sciences group was 408 out of which 32 or 8% used instructional technology to teach. An overwhelming 96.97% of all the IT users in this cluster were satisfied on the job compared to only 77% who were satisfied non-IT users. This revealed a difference of proportions of 20% and a relative risk of .794 in magnitude. Finally, the Pearson chi-square analysis of this discipline exposed a statistically significant outcome x 2 (1, N = 408) = 7.161, p = .0074. Given the confidence level of .95%, the researcher rejected the null hypothesis and observed that the use of instructional technology in the Social Sciences discipline had a possible influence on job satisfaction. Conclusions The results of this study confirm that the effect of instructional technology on part-time faculty job satisfaction was statistically significant in the Computer Science and Social Sciences disciplines. Instructional technologys influence in the Computer Science discipline seemed a logical result given the nature and content of this subject, but the results for the Social Sciences discipline was unexpected given the limited amount of technology in that content area. In an effort to identify possible reasons for the statistical significance in the Social Sciences discipline versus the other disciplines studied, the researcher went beyond the data analysis and discovered articles and press releases linking the development of computer-based instructional methods and materials to academic delivery dating back to 87

PAGE 99

1997. In a September 1999 press release, book publisher Houghton Mifflin, Inc., announced an agreement with distance learning system and software developer Blackboard, Inc., to collaborate on course materials for distance learning through instructional technology. These course-cartridges, as they are called, underwent a form of field testing for product quality and accuracy referred to as beta-testing. The disciplines included in the beta-testing were Business, Accounting, and the Social Sciences. Blackboards information website indicates that the market for course-cartridge development was driven by independent software vendors, publishers and academics who felt compelled to provide various learning options to students in these disciplines. Since some areas of the Social Sciences were a part of the early testing and adoption of instructional technology, there may have been a kind of Hawthorne effect within this discipline because of their role in the beta-tests. The researcher had also expected the Mathematics and Statistics discipline as well as the Natural & Physical Sciences to show some significance by the sheer nature of their technology related methods, but these subjects did not. The implication of this result could mean that faculty in these two disciplines are teaching mostly without technology or are late adopters of the instructional technology process. Further research should be performed in the Mathematics and Statistics discipline and Natural & Physical Sciences to investigate if the use of instructional technology in these areas has increased since the 1999 NSOPF data was collected and whether it might be a possible influence on faculty job satisfaction. Another interesting outcome of the study indicated that, at this point in 1999, more disciplines in the CSCC adapted curriculum classification scheme were not 88

PAGE 100

statistically significant even though emphasis on hiring part-time faculty with a solid knowledge of teaching technologies was gaining momentum. According to Berger, Kirshstein, Zhang, and Carter (2002), ensuring that part-time faculty stay current with instructional technology is a vital part of the faculty development process and should be ongoing, especially for those faculty with weak technology backgrounds. Mendelowitz (1998) also asserted that issues facing colleges over the next decade include their ability to hire competent and qualified, part-time faculty who can meet the expectations of the technology-minded student. Colleges and universities as well as the students they serve are looking for an efficient curriculum delivery method in our technology-driven society. More now than in 1999, these institutions recognize the need for part-time faculty who are well trained in the use of instructional technology and show an aggressive move toward the use of instructional technology as a regular part of their curriculum delivery. In 1999 when the NSOPF survey was conducted, instructional technology did not consist of the extensive package of internet, telecommunications, and media deliverables that are available for todays distance learning experience. The concept of relating a package of teaching technology to make a measurable difference in the job satisfaction of part-time faculty is not unrealistic. This concept is supported by the National Center for Education Statistics in their July, 2002 report entitled Teaching with Technology, and is based on the availability and use of technology resources in post-secondary institutions. In this report faculty cite increased job flexibility, efficient use of time and having better communications with students as some of the benefits gained through the use of technology. These benefits are reported from faculty over a broad range of liberal 89

PAGE 101

arts teaching disciplines like those examined in this research. Statistically, results showed that instructional technology had no effect on part-time job satisfaction as it related to gender, the type of institution (two-year or four-year), or the number of years of faculty teaching experience, even though there was some effect in several disciplines. There were, however, a large number of satisfied first year faculty who used technology to teach, which may be an indication of an emerging trend of technology literate educators who gain satisfaction from their jobsor may be an indication of the greater overall job satisfaction new faculty experience in the honeymoon phase of their jobs. Limitations One of the most important limitations to this study is the nature of an ex-post-facto study. Data that has a pre-determined purpose and is archival in nature with answers formulated for a specific use like those in the 1999 NSOPF may not include all the factors influencing part-time job satisfaction. Additionally, the 1999 NSOPF survey data is limited by the depth and scope of its defining of instructional technology. A second limitation is the actual 1999 definition of instructional technology used in the NSOPF survey. The two main components for identifying instructional technology were course delivery via televisionor computer-based technology, which in some cases included electronic mail (e-mail). Other relevant types of technologies used to teach, such as file transferring or network file sharing, were available in the late 1990s, but were not included or defined by the NSOPF. Therefore, forms of instructional technology that existed in 1999 but were not highly recognizable were omitted from the final analysis. 90

PAGE 102

Another limitation is defining job satisfaction in a precise manner for the purpose of this study. Part-time faculty job satisfaction was analyzed using the NSOPF survey data results which were subjective and may not have addressed all contributing factors to enriching job satisfaction. These responses were based on opinions by faculty and could present a large degree of variability which can be difficult to control for statistically. The resulting survey data may also contain discipline, gender, or other categorical job satisfaction influencers that skew the facultys responses and result in misinterpreted research outcomes. To mitigate this limitation with the data, the researcher identified part-time faculties job satisfaction by the responses given to the single question addressing overall job satisfaction: How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with your job here, overall, at this institution? (Question 66j, Appendix A). Implications for Part-Time Job Satisfaction The results of this study found that part-time faculty job satisfaction in Computer Science and the Social Sciences areas were statistically related to the use of instructional technology. Those remaining disciplines in the CCSC adapted curriculum classification scheme, along with the questions relating to gender, years of teaching experience, and type of institution showed no statistical relationship between faculty job satisfaction and the use of technology. However, since 1999 the growth of technologically oriented educational systems has become the rule rather than the exception in higher education. Based on this growth of technology systems in education, colleges and universities should make every effort to engage their part-time faculty in the use of instructional technology to keep them proficient, informed, productive and satisfied in their positions. 91

PAGE 103

As researchers Antony and Valadez state in their article, Exploring the Satisfaction of Part-Time College Faculty in the United States (2002), job satisfaction means doing the type of work that makes you happy. Although this is a very broad statement, colleges and universities should look at the implications for making part-time faculty jobs more enjoyable through the use of instructional technology. The literature indicates most faculty teach part-time for the enjoyment of the vocation or the desire to give something back to the community (Stephens & Wright, 1999; Antony & Valadez, 2002). Since more than half of the courses offered by two-year and four-year institutions are taught by part-timers, it makes sense to keep these invaluable faculty happy on the job. Instructional technology can help make this happen. Technology is now used in education from the kindergarten level through high school and college. It has become an everyday tool of education and students have come to expect its presence (T.H.E. Journal, February 2004). As discussed in the researchers literature review, elements that allow part-time faculty to be satisfied in their jobs fluctuate for a number of reasons. Many educators believe that given the proper teaching environment, productivity tools, and resources, part-time faculty will achieve a higher level of satisfaction in their jobs through effective use of technology in their teaching (Anderson, 2002; NSOPF, 1999; & Schrecker, 1998). It is therefore reasonable to define instructional technology as a productivity tool with the potential for increasing job satisfaction. Specifically, implementation of instructional technology tools allow part-time faculty more access to teaching resources, can increase the quality and efficiency of their 92

PAGE 104

course preparation and delivery, and can help increase the faculty members availability to students. Implications for Instructional Technology in Higher Education Part-time faculty do not experience many of the traditionally accepted benefits of increased pay, vacations, reduced work loads and the like which contribute to full-time job satisfaction. Based on the statistically significant results of the Pearson chi-square test for Computer Science and Social Science, an association can be drawn between using the tools of instructional technology as a type of part-time employee benefit which may improve job satisfaction. Since the 1999 NSOPF data was collected, most colleges and universities have increased their use of technology in the delivery of course work (NCES, 2005). The amount and available types of instructional technology used in teaching have dramatically increased over the last six years due to advances in the development of technology itself. According to Moores Law (1965), there is an effective doubling of technologys capabilities every two years and the basis of this law is what drives the technological advances in the delivery of educational content. Companies such as Blackboard, ANGEL, and WebCT all offer highly specialized websites with educational delivery software to accommodate the growing use of instructional technology across all educational disciplines. With this advancing technology, many textbook publishers are collaborating with colleges and universities in creating resources that can be used in the delivery of course materials. This evolution in teaching technology is expected to continue at this pace for several decades to come (NCES, 2005). 93

PAGE 105

Implications for the continuing and expanding use of instructional technology in higher education are indicated by the vigorous commitment of industry in partnering with colleges and universities to develop these resources. Companies such as Dell, Schaumburg, and CSD are implementing a plan to integrate instructional technology and curriculum into coursework delivery as early as junior high school to prepare students for practical learning later in life (T.H.E. Journal, June 2006). Education is very much like other types of businesses in that it is consumer driven. Current and future generations of higher education students have come to expect a technology supported environment of learning. Since technology and learning have become the standard in education, it is important for colleges and universities to include part-time faculty in this broad use of instructional technology. Even though the results of this study did not indicate much of a relationship between the use of technology and the job satisfaction for most part-time faculty, the results do not address the fact that faculty still need to learn to effectively use instructional technology because todays students are highly proficient in its use and expect faculty to use technology well. Part-time faculty across all liberal arts disciplines would also benefit by being prepared to deliver course work with some component of instructional technology. It would be in the best interest of higher education to foster growth in their part-time faculty by allowing them to participate in available technology training and use instructional technology resources. 94

PAGE 106

Implications for Future Research The results of this ex-post-facto study have several implications for continued research: 1. Conduct a follow-up study on part-time faculty repeating the same questions and CSCC adapted curriculum classification scheme with the 2004 NSOPF data set. NCES uses a broader definition of instructional technology referred to as Distance Learning in the latest survey in an effort to gain more accurate results. The National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES) is commissioned to conduct the NSOPF on a regular basis. The survey results from their 2004 2005 study are scheduled to be released in late 2006 and should be used to perform a longitudinal follow-up study. The NCES has established a common question and coding scheme for their postsecondary faculty surveys so researchers can perform continuing studies with consistency and relative ease. Specifically, it would be interesting to determine if the Social Sciences maintain the same statistical significance and why. 2. Conduct a teaching technology study to determine the depth and scope of the future of instructional technology use in higher education. Since 1999, new instructional technology processes are in place for the same group of liberal arts disciplines. Many colleges and universities now mandate an instructional technology component for most classes (NCES 2005). It would be enlightening to determine what characteristics and features are best accepted and utilized by part-time faculty. 3. Perform a companion study to this researchers study with a focus on full-time faculty. Much of the literature is rich with job satisfaction issues regarding full-time faculty; however, little has focused on the specific role instructional technology plays in 95

PAGE 107

their job satisfaction. It would be fascinating to compare the results of a parallel part-time and full-time study performed on the 2004 NSOPF survey data. 4. Investigate through a follow-up study whether the number of years of teaching experience by faculty working with instructional technology affects overall job satisfaction. Currently, part-time faculty in their first year of teaching show the highest degree of job satisfaction of any group; however, this was not statistically significant. Is this first year job satisfaction an influence of technology or is it simply a teaching honeymoon period that will soon wear off? 5. Perform a qualitative follow-up study to assess what specific elements of instructional technology contribute to or detract from part-time faculty job satisfaction. To improve the job satisfaction of part-time faculty, a follow-up study could be conducted to identify specific components which may contribute to overall job satisfaction. Some of the factors to consider which may influence part-time job satisfaction could include: whether part-time faculty prefer using pre-packaged teaching software versus developing their own materials from scratch, whether part-time faculty who are just entering the teaching profession are better trained in the effective use of instructional technology than those who have been teaching for five or more years, whether part-time faculty in certain specific disciplines simply like to use instructional technology, or whether part-time faculty who are new to teaching are happier overall with their new job experience than those who have been teaching for five or more years, 96

PAGE 108

making it difficult to tease out the influence of instructional technology from other factors. As more faculty are being trained to use technology, and the demand for technology savvy instructors increases (NCES, 2005), it would be interesting to study the correlation of years of teaching experience and job satisfaction as they relate to the faculty members desire to teach, their technical aptitude, and the willingness of veteran faculty to retro-fit their skills to use instructional technology. For example, this follow-up study could focus specifically on groups of faculty with 10 or more years of teaching experience to investigate if learning and applying effective instructional technology increases or decreases their job satisfaction. Summary Of the ten research questions presented in this study, results from two questions in the CSCC adapted curriculum classification scheme Social Sciences and Computer Science, were statistically significant. Computer Science was the only true technology-based discipline included in this group. Overall, the study showed that between 70% and 89% of the part-time faculty were satisfied with their jobs whether or not they used instructional technology to teach. With the exception of Computer Science and the Social Sciences, there were no other statistical indicators of instructional technology influence on job satisfaction across the entire study. Since this data was collected, however, the development of technology for use in education has increased dramatically. Not all of these recently developed products are appropriate or beneficial for the learning process so educators must have a well-rounded understanding of technology to choose the most fitting system for their needs. 97

PAGE 109

The benefits of a technology-based system of education are many. Most important is the opportunity for part-time faculty to gain a contemporary sense of belonging when working with students in higher education. When used properly and in combination with the vision of their institutions, technology helps increase the efficiency and effectiveness of part-time faculty by strengthening the working relationship with their departments, students, and full-time counterparts. Instructional technology is an integral and expected part of todays learning process for students. Part-time faculty need to continue evolving with the best practices of teaching and learning by constantly re-assessing the application and benefits of technology as a tool for sound pedagogy. In turn, the use of technology should make the job of educating students more enjoyable and subsequently be reflected in the positive job satisfaction of part-time faculty. 98

PAGE 110

References Agresti, A. (1996). An Introduction to Categorical Data Analysis, New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. ANGEL Learning definition. Retrieved September 8, 2005, from http://www.angellearning.com/ Anderson, E. (2002). The new professoriate: Characteristics, contributions, and compensation. American Council on Education. Retrieved August 10, 2005 from http://www.acenet.edu/bookstore/pdf/2002_new_professoriate.pdf. Antony, J, & Valadez, J. (2002, Fall). Exploring the satisfaction of part-time college faculty in the united states. The Review of Higher Education, 26 (1). 41-56. Bahrami, B. & Stockrahm, J. W., (2001, Summer). Analysis of faculty retirement intention: Using a proportional odds model. Journal of Applied Business Research, Vol. 17 Issue 3, p55, 6p. Berger, A. Kirshstein, R. Zhang, Y., & Carter, K. (2002, October). A profile of part-time faculty: Fall 1998. American Institutes for Research. Retrieved July 30, 2005 from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2002/200208.pdf. Cahill, J., Landsbergis, P. and Schnall, P., (1995). Reducing occupational stress: An introductory guide for managers, supervisors and union members. A paper Presented at the Work Stress and Health '95 Conference. September 1995, Washington D.C. 99

PAGE 111

Collins, M. (1999, Ed.). Benefits play role in recruitment, retention. (1999, January 4). Spot Light on Career Services, Recruitment, and HR/Staffing, 21 (10). 1 Cohen, A.M. and Ignash, J. M. (Summer 1994). "An Overview of the Total Credit Curriculum." In Cohen, A. M., ed., Relating Curriculum and Transfer. New Directions for Community Colleges, 86, 13-30. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Downing, D., Covington, M, & Covington, M.M. (2003). Dictionary of computer and internet terms (8 th ed.).Canada. Barrons Business Guides. Gappa, J. M.& Leslie, D. W. (1993), The invisible faculty: Improving the status of part-timers in higher education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Golde, C. M. (1999, January February). After the offer, before the deal: Negotiating a first academic job. Academe, 85, (1). 44. Grenzke, J. (1998, March). Part-time faculty: Quality Issues. The NEA Higher Education Journal, 4 (2). 1-8. Grubb, W. N. & Associates (1999), Honored but invisible: An inside look at teaching in community colleges. New York, NY: Routledge. Harris, A. and Prentice, M. (2004) "The Role Exit Process of Community College Faculty: A Study of Faculty Retirement Community College Journal of Research & Practice 28, no. 9: 729-743. Leslie, D. W. (1998), The growing use of part-time faculty: Understanding causes and effects. New Directions For Higher Education, 104, Winter 1998. Littlefield, J. (2005). Your guide to distance learning. Retrieved September 8, 2005, from http://distancelearn.about.com/od/distancelearningfaq/f/whatitis.htm. 100

PAGE 112

Lyons, R. E., Kysilka, M. L., & Pawlas, G. E. (1999). The adjunct professors guide to success: Surviving and thriving in the college classroom. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Mangan, K. S. (1991). Many colleges fill vacancies with part-time professors, citing economy and uncertainty about enrollments. The Chronicle of Higher Education 37(47): A9. Mendelowitz, S. (1998, April, 17). On the over-use and under-pay of part-time faculty in Americas colleges (Report No. JC 980 208). (ERIC Document Reproduction Services No. ED 418 745) Menges, R. J. (1994, Fall). Preparing new faculty for the future. The NEA Higher Education Journal, 10 (2). 81-95. Microsoft Corporation (2001). Administering a microsoft SQL server 2000 database. Classroom setup guide. Part XO6-18300, Released 10/2000. Milosheff, E. (1990). Factors contributing to job satisfaction at the community college. Community College Review, 18 (1), 12-22. National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES). (1999). The national study of post-secondary faculty (NSOPF), 1999.Washington, DC: NCES Electronic Catalog National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES). (2005). About NCES. Retrieved August 10, 2005 from http://nces.ed.gov/help/about.asp. Newton, H. (1998, Ed.). Newtons telecom dictionary. New York, NY: Flatiron Publishing. Palloff, R. and Pratt, K. 1999. Building Learning Communities in Cyberspace: Effective Strategies for the Online Classroom. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. 101

PAGE 113

Pearson's chi-square test. (2006, September 25). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 22:45, September 26, 2006, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pearson%27s_chi-square_test&oldid=77697045. Pfannestiel, T. (1998, January/February). Its not just a job, its an indenture: Graduate students and the academic job market. Academe, 84 (1), 44-47. Piland, W. E., McFarlin, A., & Murillio, L. (1998/99, December/January). Internship program seeks to increase diversity among college faculty. Community College Journal, 69 (3), 30-32, 37. Pisani, A. M., & Stott, N. (1998). An investigation of part-time faculty commitment to developmental advising. Research in Higher Education, 39 (2), 121 142. Pittinski, M. The networked learning environment. (October, 2004). An overview white paper retrieved August 14, 2005, from http://www.blackboard.com/docs/AS/Bb_Whitepaper_NLE.pdf Pournelle, J. (2004, Ed.). 1001 Computer words you need to know. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Roueche, J. E., Roueche, S. D., & Milliron, M. D. (1995). Strangers in their own land: Part-time faculty in american community colleges. Washington DC: The Community College Press. Schneider, A. (1998). More professors are working part-time, and more teach at 2-year colleges. Chronicle of Higher Education, V44n27, 13Mar1998, pA14-A16. 102

PAGE 114

Schrecker, E. W. (ed. 1998) (1998, January/February). Statement from the conference on the growing use of part-time and adjunct faculty. Academe, 84 (1), 54-60. Schuyler, G. (Winter 1999). Trends in Community College Curriculum. New Directions for Community Colleges, 108. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Smith, J. (2001, March) Blended learning: An old friend gets a new name. Retrieved August 10, 2005 from Executive Update On-Line at http://www.gwsae.org/ExecutiveUpdate/2001/March/blended.htm. Spector, P. (1997), Job satisfaction: Application, assessment, causes and consequences. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE publications, Inc. Stephens, A., & Wright, S. W. (1999, January 25). The part-time faculty paradox: a special report. Community College Week. 11(13), 6, 14, 15. Thompson Course Technology (2005). Making the grade: An interview with innovator Thad Crews. I.T. Link. Retrieved August 25, 2005 from http://www.course.com/itlink/fall05_makingthegrade.cfm. Twigg, H.P. Uses and abuses of adjunct faculty in higher education. Paper presented at a National Conference of the Community College Humanities Association, Washington, DC, November, 1989. (ED 311 984) Ursinus College. Library resources web page. Retrieved August 30, 2005 from http://www.ursinus.edu/content.asp?page=/InstructionalTechnology/ITDefined.htm&tab=Instructional_Technology. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Teaching With Technology: Use of Telecommunications Technology by Postsecondary Instructional Faculty and Staff in Fall 1998, NCES 2002 103

PAGE 115

Vandermast, R. (1998, September 18). Hiring faculty for the next century. Innovation Abstracts. 20 (19), 1 2. WebCT (2003). Learning without limits. An overview white paper retrieved August 14, 2005, from http://www.webct.com/service/ViewContent?contentID=17980017. Websters new world computer dictionary (10 th ed.). (2003).Indianapolis, IN: Wiley Publishing, Inc. 104

PAGE 116

Appendices 105

PAGE 117

OMB Clearance No. 18500608 Expiration Date: 2/28/2001U.S. Department of Education Office of Educational Research and Improvement _____________________________________________________________________________ National Center for Education Statistics _____________________________________________________________________________1999 NATIONAL STUDY OFPOSTSECONDARY FACULTYFACULTY QUESTIONNAIRE _____________________________________________________________________________All information that would permit identification of individuals will be kept confidential. Sponsored by: National Center for Education Statistics Mailing Address: The Gallup Organization Survey Processing Center Supported by: National Science FoundationP .O. Box 5700 National Endowment for the Humanities Lincoln, Nebraska 68505-9926 Contractor: The Gallup Organization Survey Contact: Brian Kuhr Government & Education Division E-mail: NSOPF99@gallup.com Toll-Free Number: 1-800-633-0209

PAGE 118

INSTRUCTIONS i ASSURANCE OF CONFIDENTIALITY All information that permits the identification of individuals will be kept strictly confidential. Individual responses, and a ll responses that permit the identification of individuals, will be protected by the National Education Statistics Act, Public Law 103-382 [ 20 U.S.C. 9001 et seq. ], the Carl D. Perkins Vocational Education Act, and the Privacy Act of 1974 [5 U.S.C. 552a]. General Instructions. Many of our questions ask about your activities during the 1998 Fall Term By this, we mean whatever academic term that was in progress on November 1, 1998. All questions that ask about your position at this institution refer to your position during the 1998 Fall Term at the institution listed on the label on the back cover of the questionnaire. This questionnaire was designed to be completed by both full-time and part-time faculty and instructional staff, in 2and 4-year (and above) higher education institutions of all types and sizes. If you are a research assistant or a teaching assistant, please note this on the cover of the questionnaire and return it without completing the questionnaire.Electronic questionnaire. This questionnaire is available on the World Wide Web (WWW). We strongly urge you to use the electronic version because it is user friendly and takes less time to complete than the paper version. To access the WWW version of the questionnaire, go to http://www.faculty.gallup.com. Your individual Personal Identification Number (PIN) is on the label on the back of the questionnaire.Returning the questionnaire. Mailing instructions for returning the completed questionnaire appear on the last page of the questionnaire.Questions. If you have any questions about the study, please contact Brian Kuhr of The Gallup Organization tollfree at 1-800-633-0209 or via e-mail at NSOPF99@gallup.com.Survey Instructions. This is a scannable questionnaire. Please follow the steps below carefully when completing this questionnaire. It will make it easier to read your results. Use a blue or black ink pen only. Do not use ink that soaks through the paper. Make solid marks that fit in the response boxes. To answer the survey questions, please mark the appropriate answer in each box. EXAMPLE RIGHT WAYWRONG WAYtt

PAGE 119

SECTION A: NATURE OF EMPLOYMENT1.During the 1998 Fall Term, did you have any instructional duties at this institution (e.g., teaching one or more courses, or advising or supervising students academic activities)?(Mark [x] one box.) Yes No (SKIP TO QUESTION 3)2.During the 1998 Fall Term, were (Mark [x] one box.) all of your instructional duties related to credit courses, or advising or supervising academic activities for which students received credit some of your instructional duties related to credit courses or advising or supervising academic activities for which students received credit OR all of your instructional duties related to non credit courses or advising or supervising non credit academic activities3.What was your principal activity at this institution during the 1998 Fall Term? If you had equal responsibilities, please select one.(Mark [x] one box.) Teaching Research Clinical service Administration ( Write in title or position. ) On sabbatical from this institution Other activity (e.g., technical activity such as programmer or technician; other institutional activities such as library services, community/ public service; subsidized performer, artist-inresidence, etc.)4.During the 1998 Fall Term, did you have faculty status at this institution? (Mark [x] one box.) Yes No5.During the 1998 Fall Term, did this institution consider you to be employed part-time or fulltime? (Mark [x] one box.) Part-time Full-time (SKIP TO QUESTION 7)6.Did you hold a part-time position at this institution during the 1998 Fall Term because (Mark [x] Yes or No for each item) YesNo tt a.You preferred working on a part-time basis?. . . . . . . . . b.A full-time position was not available? 7.In what year did you begin the job you held at this institution during the 1998 Fall Term? Consider promotions in rank as part of the same job. (Write in year.)8.Which of the following best describes your academic rank, title, or position at this institution during the 1998 Fall Term? (Mark [x] one box. If no ranks are designated at your institution, mark the "NA, Not Applicable box.) NA.Not applicable: no ranks designated at this institution (SKIP TO QUESTION 10, PAGE 2) Professor Associate Professor Assistant Professor Instructor Lecturer Other title (Please specify below.) 9.In what year did you first achieve this rank/title? (Write in year.)1 1 9 1 9

PAGE 120

10.What was your tenure status at this institution during the 1998 Fall Term? (Mark [x] one box.) Tenured In what year did you achieve tenure at this institution? (Write in year.) On tenure track but not tenured Not on tenure track/although institution has a tenure system No tenure system at this institution11.During the 1998 Fall Term, what was the duration of your contract or appointment at this institution? (Mark [x] one box.) Unspecified duration, or tenured One academic term One academic year or one calendar year Two or more academic/calendar years Other12.During the 1998 Fall Term, did you hold any of the following kinds of appointments at this institution? (Mark [x] Yes or No for each item.) YesNo tt a.Acting. . . . . . . . . . . . . b.Affiliate or adjunct. . . . . . . . . c.Visiting. . . . . . . . . . . . . d.Assigned by religious order. . . . . e.Clinical (Write in title or position.). . f.Research (Write in title or position.). g.Postdoctoral. . . . . . . . . . . h.Other (Please specify below.). . . . 13.Were you chairperson of a department or division at this institution during the 1998 Fall Term? (Mark [x] one box.) Yes No14.What is your principal field or discipline of teaching? If equal areas, select one. (Write in the name of your principal field or discipline and enter the code number of the discipline, on pages 3, that best matches your field of teaching. If you have no field of teaching, mark [x] the NA box.) NA. Not Applicable ( SKIP TO QUESTION 15) Name of principal field/discipline of teaching Code for Field or Discipline15.What is your principal area of research? If equal areas, select one. (Write in the name of your principal area of research and enter the code number of the discipline, on pages 3-4, that best matches your field of research. If you have no research area, mark [x] the NA box.) NA. Not Applicable ( SKIP TO QUESTION 16, PAGE 5) Name of principal field/discipline of research Code for Field or Discipline 2 1 9

PAGE 121

TEACHER EDUCATION 241PreElementary 242Elementary 243Secondary 244Adult & Continuing 245Other General Teacher Education Programs 250Teacher Education in Specific Subjects ENGINEERING 261Engineering, General 262Civil Engineering 263Electrical, Electronics, & Communication Engineering 264Mechanical Engineering 265Chemical Engineering 270Other Engineering 280EngineeringRelated Technologies ENGLISH & LITERATURE 291English, General 292Composition & Creative Writing 293American Literature 294English Literature 295Linguistics 296Speech, Debate, & Forensics 297English as a Second Language 300English, Other FOREIGN LANGUAGES 311Chinese (Mandarin, Cantonese, or Other Chinese) 312French 313German 314Italian 315Latin 316Japanese 317Other Asian 318Russian or Other Slavic 319Spanish 320Other Foreign Languages HEALTH SCIENCES 331Allied Health Technologies & Services 332Dentistry 333Health Services Administration 334Medicine, including Psychiatry 335Nursing 336Pharmacy 337Public Health 338Veterinary Medicine 340Other Health Sciences 350 HOME ECONOMICS 360 INDUSTRIAL ARTS 370 LAW 380 LIBRARY & ARCHIVAL SCIENCES AGRICULTURE 101Agribusiness & Agricultural Production 102Agricultural, Animal, Food, & Plant Sciences 103Renewable Natural Resources, including Conservation, Fishing, & Forestry 110Other Agriculture ARCHITECTURE & ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN 121Architecture & Environmental Design 122City, Community, & Regional Planning 123Interior Design 124Land Use Management & Reclamation 130Other Arch. & Environmental Design ART 141Art History & Appreciation 142Crafts 143Dance 144Design (other than Architecture or Interior) 145Dramatic Arts 146Film Arts 147Fine Arts 148Music 149Music History & Appreciation 150Other Visual & Performing Arts BUSINESS 161Accounting 162Banking & Finance 163Business Administration & Management 164Business Administrative Support (e.g., Bookkeeping, Office Management, Secretarial) 165Human Resources Development 166Organizational Behavior 167Marketing & Distribution 170Other Business COMMUNICATIONS 181Advertising 182Broadcasting & Journalism 183Communications Research 184Communication Technologies 190Other Communications COMPUTER SCIENCE 201Computer & Information Sciences 202Computer Programming 203Data Processing 204Systems Analysis 210Other Computer Science EDUCATION 221Education, General 222Basic Skills 223Bilingual/Crosscultural Education 224Curriculum & Instruction 225Education Administration 226Education Evaluation & Research 227Educational Psychology 228Higher Education 229Special Education 230Student Counseling & Personnel Services 231Other Education (CONTINUED)3CODES FOR MAJOR FIELDS OF STUDY AND ACADEMIC DISCIPLINES

PAGE 122

390 MATHEMATICS/STATISTICS NATURAL SCIENCES: BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES 391Biochemistry 392Biology 393Botany 394Genetics 395Immunology 396Microbiology 397Physiology 398Zoology 400Biological Sciences, Other NATURAL SCIENCES: PHYSICAL SCIENCES 411Astronomy 412Chemistry 413Physics 414Earth, Atmosphere, and Oceanographic (Geological Sciences) 420Physical Sciences, Other 430 PARKS & RECREATION PHILOSOPHY, RELIGION & THEOLOGY 440Philosophy 441Religion 442Theology 470 PHYSICAL EDUCATION 500 PROTECTIVE SERVICES (e.g., Criminal Justice, Fire Protection) 510 PSYCHOLOGY 520 PUBLIC AFFAIRS (e.g., Community Services, Public Administration, Public Works, Social Work) 530 SCIENCE TECHNOLOGIES SOCIAL SCIENCES & HISTORY 541Social Sciences, General 542Anthropology 543Archeology 544Area & Ethnic Studies 545Demography 546Economics 547Geography 548History 549International Relations 550Political Science & Government 551Sociology 560Other Social SciencesVOCATIONAL TRAININGCONSTRUCTION TRADES 601Carpentry 602Electrician 603Plumbing 610Other Construction Trades CONSUMER, PERSONAL, & MISCELLANEOUS SERVICES 621Personal Services (e.g., Barbering, Cosmetology) 630Other Consumer Services MECHANICS & REPAIRERS 641Electrical & Electronics Equipment Repair 642Heating, Air Conditioning, & Refrigeration Mechanics & Repairers 643Vehicle & Mobile Equipment Mechanics & Repairers 644Other Mechanics & Repairers PRECISION PRODUCTION 661Drafting 662Graphic & Print Communications 663Leatherworking & Upholstering 664Precision Metal Work 665Woodworking 670Other Precision Production Work TRANSPORTATION & MATERIAL MOVING 681Air Transportation (e.g., Piloting, Traffic Control, Flight Attendance, Aviation Management) 682Land Vehicle & Equipment Operation 683Water Transportation (e.g., Boat & Fishing Operations, Deep Water Diving, Marina Operations, Sailors & Deckhands) 690Other Transportation & Material Moving 900OTHER 4

PAGE 123

SECTION B: ACADEMIC/PROFESSIONAL BACKGROUND5 16.Please list below information about the degrees you have received. Do not list honorary degrees. If you have more than one degree at the same level, please list the most recent degree first. (Complete all columns for each degree. If you have none of the degrees or awards listed below, mark [x] the NA box.)CODES FOR TYPE OF DEGREE1)First professional degree (M.D., D.O., D.D.S. or D.M.D., LL.B., J.D., D.C. or D.C.M., D.Par., Pod.D. or D.P., D.V.M., O.D., M.Div. or H.H.L. or B.D.) 2)Doctoral degree (Ph.D., Ed.D., etc.) 3)Masters of Fine Arts, Masters of Social Work (M.F.A., M.S.W.) 4)Other Masters degree (M.A., M.S., M.B.A., M.Ed., etc.) 5)Bachelors degree (B.A., A.B., B.S., etc.) 6)Associates degree or equivalent (A.A., A.S., etc.) 7)Certificate or diploma for completion of undergraduate program (other than Associates or Bachelors) NA. Not Applicable; do not hold a degree or award listed above (SKIP TO QUESTION 17)A. B. C. D. E. Degree CodeYear Name of Field Field Code a. Name of Institution, and (see box above)Received (from pages 34)b. City and State/Country of Institution1. Highest a. b. 2. Next Highest a. b. 3. Next Highest a. b. 4. Next Highest a. b. 17.Are you currently working toward a degree? (Mark [x] one box.) Yes No (SKIP TO QUESTION 19, PAGE 6)18.Please indicate below (A) the type of degree you are currently working toward, (B) the year you anticipate receiving it, (C) name of the field, (D) the field code that applies (from pages 3-4), and (E) the name and location of the institution from which you anticipate receiving this degree. (Complete all columns.)A. B. C. D. E. Degree CodeYear Name of Field Field Code a. Name of Institution, and (see box above) Anticipated (from pages 34)b. City and State/Country of InstitutionDegree Working Toward a. b. 1 9 1 9 1 9 1 9

PAGE 124

19.Do you consider your position at this institution to be your primary employment? (Mark [x] one box.) Yes No20.During the 1998 Fall Term, did you do outside consulting in addition to your employment at this institution? (Mark [x] one box.) Yes No21.During the 1998 Fall Term, did you have professional employment other than consulting in addition to your employment at this institution? (Mark [x] one box.) Yes No ( SKIP TO QUESTION 23)22.How many different professional jobs/positions, other than your employment at this institution or consulting jobs, did you have during the 1998 Fall Term? (Write in number.) Number of other jobs23.In total, how many professional positions in higher education institutions have you held? Consider promotions in rank at the same institution as part of the same position. If your occupational classification changed within the same institution, please consider this a separate position. (Include your position at this institution and all other full-time and part-time positions. Do not include teaching or research assistant positions.) Number of positions6 Continue on next page

PAGE 125

24.The next questions ask about your first professional position in a higher education institution, and your most recent professional position at a higher education institutution (other than the one you currently hold at this institution. (If your current position is your first position, complete column 1. If you have no other additional professional positions, mark [x] the NA box at the top of the second column. ) Do not list promotions in rank at one place of employment as different positions. Do not include work as a graduate student.First Professional Position in a Most Recent Professional Position at a Higher Education InstitutionHigher Ed. Institution (other than the one you currently hold at this institution) NA: No other positions 1.YEARS JOB HELD (Write in year.)(Write in year.) FROM: TO: (If a current position, mark [x] Present.) Present Present 2.TYPE OF INSTITUTION (Mark [x] one box.)(Mark [x] one box.) 4year doctoral granting college or university, graduate or professional school 4year nondoctoral granting college or university 2year degree granting college Other postsecondary institution 3.EMPLOYMENT STATUS (Mark [x] one box.)(Mark [x] one box.) Fulltime Parttime 4.PRIMARY RESPONSIBILITY (Mark [x] one box.)(Mark [x] one box.) Administration, Management Instruction/Research/Public Service Other Professional (Support/Service/Clinical) 5.ACADEMIC RANK/TITLE (What were your academic (Mark [x] one box in each column.) (Mark [x] one box in each column.) ranks when you began and left this academicAt HireAt ExitAt HireAt Exit position? If current job, do not indicate rank at exit .)tt ttProfessor Associate Professor Assistant Professor Instructor Lecturer Other NA. Not applicable, no rank 6.TENURE STATUS (What was your tenure status (Mark [x] one box in each column.) (Mark [x] one box in each column.) when you began and left this academic position?At HireAt ExitAt HireAt Exit If current job, do not indicate tenure at exit .) tttt Tenured On tenure track but not tenured Not on tenure track although institution has a tenure system No tenure system at this institution 7 1 9 1 9 1 9 1 9

PAGE 126

25.How many years have you been teaching in higher education institutions?(Write in number. If none, write in . If less than 1 year, write in .) Number of years26.How many professional positions, outside of higher education institutions, have you held? Do not include consulting jobs (Write in number. If none, mark the box indicating None.) None ( SKIP TO QUESTION 29, PAGE 9) Number of professional positions outside higher education institutions27.How many of these positions were... (Write in numberof full-time and part-time professional positions outside of higher education institutions. If none, write in .) Full-timePart-time28.The next questions ask about professional positions outside of higher education institutions you have held. List information on your first and your most recent professional positions outside of higher education institutions. Do not include positions you began in 1999.First Professional Position OutsideMost Recent Professional Position of a Higher Education Institution Outside of a Higher Ed. Institution NA: No other Professional positions 1.YEARS JOB HELD (Write in year.)(Write in year.) FROM: TO: (If a current position, mark [x] Present.) Present Present 2.TYPE OF EMPLOYER (Mark [x] one box.)(Mark [x] one box.) Elementary or secondary school Hospital or other health care organization or clinical setting Foundation or other nonprofit organization other than health care organization Forprofit business or industry in the private sector Government (federal, state, or local) or military Other 3.EMPLOYMENT STATUS (Mark [x] one box.)(Mark [x] one box.) Fulltime Parttime 4.PRIMARY RESPONSIBILITY (Mark [x] one box.)(Mark [x] one box.) Administration, Management Instruction, Research, or Public Service Other Professional (Support/Service/Clinical) Technical Other 8 1 9 1 9 1 9 1 9

PAGE 127

29.How many of each of the following have you presented/published/etc. during your entire career and during the last two years? For publications, please include only works that have been accepted for publication. Count multiple presentations/publications of the same work only once. Include electronic publications that are not published elsewhere in the appropriate categories. (Mark the "NA" box if you have not published or presented.) NA. Not applicable. No presentations/publications/etc. (SKIP TO QUESTION 30, PAGE 10) Type of Presentation/Publication/etc.Total during past two years (Write a number in each box. If none, write in .) Total during career Sole responsibilityJoint responsibility 1.Articles published in refereed professional or trade journals; creative works published in juried media 2.Articles published in nonrefereed professional or trade journals; creative works published in nonjuried media or in-house newsletters 3.Published reviews of books, articles, or creative works; chapters in edited volumes 4.Textbooks, other books; monographs; research or technical reports disseminated internally or to clients 5.Presentations at conferences, workshops, etc.; exhibitions or performances in the fine or applied arts 6.Other, such as patents or computer software products 9Continue on next page

PAGE 128

SECTION C: INSTITUTIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES AND WORKLOAD 10 30.On average, how many hours per week did you spend at each of the following kinds of activities during the 1998 Fall Term? (Write in average number of hours. If not sure, give your best estimates. If none, write in .) Average number of hours per week t a.All paid activities at this institution (e.g. teaching, clinical service, class preparation, research, administration). . . . b.All unpaid activities at this institution (Please specify type of activities below.). . . . . . . . . c.Any other paid activities outside this institution (e.g., consulting, working on other jobs). . . . . . . . . d.Unpaid (pro bono) professional service activities outside this institution. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31.In column A, please allocate your total work time in the 1998 Fall Term (as reported in Question 30a-d) into several categories. We realize the categories are not mutually exclusive (e.g., research may include teaching; preparing a course may be part of professional growth). We ask, however, that you allocate as best you can the percentage of your time spent in activities whose primary focus falls within the indicated categories. In column B, indicate what percentage of your time you would prefer to spend in each of the listed categories. Time spent with colleagues should be allocated to a specific activity.A.B. (Write in a percentage on each line. If not sure, % of Work% of Work give your best estimate; if none, write in .) Time SpentTime Preferred a. T eaching Undergraduate Students (including teaching; grading papers; preparing courses; developing new curricula; advising or supervising students; supervising student teachers and interns; working with student organizations or intramural athletics) b. T eaching Graduate or First Professional Students (including teaching; grading papers; preparing courses; developing new curricula; advising or supervising students; supervising student teachers and interns; supervising clinical students; working with student organizations or intramural athletics) c. Research/Scholarship (including research; reviewing or preparing articles or books; attending or preparing for professional meetings or conferences; reviewing proposals; seeking outside funding; giving performances or exhibitions in the fine or applied arts; or giving speeches) d. Professional Growth (including taking courses; pursuing an advanced degree; other professional development activities; such as practice or activities to remain current in your field) e. Administration (including departmental or institution-wide meetings or committee work) f. Service (including providing legal or medical services or psychological counseling to clients or patients; paid or unpaid community or public service; service to professional societies/associations) g. Outside Consulting, Freelance W ork, Other Outside W ork/Other Non-T eaching Professional Activities (other activities or work not listed in af) Please be sure that the percentages you provide add up to 100%. 100%100%

PAGE 129

32.During the 1998 Fall Term, how many undergraduate or graduate thesis or dissertation committees, comprehensive exams or orals committees, or examination or certification committees did you serve on at this institution; how many did you chair, and what was the average number of hours spent in these activities per week? (Write in a number on each line. If none, write in . Mark the "NA" box if you did not serve on any committees.) NA. Not applicable. Did not serve on any undergraduate or graduate committees (SKIP TO QUESTION 33)NumberOf that number,Average number of served on how many did you chair? hours per weekType of Committee(Write in number in each box. If none, write in "0".) 1. Undergraduate thesis honors committees; comprehensive exams or orals committees; examination/certification committees 2. Graduate thesis or dissertation committees; comprehensive exams or orals committees (other than as part of thesis/ dissertation committees); examination/certification committees33.During the 1998 Fall Term, what was the total number of classes or sections you taught at this institution? (Mark the "NA" box if you did not teach any classes.) Do not include individualized instruction, such as independent study, individual performance classes, or working with individual students in a clinical or research setting. Count multiple sections of the same course as a separate class (e.g., if you taught Sociology 101 to two different groups of students during the term, count this as two separate classes). Count lab or discussion sections of a class as the same class (e.g., if you taught Biology 202 to a group of students during the term and the class consisted of a lecture two times a week, a lab one day a week, and a discussion section one day a week, count this work as one class). NA. Not applicable; no classes taught ( SKIP TO QUESTION 48, PAGE 14) Number of classes/sections (i.e., credit and non-credit)34.How many different courses (preparations) do these classes/sections represent? (Write in number. If none, write in "0".) Number of courses these classes/sections represent35.How many of the classes/sections that you taught during the 1998 Fall Term were remedial? (Write in number. If none, write in "0".) Number of classes/sections that were remedial, i.e., credit and non-credit. (IF NONE, SKIP TO QUESTION 37)36.How many of these remedial classes/sections were not creditable toward a degree (non-credit classes)?(Write in number. If none, write in "0".) Number of remedial classes/sections that were not creditable toward a degree (non-credit) 11 Continue to next page

PAGE 130

37.How many of the classes/sections that you taught during the 1998 Fall Term were continuing education classes? (Write in number. If none, write in "0") Number of classes/sections that were continuing education (IF NONE, SKIP TO QUESTION 39)38.How many of these continuing education classes/sections were not creditable toward a degree (noncredit classes)? (Write in number. If none, write in "0".) Number of continuing education classes/sections that were not creditable toward a degree (non-credit)39.What is the total number of students enrolled in all your non-credit classes/sections combined? (Write in number. If none, write in .) Total number of students enrolled in non-credit classes/sections40.How many of the classes/sections that you taught during the 1998 Fall Term were for credit ? (Write in number. If none, write in .) Number of classes/sections for credit (IF NONE, SKIP TO QUESTION 43, PAGE 14) 12Continue to next page

PAGE 131

A. B. C. D. E. ForcreditForcredit ForcreditForcreditForcredit Class AClass B Class CClass DClass E 1. CODE FOR ACADEMIC DISCIPLINE OF CLASS (enter code)(enter code)(enter code)(enter code)(enter code) (from pages 34) 2.DURING 1998 FALL TERM (Complete each box.) a.Number of weeks the class met a. b.Number of credit hours b. c.Number of hours the class met per weekc. d.Number of teaching assistants, readersd. e.Number of students enrolled e f.Was this class team taught? f. Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Noi Noi Noi Noi Noig.Average # hours per week you taught the classg. h.Was this class considered a remedial class?h. Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Noi Noi Noi Noi Noii.Was this class taught through a distance education program?i. Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Noi Noi Noi Noi Noi 3. PRIMARY LEVEL OF STUDENTS (Mark [x] one box.) Undergraduate students Graduate students First professional students (e.g., dental, medical, law, theology, etc.) 4. PRIMARY INSTRUCTIONAL METHOD USED (Mark [x] one box.) Lecture/Discussion Seminar Lab, clinic, or problem session Apprenticeship, internship, fi eld work, or field trips Other 5. PRIMARY MEDIUM USED (Mark [x] one box.) Facetoface Computer TVbased Other 41.For each credit class or section that you taught at this institution during the 1998 Fall Term, please answer the following questions. For each class, enter the code for the academic discipline of the class .(Refer to pages 3 for the codes. Please enter the code rather than the course name .) Do not include individualized instruction, such as independent study or individual one-on-one performance classes. If you taught multiple sections of the same course, count them as separate classes, but do not include the lab section of the course as a separate class. 13

PAGE 132

42.In how many of the undergraduate courses that you taught for credit during the 1998 Fall Term did you use... (Mark [x] one box for each item.) NA. Did not teach any undergraduate classes for credit (SKIP TO QUESTION 43)NoneSomeAllttta.Student evaluations of each others work?. . . . . . . . . b.Multiple-choice midterm and/or final exam?. . . . . . . . . . c.Essay midterm and/or final exams?. . . . . . . . . . . d.Short-answer midterm and/or final exams?. . . . . . . . . e.Term/research papers?. . . . . f.Multiple drafts of written work?. . g.Grading on a curve?. . . . . . h.Competency-based grading?. . 43.During the 1998 Fall Term, did you have websites for any of the classes you taught?(Mark [x] one box.) Yes No (SKIP TO QUESTION 45)44.What did you use the websites for? (Mark [x] Yes or No for each item.) YesNotta.To post general class information (e.g., syllabus and office hours). . . . b.To post information on homework assignments or readings. . . . . . . c.To post practice exams/exercises that provide immediate scoring. . . . . d.To post exams or exam results. . . . . e.To provide links to other information. . . f.Other (Please specify below.). . . . . 1445.During the 1998 Fall Term, did you use electronic mail (e-mail) to communicate with students in your classes? (Mark [x] one box.) Yes No (SKIP TO QUESTION 48)46.Approximately what percent of the students in your classes communicated with you via email during the 1998 Fall Term? (Write in percent. If none, write in .) Percent of students in your classes who .0%communicated with you via e-mail47.Approximately how many hours per week did you spend responding to student e-mail during the 1998 Fall Term? (Write in number of hours. If none, write in .)Hours per week spent responding to student e-mail48.During the 1998 Fall Term, did you have access to the internet... (Mark [x] one box.) Both at home and at work At work only At home only No access to the internet49.For each type of student listed below, please indicate how many students received individual instruction from you during the 1998 Fall Term (e.g., independent study; supervising student teachers or interns; or one-on-one instruction, including working with individual students in a clinical or research setting), and the total number of contact hours with these students per week. Do not count regularly scheduled office hours. (Write in a number. If none, write in .)Total contact Number ofhours perType of students receiving formalstudentsweekindividualized instructiontta.Undergraduate students. . . . b.Graduate students. . . . . . c.First professional students (e.g., dental, medical, optometry, osteopathic, pharmacy, veterinary, chiropractic, law, and theology). .

PAGE 133

50.On average, how many contact hours per week did you spend with students you were assigned to advise? (Write in a number. If none, write in "0".) Number of contact hours spent with students per week (Do not include hours spent working with students on their thesis, dissertation, or independent study.)51.During the 1998 Fall Term, how many regularly scheduled office hours did you have per week? (Write in a number. If none, write in "0".) Number of regularly scheduled office hours per week52.During the 1998 Fall Term, were you engaged in any professional research, proposal writing, creative writing, or creative works (either funded or non-funded) at this institution?(Mark [x] one box.) Yes No (SKIP TO QUESTION 60, PAGE 16)53.How would you describe your primary professional research, writing, or creative work during the 1998 Fall Term? (Mark [x] one box.) Basic research Applied or policy-oriented research or analysis Literary, performance, or exhibitions Program/Curriculum design and development Other (Please specify below.) 54.During the 1998 Fall Term were you engaged in any funded research or funded creative work? Include any grants, contracts, or institutional awards. Do not include consulting services. (Mark [x] one box.) Yes No (SKIP TO QUESTION 60, PAGE 16)55.During the 1998 Fall Term, were you a principal investigator (PI) or co-principal investigator (Co-PI) for any grants or contracts? (Mark [x] one box.) YesHow many? No (SKIP TO QUESTION 57)56.During the 1998 Fall Term, how many individuals at this institution other than yourself were supported, either in part or in full, by all the grants and contracts for which you were PI or Co-PI? (Write in a number. If none, write in "0".) Number of individuals supported by grants or contracts57.From which of the following sources did you receive funding during the 1998 Fall Term?(Mark [x] all that apply.) This institution Foundation or other nonprofit organization For profit business or industry in the private sector State or local government Federal Government Other (Please specify) 58.What were the total number of grants/contracts from all sources in the 1998 Fall Term? (Write in a number)Total number of grants/contracts59a.What were the total funds received from all sources for the 1998-99 academic year? Do not include funding that was awarded in 1999. (Write in a number; if not sure, mark [x] the DK, Dont Know box.) DK, Dont Know 15 $ , .00

PAGE 134

59b.How were these funds used? (Mark [x] all that apply.) Research Program/curriculum development Other60.How would you rate each of the following facilities or resources at this institution that were available for your own use during the 1998 Fall Term? (Mark [x] one box for each item.) Not Available/ Not Applicable/ PoorFairGoodExcellentDont Knowttttta.Basic research equipment/instruments b.Laboratory/research space and supplies c.Availability of teaching assistants d.Availability of research assistants e.Personal computers and local networks f.Centralized (main frame) computer facilities g.Internet connections h.Technical support for computer-related activities i.Audio-visual equipment j.Classroom space k.Office space l.Studio/performance space m.Secretarial support n.Library holdings 16Continue to next page

PAGE 135

61.During the past two years, did you use institutional funds for any of the purposes specified below?(Mark [x] one item for each category.) No,No,No, although no fundsdont know funds werewere available,if funds were Yesavailableor not eligible availabletttta.Tuition remission at this or other institution. . . . b.Professional association memberships and/or registration fees. . . . . . . . . . . . c.Professional travel. . . . . . . . . . . . . . d.Training to improve research or teaching skills. . . e.Release time from teaching. . . . . . . . . . . f.Sabbatical leave. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62.During the 1998 Fall Term, how many of the following types of administrative committees did you serve on at this institution? How many of these committees did you chair? Include committees at the department or division level, the school or college level, and institutionand system-wide committees.(Write a number in each box. If you did not serve on or chair a committee, write for each item. If you did not serve on or chair any administrative committees mark [x] the NA box.) NA. Not applicable; did not serve on or chair any administrative committees. (SKIP TO QUESTION 64) Number of CommitteesNumber of Committees Served On Chairedtta.Curriculum Committees. . . . . . . . . . . . . b.Personnel Committees (e.g., search or recruitment committees). . . . . . . . . . . . . c.Governance Committees (e.g., faculty senate, student retention, budget, or admissions). . . . . . d.Other. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63.On average, approximately how many hours per week did you spend on administrative committee work?(Write in number. If none, write in "0".) Hours per week spent on committee work64.Are you a member of a union (or other bargaining association) that is the legally recognized representative of the faculty at this institution? (Mark [x] one box.) Union/bargaining association is not available Union/bargaining association is available, but I am not eligible I am eligible, but not a member I am eligible, and a member17

PAGE 136

SECTION D: JOB SATISFACTION ISSUES65.How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with each of the following aspects of your instructional duties at this institution? (Mark [x] one box for each item. Mark [x] NA if you had no instructional duties.) NA. Not applicable; no instructional duties (SKIP TO QUESTION 66) VerySomewhat SomewhatVeryNot Dissatisfied Dissatisfied Satisfied SatisfiedApplicablettttta.The authority I have to make decisions about content and methods in the courses I teach. . . . b.The authority I have to make decisions about what courses I teach. . . . . . . . . . . . . c.The authority I have to make decisions about other (non-instructional) aspects of my job. . . . . d.Time available for working with students as an advisor, mentor, etc.. . . . . . . . . . . . . e.Time available for class preparation. . . . . . . f.Quality of undergraduate students whom I have taught here. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . g.Quality of graduate students whom I have taught here. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66.How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the following aspects of your job at this institution? (Mark [x] one box for each item.) VerySomewhatSomewhatVeryNot DissatisfiedDissatisfied SatisfiedSatisfiedApplicablettttta.My work load. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . b.My job security. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . c.Opportunity for advancement in rank at this institution. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . d.Time available for keeping current in my field. . . . e.The effectiveness of faculty leadership at this institution (e.g. academic senate, faculty councils, etc.). . . . f.Freedom to do outside consulting. . . . . . . . g.My salary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . h.My benefits, generally. . . . . . . . . . . . . i.Spouse or partner employment opportunities in this geographic area. . . . . . . . . . . . j.My job here, overall. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

PAGE 137

67.During the next three years, how likely is it that you will leave this job to: (Mark [x] one box for each item.) Not atSomewhatVery All LikelyLikelyLikelyttta.Accept a part-time job at a different postsecondary institution?. . . b.Accept a full-time job at a different postsecondary institution?. . . c.Accept a part-time job not at a postsecondary institution?. . . . . d.Accept a full-time job not at a postsecondary institution?. . . . . e.Retire from the labor force?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68.At what age do you think you are most likely to stop working at a postsecondary institution? (Write in age or mark DK. Dont Know.) Years of age DK. Dont Know69.If you were to leave your current position at this institution to accept another position inside or outside of academia, how important would each of the following be in your decision? (Mark [x] one box for each item.) NotSomewhatVeryNot ImportantImportantImportantApplicabletttta.Salary level. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . b.Tenure-track/tenured position. . . . . . . . . . . . . . c.Job security. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . d.Opportunities for advancement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . e.Benefits. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . f.No pressure to publish. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . g.Good research facilities and equipment. . . . . . . . . . h.Good instructional facilities and equipment. . . . . . . . . i.Good job or job opportunities for my spouse or partner. . . . j.Good geographic location. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . k.Good environment/schools for my children. . . . . . . . . l.Greater opportunity to teach. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . m.Greater opportunity to do research. . . . . . . . . . . . 19

PAGE 138

70.Of the factors listed in Question 69, write in the letter of the item (a-m) that would be most important in your decision to leave. (Write in a letter, am, from Question 69.) 71.If you could elect to draw on your retirement and still continue working at this institution on a part-time basis, would you do so? (Mark [x] one box.) Yes No DK. Dont Know72.Have you retired from another position? (Mark [x] one box.) Yes No73.If an early retirement option were offered to you at this institution, would you take it? (Mark [x] one box.) Yes No DK. Dont Know74.At which age do you think you are most likely to retire from all paid employment? (Write in age or mark "DK. Don't Know.) Years of age DK. Dont Know20 Continue to next page

PAGE 139

21 SECTION E: COMPENSATIONNote: Your responses to these items as with all other items in this questionnaire are voluntary and strictly confidential. They wil l be used only in statistical summaries, and will not be disclosed to your institution or to any individual or group.75.What is your basic salary from this institution for the 1998-99 academic year? (Write in dollar amount. If not sure, give your best estimates; if no basic salary, mark [x] the "NA. Not Applicable box.) NA. Not Applicableta.Basic salary for academic year.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ .00 b.Basic salary is based on: ( Mark [x] one box in Type and write in Number below.) TYPE NUMBER length of appointment in months (e.g. 9 months). . . . . . . . . months number of credit hours taught. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . credit hours number of classes taught. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . classes other (Please specify.) . . . (Specify.)76.For the 1998 calendar year, please estimate your gross compensation before taxes from each of the sources listed below. (Write in dollar amount. If not sure, give your best estimates; if no compensation from a source, mark [x] the "NA. Not Applicable box.) NA. Not ApplicabletCompensation from this institution: a.Basic salary for calendar year. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ .00 b.Other income from this institution not included in basic salary (e.g., for summer session, overload courses, administration, research, coaching sports, etc.). . . . . . $ .00 c.Non-monetary compensation, such as food, housing, car provided by this institution (do not include employee benefits such as medical, dental, or life insurance). . . . . $ .00 Compensation from other sources: d.Employment at another academic institution. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ .00 e.Any other employment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ .00 f.Legal or medical services or psychological counseling. . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ .00 g.Outside consulting, consulting business or freelance work. . . . . . . . . . . . $ .00 h.Self-owned business (other than consulting). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ .00 i.Professional performances or exhibitions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ .00 j.Speaking fees, honoraria. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ .00

PAGE 140

22 NA. Not Applicabletk.Royalties or commissions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ .00 l.Non-monetary compensation, such as food, housing, car (do not include other employee benefits such as medical, dental, or life insurance). . . . . . . . $ .00 Other sources of earned income (Please specify below): m. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ .00 n. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ .00 77.What was the gross income of your spouse or significant other for the 1998 calendar year? (Write in number. If no income, write in . If no spouse or significant other, mark the "NA" box. If dont know, mark the DK box.) $ .00 Gross income of spouse/significant other for 1998 NA. No spouse or significant other DK. Dont know78.For the 1998 calendar year, how many persons lived in your household including yourself? (Write in number.) Total number in household79.For the 1998 calendar year, what was your total household income before taxes? (Write in number.) $ , .00 Total household income before taxes80.For the 1998 calendar year, how many dependents did you have? Do not include yourself. (A dependent is someone receiving at least half of his or her financial support from you.) (Write in number. If none, write in .) Number of dependents

PAGE 141

SECTION F: SOCIODEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS81.Are you ... Male Female82.In what month and year were you born? (Write in month and year.) Month Year83.What is your ethnicity? (Mark [x] one box.) Hispanic or Latino Not Hispanic or Latino84.What is your race? (Mark [x] one or more.) American Indian or Alaska Native Asian Black or African American Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander White85.Are you a person with a disability? (Mark [x] one box.) Yes No (SKIP TO QUESTION 87)86.What type of disability do you have? (Mark [x] all that apply.) Hearing impairment (i.e., deaf or hard of hearing) Blind or visual impairment that cannot be corrected by wearing glasses, or legally blind Speech or language impairment Mobility/orthopedic impairment Other (e.g., specific learning disability, attention deficit, mental illness, or emotional disturbance)87.What was your marital status in the 1998 Fall Term? (Mark [x] one box.) Single, never married Married Living with someone in a marriage-like relationship Separated, divorced, widowed88.During the 1998 Fall Term, was your spouse or significant other employed in a professional position at a higher education institution?(Mark [x] one box.) Yes, at this institution Yes, at another higher education institution No Not Applicable89.In what country were you born? (Mark [x] one box.) USA Other (Please specify below.) 23 1 9

PAGE 142

90.What is your citizenship status? (Mark [x] one box.) United States citizen, native United States citizen, naturalized Permanent resident of the United States (immigrant visa) COUNTRY OF PRESENT CITIZENSHIP Temporary resident of United States (non-immigrant visa) COUNTRY OF PRESENT CITIZENSHIP91.What is the highest level of formal education completed by your mother and your father? What is the highest level of formal education completed by your spouse or significant other? (Mark [x] one box for each person.) Spouse/ Mother FatherSignificant Otherttta.Doctorate degree or first professional degree (e.g., Ph.D., Ed.D., dental, medical, law, theology, etc.). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . b.Masters degree (e.g., M.A., M.S., M.B.A., M.Ed., etc.). . . . . . . c.Bachelors degree (e.g., B.A., A.B., B.S., etc.). . . . . . . . . . . d.Associates degree (e.g., A.A., A.S., etc.). . . . . . . . . . . . . e.Some college. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . f.High school diploma. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . g.Less than high school diploma. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . h.Dont know or not applicable. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

PAGE 143

SECTION G: OPINIONS92.Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with each of the following statements. (Mark [x] one box for each item.) StronglyStrongly DisagreeDisagree AgreeAgreetttta.Teaching effectiveness should be the primary criterion for promotion of faculty/instructional staff at this institution. . . b.Research/publications should be the primary criterion for promotion of faculty/instructional staff at this institution. . . c.At this institution, research is rewarded more than teaching. . d.Post-tenure review of faculty will improve the quality of higher education. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . e.This institution should have a tenure system. . . . . . . f.Female faculty members are treated fairly at this institution. g.Faculty who are members of racial or ethnic minorities are treated fairly at this institution. . . . . . . . . . . . . h.If I had it to do over again, I would still choose an academic career. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93.Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with each of the following statements. Over recent years at this institution... (Mark [x] one box for each item.) StronglyStrongly DisagreeDisagree AgreeAgreetttta.It has become more difficult for faculty to obtain external funding. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . b.Faculty work load has increased. . . . . . . . . . . . c.The quality of undergraduate education has declined. . . d.The atmosphere is less conducive to free expression of ideas. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . e.The quality of research has declined. . . . . . . . . . f.Too many full-time faculty have been replaced by part-time faculty. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

PAGE 144

Please indicate approximately how long it took you to complete this questionnaire. MinutesReturn your completed questionnaire in the enclosed pre-paid envelope or mail directly to: The Gallup Organization Survey Processing Center P.O. Box 5700 Lincoln, Nebraska 68505Comments: Thank you very much for your participation. 26

PAGE 145

Sponsored by: National Center for Education Statistics Supported by: National Science Foundation National Endowment for the Humanities Contractor: The Gallup Organization Government & Education Division Mailing Address: The Gallup Organization Survey Processing Center P.O. Box 5700 Lincoln, Nebraska 68505-9926 Survey Contact: Brian Kuhr E-mail: NSOPF99@gallup.com Toll-Free Number: 1-800-633-0209Endorsed by:American Association for Higher Education American Association of Community Colleges American Association of State Colleges and Universities American Association of University Professors American Council on Education American Federation of Teachers Association for Institutional Research Association of American Colleges and Universities Association of Catholic Colleges and Universities College and University Personnel Association The College Board The College Fund/UNCF Council of Graduate Schools The Council of Independent Colleges National Association for Equal Opportunity in Higher Education National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities National Association of State Universities and LandGrant Colleges National Education Association

PAGE 146

Appendix B: National Study of Postsecondary Faculty (NSOPF) 1999 List of Restricted Use Data (current through June 2004) Name...........Section Variable Label Q40..............Control variable Any classes for credit taught, total X01Z1.........Control variable Any instructional duties for credit X07Z1.........Control variable Credit instruction-teaching as principal activity X02Z1.........Control variable Faculty status or instruction for credit Q5................Control variable Fullor part-time employment at this institution X06Z0.........Control variable Institutional classification, 4-year versus 2-year X08Z0.........Control variable Institutional classification, NSOPF99, collapsed X02Z0.........Control variable Institutional classification, matches NSOPF93 X07Z0.........Control variable Institutional classification, public versus private X03Z3.........Control variable Principal activity, employment, faculty status X01Z14.......Control variable Principal field of teaching, NSOPF88 expanded X02Z14.......Control variable Principal field of teaching, matches NSOPF88 X10Z14.......Control variable Principal field of teaching, recoded X03Z14.......Control variable Principal field of teaching, vocational included X01Z82.......Demographics Age in 1999 X06Z82.......Demographics Age, (matches NSOPF 93 report) X05Z82.......Demographics Age, (six categories) X04Z82.......Demographics Age, below or above 55 years X02Z82.......Demographics Age, matches NSOPF88 distribution X03Z82.......Demographics Age, matches NSOPF93 distribution Q82M..........Demographics Age, month of birth Q82Y...........Demographics Age, year of birth X01Z89.......Demographics Birth country collapsed Q89..............Demographics Born in USA or other country Q90..............Demographics Citizenship X02Z90.......Demographics Citizenship collapsed X01Z90.......Demographics Citizenship country X03Z90.......Demographics Citizenship status and birth X06Z84.......Demographics Citizenship status and minority status Q85..............Demographics Disability Q86B...........Demographics Disability, blind or visually impaired Q86A...........Demographics Disability, hearing impairment Q86D...........Demographics Disability, mobility/orthopedic impairment Q86E...........Demographics Disability, something else Q86C...........Demographics Disability, speech or language impairment Q81..............Demographics Gender Q91B...........Demographics Highest education level of father YQ91B........Demographics Highest education level of father, DKs imputed Q91A...........Demographics Highest education level of mother YQ91A........Demographics Highest education level of mother, DKs imputed

PAGE 147

Appendix B: (continued) X01Z91.......Demographics Highest education level of parents Q91C...........Demographics Highest educati on level of spouse/significant other Q78..............Demographics Household members Q87..............Demographics Marital status X01Z87.......Demographics Marital status and dependents Q80..............Demographics Number of dependents X01Z80.......Demographics Number of dependents, categorized X02Z84.......Demographics Race including more than one X01Z84.......Demographics Race recoded Q84A...........Demographics Race, American Indian or Alaska Native Q84B...........Demographics Race, Asian Q84C...........Demographics Race, Black or African American Q84D...........Demographics Race, Native Hawa iian or other Pacific Islander Q84E...........Demographics Race, White X07Z84.......Demographics Race/ethnicit y including multiple, non-Hispanic X03Z84.......Demographics Race/ethnicity recoded X05Z84.......Demographics Race/ethnicity recoded multi according to OMB X04Z84.......Demographics Race/ethnicity recoded multiple Q83..............Demographics Race/ethnicity, Hispanic descent Q88..............Demographics Spouse/signif icant other employed in higher education Q17..............Education Currently working toward a degree Q18A...........Education Currently working toward a degree, degree Q18B...........Education Currently working toward a degree, degree date Q18D...........Education Currently working toward a degree, degree field Q18E...........Education Currently working toward a degree, degree origin X17Z16.......Education Currently working toward a degree, highest degree attained Q16A1.........Education Highest degree X02Z16.......Education Highest degree collapsed X01Z16.......Education Highest degree collapsed further X03Z16.......Education Highest degree either doctorate or first-professional X13Z16.......Education Highest degree, age X14Z16.......Education Highest degree, age collapsed Q16B1.........Education Highest degree, date Q16D1.........Education Highest degree, field X05Z16.......Education Highest degree, field NSOPF88 expanded X06Z16.......Education Highest degree, field matches NSOPF88 X07Z16.......Education Highest degree, institution Carnegie I/II X08Z16.......Education Highest degree, institution Carnegie matches NSOPF88 X09Z16.......Education Highest degree, institution Carnegie matches NSOPF93 X11Z16.......Education Highest degree, number of degrees beyond bachelors

PAGE 148

Appendix B: (continued) X12Z16.......Education Highest degree, number of years between bach and PhD Q16E1.........Education Highest degree, origin X15Z16.......Education Highest degree, years since receiving X16Z16.......Education Highest degree, years since receiving collapsed Q16A2.........Education Previous highest degree Q16B2.........Education Previous highest degree date Q16D2.........Education Previous highest degree field Q16E2.........Education Previous highest degree origin Q16A3.........Education Second pr evious highest degree Q16B3.........Education Second prev ious highest degree date Q16D3.........Education Second prev ious highest degree field Q16E3.........Education Second previ ous highest degree origin Q16A4.........Education Third previous highest degree Q16B4.........Education Third previous highest degree date Q16D4.........Education Third prev ious highest degree field Q16E4.........Education Third previous highest degree origin X01Z12.......Employment, current Appointment X02Z12.......Employment, current Appoi ntment and employment status Q12A...........Employment, current Appointment, acting Q12B...........Employment, current Appointment, affiliate or adjunct Q12E...........Employment, current Appointment, clinical Q12E1.........Employment, current Appointment, clinical specified Q12H...........Employment, current Appoint ment, no special type reported Q12H1.........Employment, current A ppointment, other title or job Q12G...........Employment, current Appointment, postdoctoral Q12D...........Employment, current Appointme nt, religious order assignment Q12F...........Employment, current Appointment, research Q12F1.........Employment, current A ppointment, research specified Q12C...........Employment, current Appointment, visiting Q19..............Employment, current Current posi tion respondent^s primary employment Q13..............Employment, current Department chairperson Q11..............Employment, current Duration of contract X03Z5.........Employment, current Em ployment status and gender X02Z5.........Employment, current Employment status of positions Q4................Employment, current Faculty status X06Z1.........Employment, current Facu lty status and credit/noncredit X03Z1.........Employment, current Faculty status and duties1 X04Z1.........Employment, current Faculty status and duties2 X05Z1.........Employment, current Faculty status and duties3 X02Z23.......Employment, current First/only job X01Z5.........Employment, current Only employm ent is part-time at this institution Q20..............Employment, current Other employment, fall 1998, consulting Q21..............Employment, current Other employment, fall 1998, non-consulting Q22..............Employment, current Other employment, fall 1998, number of positions

PAGE 149

Appendix B: (continued) Q6B.............Employment, current Part-time because full-time unavailable Q6A.............Employment, current Part-time because part-time preferred X01Z6.........Employment, current Part-time, reason why Q3................Employment, current Principal activity X01Z3.........Employment, current Principal activity, modified X02Z3.........Employment, current Princi pal activity, modified further Q14..............Employment, current Principal field of teaching all categories Q15..............Employment, current Principa l research field all categories X02Z15.......Employment, current Principa l research field matches NSOPF88 X01Z15.......Employment, current Prin cipal research field, NSOPF93 X03Z15.......Employment, current Principa l research field, vocational included X08Z14.......Employment, current Principal teach or res by principal activity, 10 X07Z14.......Employment, current Principal teach or res by principal activity, 26 X09Z14.......Employment, current Principal te ach or res by principal activity, voc X05Z14.......Employment, current Principal teaching or research field X04Z14.......Employment, current Principal teaching or research field expanded X06Z14.......Employment, current Principal teaching or research field vocational Q8................Employment, current Rank X01Z8.........Employment, current Rank, collapsed X03Z8.........Employment, current Rank, employment status X02Z8.........Employment, current Rank, gender Q9................Employment, current Rank, year achieved X01Z9.........Employment, current Rank, years since rank achieved X02Z9.........Employment, current Rank, y ears since rank achieved collapsed Q10..............Employment, current Tenure status, collapsed X01Z10.......Employment, current Te nure status, collapsed further X02Z10.......Employment, current Tenure status, gender Q10A...........Employment, current Tenure status, year achieved X01Z10A....Employment, current Tenure status, years since tenure achieved X02Z10A....Employment, current Tenure st atus, years tenure achieve collapse Q64..............Employment, current Union status X01Z64.......Employment, current Union status, collapsed Q7................Employment, current Year began current job X01Z7.........Employment, curren t Years held current job X02Z7.........Employment, current Year s held current job collapsed X03Z7.........Employment, current Year s old when began current job X04Z7.........Employment, current Years ol d when began current job collapsed X08Z24.......Employment, other current job Employment status X05Z24.......Employment, other current job Employment status, if not prime job X02Z24.......Employment, other current job Employment status, if prime job X09Z24.......Employment, other cu rrent job Primary response X06Z24.......Employment, other current job Primary response, if not prime job X03Z24.......Employment, other current j ob Primary response, if prime job X07Z24.......Employment, other current job Sector X04Z24.......Employment, other current job Sector, if not primary job

PAGE 150

Appendix B: (continued) X01Z24.......Employment, other current job Sector, if primary job Q24A2.........Employment, past 1st highe r ed position, employment sector Q24A3.........Employment, past 1st highe r ed position, employment status Q24A4.........Employment, past 1st higher ed position, primary responsibility Q24A5B......Employment, past 1st higher ed position, rank at exit Q24A5A......Employment, past 1st higher ed position, rank at hire Q24A6B......Employment, past 1st higher ed position, tenure status at exit Q24A6A......Employment, past 1st higher ed position, tenure status at hire Q24A1F.......Employment, past 1st higher ed position, year began Q24A1T......Employment, past 1st higher ed position, year left Q24A1P.......Employment, past 1st highe r ed position, year still there Q28A1P.......Employment, past 1st non-high er ed position, year still there Q28A2.........Employment, past 1st non-high er ed postion, employment sector Q28A3.........Employment, past 1st non-high er ed postion, employment status Q28A4.........Employment, past 1st non-higher ed postion, primary responsibility Q28A1F.......Employment, past 1st nonhigher ed postion, year began Q28A1T......Employment, past 1st nonhigher ed postion, year left X01Z23.......Employment, past Higher ed and/or nonhigher ed employment Q24B2.........Employment, past Most recen t higher ed job, em ployment sector Q24B3.........Employment, past Most recen t higher ed job, employment status Q24B4.........Employment, past Most recent higher ed job, primary responsibility Q24B5B......Employment, past Most recent higher ed job, rank at exit Q24B5A......Employment, past Most re cent higher ed job, rank at hire Q24B6B......Employment, past Most recent higher ed job, tenure status at exit Q24B6A......Employment, past Most recent higher ed job, tenure status at hire Q24B1F.......Employment, past Most recent higher ed job, year began Q24B1T.......Employment, past Most recent higher ed job, year left Q24B1P.......Employment, past Most recen t higher ed job, year still there X10Z24.......Employment, past Most recent job that ended, employment sector X11Z24.......Employment, past Most recent job that ended, employment status X12Z24.......Employment, past Most recen t job that ended, primary respons X13Z24.......Employment, past Most re cent job that ended, year began X14Z24.......Employment, past Most re cent job that ended, year left Q28B4.........Employment, past Most recent non-higher ed job primary responsibility Q28B2.........Employment, past Most recent non-higher ed job, employment sector Q28B3.........Employment, past Most recent non-higher ed job, em ployment status Q28B1F.......Employment, past Most re cent non-higher ed job, year began Q28B1T.......Employment, past Most re cent non-higher ed job, year left Q28B1P.......Employment, past Most recen t non-higher ed job, year still there Q23..............Employment, past Number of positions in higher ed during career Q26..............Employment, past Number of pos itions outside higher ed during career Q27A...........Employment, past Number of po sitions outside higher ed full-time Q27B...........Employment, past Number of po sitions outside higher ed part-time Q25..............Employment, past Number of y ears teaching in higher ed institution

PAGE 151

Appendix B: (continued) X01Z21.......Employment, past Outside consulting/other prof employment X27Z0.........IPEDS Enrollment minority, American Indian/Alaska Native X28Z0.........IPEDS Enrollment minority, Asian/Pacific Islander X29Z0.........IPEDS Enrollment minority, Black non-Hispanic X30Z0.........IPEDS Enrollment minority, Hispanic X15Z0.........IPEDS Enrollment, first-professional X16Z0.........IPEDS Enrollment, first-professional, collapsed X19Z0.........IPEDS Enrollment, graduate X20Z0.........IPEDS Enrollment, graduate, collapsed X23Z0.........IPEDS Enrollment, total X24Z0.........IPEDS Enrollment, total, collapsed X11Z0.........IPEDS Enrollment, undergraduate X12Z0.........IPEDS Enrollment, undergraduate, collapsed X35Z0.........IPEDS Expenditures, educational/general (in 1000^s) X36Z0.........IPEDS Expenditures, e ducational/general, collapsed X31Z0.........IPEDS Expenditures, instruction (in 1000^s) X32Z0.........IPEDS Expenditures, instruction, collapsed X33Z0.........IPEDS Expenditures, research (in 1000^s) X34Z0.........IPEDS Expenditures, research, collapsed X17Z0.........IPEDS FTE enrollment, first-professional X18Z0.........IPEDS FTE enrollment, first-professional, collapsed X21Z0.........IPEDS FTE enrollment, graduate X22Z0.........IPEDS FTE enrollment, graduate, collapsed X25Z0.........IPEDS FTE enrollment, total X26Z0.........IPEDS FTE enrollment, total, collapsed X13Z0.........IPEDS FTE enrollment, undergraduate X14Z0.........IPEDS FTE enrollment, undergraduate, collapsed X10Z0.........IPEDS Ratio of FTE enrollment/FTE faculty X37Z0.........IPEDS Region X01Z79.......Income Average income per household member X02Z79.......Income Average income per household member collapsed Q75A...........Income Basic salary for academic year X01Z75.......Income Basic salary for academic year, categorized Q75B3.........Income Basic salary for academic year, number of classes Q75B2.........Income Basic salary for academic year, number of credit hours Q75B1.........Income Basic salary for academic year, number of months Q75B...........Income Basic salary for academic year, type Q76A...........Income Basic salary from institution X01Z76.......Income Basic salary from institution, categorized Q76C...........Income Institution compensation, nonmonetary Q76B...........Income Institution other income X02Z76.......Income Institution total income except basic salary

PAGE 152

Appendix B: (continued) X03Z76.......Income Institution total income except basic salary, collapsed Q76P...........Income Outside income, alimony/child support/etc. Q76G...........Income Outside income, consulting/freelance work X06Z76.......Income Outside income, consulting/freelance work, collapsed Q76Q...........Income Outside income dividends/annuities/trusts Q76R...........Income Outside income, government Q76M..........Income Outside income, grants/fellowships Q76F...........Income Outside income, le gal/medical serv ices/counseling Q76S...........Income Outside income, loans Q76O...........Income Outside income, military/pension/etc. Q76L...........Income Outside income, nonmonetary compensation Q76D...........Income Outside income, other academic institution Q76E...........Income Outside income, other employment Q76I............Income Outside income, pe rformances or exhibitions Q76T...........Income Outside income real estate/rentals Q76N...........Income Outside income, retirement/pension/etc. Q76K...........Income Outside income, royalties/commissions Q76H...........Income Outside income, self owned business Q76J............Income Outside income, speaking fees/honoraria Q76U...........Income Outside income, unspecified Q79..............Income Total household income X03Z79.......Income Total household income collapsed X04Z76.......Income Total income from the institution X05Z76.......Income Total income from the institution (categorical) X09Z76.......Income Total income not from the institution X10Z76.......Income Total income not from the institution, collapsed X11Z76.......Income Total income of respondent from all sources X12Z76.......Income Total income of respondent from all sources, collapsed X14Z76.......Income Total outside income except consulting or nonmonetary X13Z76.......Income Total outside income except consulting/nonmonetary X07Z76.......Income Total outside income, except consulting X08Z76.......Income Total outside income, except consulting, collapsed YQ77...........Income Total spouse income, DKs imputed Q77..............Income Total spouse or significant other gross income X05Z0.........Institutional classification 1994 Carnegie classification I/II X04Z0.........Institutional classificatio n 1994 Carnegie, NSOPF93 expanded X03Z0.........Institutional classificatio n 1994 Carnegie, NSOPF99, collapsed X38Z0.........Institutional classificatio n 1994 Carnegie, doctoral/nondoctoral X01Z0.........Institutional classificatio n 1994 Carnegie, matches NSOPF88 X09Z0.........Institutional classificatio n 1994 Carnegie, modified NSOPF88

PAGE 153

Appendix B: (continued) X39Z0.........Institutional classificat ion 2000 Carnegie classification X44Z41.......Instruction Any cla ss primary medium is a TV X43Z41.......Instruction Any class pr imary medium is a computer X42Z41.......Instruction Any class pr imary medium is face to face X63Z41.......Instruction Any class prim ary medium is nonface-to-face X45Z41.......Instruction Any class prim ary medium is something else X40Z41.......Instruction Any class us e field work as primary method X39Z41.......Instruction Any class use lab or clinic as primary method X37Z41.......Instruction Any class use le cture/discussion as primary method X38Z41.......Instruction Any class use seminar as primary method X41Z41.......Instruction Any class use something else as primary method X04Z32.......Instruction Any instruction in class, individual, or com work X64Z41.......Instruction Any instruct ion, any classes to undergraduates X72Z41.......Instruction Any instructi on, any undergraduate instruction X06Z31.......Instruction Any instruct ion, total hours on undergraduate teaching X03Z32.......Instruction Any instruction, type Q1................Instruction Any instructional duties X70Z41.......Instruction Any undergrad class use field work as primary method X69Z41.......Instruction Any undergrad class use lab as primary method X67Z41.......Instruction Any undergrad class use lecture as primary method X68Z41.......Instruction Any undergrad class use seminar as primary method X71Z41.......Instruction Any undergrad cla ss use something else as primary method X61Z41.......Instruction Average for-credit class size X74Z41.......Instruction Average graduate /1st professional for-credit class size X62Z41.......Instruction Average noncredit class size X73Z41.......Instruction Average undergraduate for-credit class size Q37..............Instruction Classes ta ught, continuing education Q38..............Instruction Classes taught, continuing education not toward degree Q35..............Instruction Classes taught, remedial Q36..............Instruction Classes taught, remedial not creditable toward degree Q33..............Instruction Classes taught, total Q39..............Instruction Classes taught, total students enrolled in non-credit Q34..............Instruction Courses taught, total Q2................Instruction Credit or no ncredit instructional duties Q48..............Instruction Electronic access to the internet Q45..............Instruction Electronic use email to communicate with students Q47..............Instruction Electronic use e-mail, hours/week responding to students

PAGE 154

Appendix B: (continued) Q46..............Instruction Electronic use email, percent communicating with e-mail Q43..............Instruction Electronic, website Q44D...........Instruction Electronic, website to post exams or exam results Q44A...........Instruction Electronic, website to post general class information Q44B...........Instruction Electronic, we bsite to post information on homework Q44C...........Instruction Electronic, website to post practice exams/excercises Q44E...........Instruction Electronic, webs ite to provide links to other information Q44F...........Instruction Electronic, webs ite to provide something else Q44F1.........Instruction Electronic, we bsite used for other (specify) X06Z41.......Instruction Level of st udents in classes for credit X03Z41.......Instruction Longest class taught in weeks in 5 or fewer X60Z41.......Instruction Number of noncredit classes taught X58Z41.......Instruction Percentage of 5 classes that are distance education X59Z41.......Instruction Percentage of a ll classes that are distance education X66Z41.......Instruction Teaching assistants in none, some, all undergrad class X15Z41.......Instruction Teaching assist ants per credit class, average X65Z41.......Instruction Teaching assist ants per undergrad class, average TECH..........Instruction Technology index X04Z41.......Instruction Total classroom credit hours X31Z41.......Instruction Total classr oom credit hours, distance ed X47Z41.......Instruction Total classroom credit hours, grad/1st prof X32Z41.......Instruction Total classr oom credit hours, nondistance ed X30Z41.......Instruction Total clas sroom credit hours, nonremedial X29Z41.......Instruction Total clas sroom credit hours, remedial X46Z41.......Instruction Total clas sroom credit hours, undergrad X01Z41.......Instruction Total hours/week teaching classes X23Z41.......Instruction Total hours/week teaching classes, distance ed X49Z41.......Instruction Total hours/week teaching classes, grad/1st prof X24Z41.......Instruction Total hours/week teaching classes, nondistance ed X22Z41.......Instruction Total hours/week teaching classes, nonremedial ed X21Z41.......Instruction Total hours/week teaching classes, remedial ed X48Z41.......Instruction Total hours/w eek teaching classes, undergrad X08Z41.......Instruction Total numbe r of classes in 5 or fewer X09Z41.......Instruction Total number of cl asses in 5 or fewer, distance ed X11Z41.......Instruction Total number of cl asses in 5 or fewer, distance ed gradua X10Z41.......Instruction Total number of cl asses in 5 or fewer, distance ed underg X13Z41.......Instruction Total number of cla sses in 5 or fewer, grad/1st prof

PAGE 155

Appendix B: (continued) X51Z41.......Instruction Total number of classes in 5 or fewer, nondistance ed X50Z41.......Instruction Total number of classes in 5 or fewer, nonremedial ed X12Z41.......Instruction Total number of cl asses in 5 or fewer, remedial ed X07Z41.......Instruction Total number of classes in 5 or fewer, undergrad X02Z41.......Instruction Total st udent contact hours/week X27Z41.......Instruction Total student contact hours/week, distance ed X53Z41.......Instruction Total student c ontact hours/week, grad/1st prof X28Z41.......Instruction Total student c ontact hours/week, nondistance ed X26Z41.......Instruction Total student contact hours/week, nonremedial X25Z41.......Instruction Total student contact hours/week, remedial X52Z41.......Instruction Total student contact hours/week, undergrad X05Z41.......Instruction Total student credit hours X35Z41.......Instruction Total stude nt credit hours, distance ed X55Z41.......Instruction Total student credit hours, grad/1st prof X36Z41.......Instruction Total stude nt credit hours, nondistance ed X34Z41.......Instruction Total stude nt credit hours, nonremedial ed X33Z41.......Instruction Total stude nt credit hours, remedial ed X54Z41.......Instruction Total st udent credit hours, undergrad X16Z41.......Instruction Total students taugh t in credit and noncredit classes X14Z41.......Instruction Total stude nts taught in credit classes X19Z41.......Instruction Total students taugh t in credit classes, distance ed X57Z41.......Instruction Total students taught in credit classes, grad/1st prof X20Z41.......Instruction Total students ta ught in credit cl asses, nondistance ed X18Z41.......Instruction Total students ta ught in credit classes, nonremedial X17Z41.......Instruction Total students ta ught in credit classes, remedial X56Z41.......Instruction Total students ta ught in credit classes, undergrad Q41A2I.......Instruction, classroom 1st class, distance ed Q41A1.........Instruction, classr oom 1st class, field Q41A2C......Instruction, classroom 1st class, hours/week class met Q41A2G......Instruction, classroom 1st cla ss, hours/week respondent taught Q41A4.........Instruction, classroom 1st cl ass, main instructional method Q41A5.........Instruction, classroom 1st class, main medium used Q41A2B......Instruction, classroom 1st class, number of credit hours Q41A2E......Instruction, classroom 1st cla ss, number of students enrolled Q41A2D......Instruction, classroom 1st cla ss, number of teaching assistants Q41A2A......Instruction, classroom 1st cl ass, number of weeks class met Q41A3.........Instruction, classroom 1st cl ass, primary level of students Q41A2H......Instruction, classroom 1st class, remedial class Q41A2F.......Instruction, classroom 1st class, team taught Q41B2I........Instruction, classroom 2nd class, distance ed Q41B1.........Instruction, classroom 2nd class, field Q41B2C......Instruction, classroom 2nd class, hours/week class met

PAGE 156

Appendix B: (continued) Q41B2G......Instruction, classroom 2nd cla ss, hours/week respondent taught Q41B4.........Instruction, classroom 2nd cl ass, main instructional method Q41B5.........Instruction, classroom 2nd class, main medium used Q41B2B......Instruction, classroom 2nd class, number of credit hours Q41B2E.......Instruction, classr oom 2nd class, number of students enrolled Q41B2D......Instruction, classroom 2nd class, number of teaching assistants Q41B2A......Instruction, classroom 2nd cla ss, number of weeks class met Q41B3.........Instruction, classroom 2nd cl ass, primary level of students Q41B2H......Instruction, classroom 2nd class, remedial class Q41B2F.......Instruction, classroom 2nd class, team taught Q41C2I........Instruction, classroom 3rd class, distance ed Q41C1.........Instruction, classr oom 3rd class, field Q41C2C......Instruction, classroom 3rd class, hours/week class met Q41C2G......Instruction, classroom 3rd clas s, hours/week respondent taught Q41C4.........Instruction, classroom 3rd cl ass, main instructional method Q41C5.........Instruction, classroom 3rd class, main medium used Q41C2B......Instruction, classroom 3rd class, number of credit hours Q41C2E.......Instruction, classr oom 3rd class, number of students enrolled Q41C2D......Instruction, classroom 3rd clas s, number of teaching assistants Q41C2A......Instruction, classroom 3rd cl ass, number of weeks class met Q41C3.........Instruction, classroom 3rd cl ass, primary level of students Q41C2H......Instruction, classroom 3rd class, remedial class Q41C2F.......Instruction, classroom 3rd class, team taught Q41D2I.......Instruction, classroom 4th class, distance ed Q41D1.........Instruction, classr oom 4th class, field Q41D2C......Instruction, classroom 4th class, hours/week class met Q41D2G......Instruction, classr oom 4th class, hours/week respondent taught Q41D4.........Instruction, classroom 4th cl ass, main instructional method Q41D5.........Instruction, classroom 4th class, main medium used Q41D2B......Instruction, classroom 4th class, number of credit hours Q41D2E......Instruction, classr oom 4th class, number of students enrolled Q41D2D......Instruction, classr oom 4th class, number of teaching assistants Q41D2A......Instruction, classroom 4th cl ass, number of weeks class met Q41D3.........Instruction, classroom 4th cl ass, primary level of students Q41D2H......Instruction, classroom 4th class, remedial class Q41D2F.......Instruction, classroom 4th class, team taught Q41E2I........Instruction, classroom 5th class, distance ed Q41E1.........Instruction, classr oom 5th class, field Q41E2C.......Instruction, classroom 5th class, hours/week class met Q41E2G......Instruction, classr oom 5th class, hours/week respondent taught Q41E4.........Instruction, classroom 5th class, main instructional method Q41E5.........Instruction, classroom 5t h class, main medium used Q41E2B.......Instruction, classroom 5th class, number of credit hours Q41E2E.......Instruction, classr oom 5th class, number of students enrolled Q41E2D......Instruction, classr oom 5th class, number of teaching assistants

PAGE 157

Appendix B: (continued) Q41E2A......Instruction, classroom 5th class, number of weeks class met Q41E3.........Instruction, classroom 5th class, primary level of students Q41E2H......Instruction, classroom 5th class, remedial class Q41E2F.......Instruction, classroom 5th class, team taught Q32C2.........Instruction, committees Average hours/week spent on grad committees Q32C1.........Instruction, committees Average hours/week spent on ungrad committees X02Z32.......Instruction, committees Chai r, total number of committees Q32B2.........Instruction, committees Chaired graduate committees Q32B1.........Instruction, committees Ch aired undergraduate committees X01Z32.......Instruction, committees Serve on, total number of committees Q32A2.........Instruction, committees Served on, number of graduate committees Q32A1.........Instruction, committees Served on, number of undergraduate committees X04Z49.......Instruction, individual Contact hr s/week with grad and first-prof X05Z49.......Instruction, individual Contact hrs/week with total students Q49C2.........Instruction, individual Contact hrs/week, first-professional students Q49B2.........Instruction, individual Cont act hrs/week, graduate students Q49A2.........Instruction, individual Contact hrs/week, undergraduate students X01Z49.......Instruction, individual Level of student Q49C1.........Instruction, individual Number of first-professional students Q49B1.........Instruction, individual Nu mber of graduate students Q49A1.........Instruction, individual Numb er of undergraduate students X02Z49.......Instruction, individua l Number with grad and first-prof students X03Z49.......Instruction, individual Number with total students Q50..............Instruction, individual Total inform al contact hrs/week with students Q51..............Instruction, individual Total re gular scheduled office hrs/week Q42H...........Instruction, teaching methods Competency based grading Q42C...........Instruction, teaching methods Essay midterm/finals Q42G...........Instruction, teaching methods Grading on a curve Q42B...........Instruction, teaching methods Multiple choice midterm/finals Q42F...........Instruction, teaching methods Mu ltiple drafts of written work Q42D...........Instruction, teaching methods Short answer midterm/finals Q42A...........Instruction, teaching methods Student evaluations Q42E...........Instruction, teaching methods Term/research papers Q92H...........Opinions Opinion about c hoosing academic career again Q92E...........Opinions Opinion about in stitution should have a tenure system Q92D...........Opinions Opinion about post-tenure review of faculty Q92B...........Opinions Opinion about rese arch as promotion criteria Q92C...........Opinions Opinion about research rewarded more than teaching Q92A...........Opinions Opinion about te aching as promotion criteria Q92F...........Opinions Opinion about treatment of female faculty Q92G...........Opinions Opinion about tr eatment of minority faculty Q93D...........Opinions Opinion of atmos phere is less conducive to free expression

PAGE 158

Appendix B: (continued) Q93A...........Opinions Opinion of facu lty ability to obtain funding Q93B...........Opinions Opinion of faculty workload increase Q93F...........Opinions Opinion of full-tim e faculty being replaced by parttime Q93E...........Opinions Opinion of quality of research at institution Q93C...........Opinions Opinion of undergra duate education at institution X04Z74.......Plans Age likely retire from all paid employ, collapsed X06Z74.......Plans Age likely retire from all paid employ, collapsed DKs imputed YQ74...........Plans Age likely retire fr om all paid employment, DKs imputed Q74..............Plans Age likely to reti re from all paid employment X01Z68.......Plans Age stop work at postsecondary inst, collapsed X03Z68.......Plans Age stop work at postsecondary inst, collapsed DKs imputed X04Z68.......Plans Age stop working at a postsecondary institution X05Z68.......Plans Age stop working at a postsecondary institution, DKs imputed YQ68...........Plans Age stop working at postsecondary inst, DKs imputed Q68..............Plans Age stop working at postsecondary institution Q72..............Plans Have you retired from another position Q67D...........Plans How likely accept full-time nonpostsecondary job in 3 years Q67C...........Plans How likely accept part-time nonpostsecondary job in 3 years Q67E...........Plans How likely retire in 3 years X05Z67.......Plans How likely retire or have different job in 3 years Q67B...........Plans How likely to accept full-time postsecondary job in 3 years Q67A...........Plans How likely to accept part-time postsecondary job in 3 years Q69D...........Plans If leave how impor tant advancement opportunity Q69E...........Plans If leave how important benefits Q69J............Plans If leave how im portant geographic location Q69H...........Plans If leave how impor tant instructional facilities Q69I............Plans If leave how important job for spouse Q69C...........Plans If leave how important job security Q69F...........Plans If leave how important no publishing pressure Q69G...........Plans If leave how impor tant research facilities Q69M..........Plans If leave how impor tant research opportunity Q69A...........Plans If leave how important salary level Q69K...........Plans If leave how important schools for children Q69L...........Plans If leave how im portant teaching opportunity Q69B...........Plans If leave how important tenure

PAGE 159

Appendix B: (continued) Q70..............Plans If leave what would be the most important factor X03Z67.......Plans Very likely accept a full-time job in 3 years X04Z67.......Plans Very likely retire or have different job in 3 years X01Z67.......Plans Very likely to retire in 3 years X02Z67.......Plans Very likely will ac cept a part-time job in 3 years Q71..............Plans Would you retire and work part-time at institution YQ71...........Plans Would you retire and work part-time, DKs imputed Q73..............Plans Would you take early retirement YQ73...........Plans Would you take early retirement, DKs imputed X01Z74.......Plans Years till retirement X02Z74.......Plans Years till retirement, DKs imputed X03Z74.......Plans Years till retire ment, DKs imputed, collapsed Q61B...........Professional development Internal prof. assoc. funds Q61C...........Professional development Internal prof. travel funds Q61E...........Professional development Intern al release time from teaching Q61F...........Professional development Internal sabbatical leave Q61D...........Professional development Internal training to improve res/teaching Q61A...........Professional development Internal tuition remission funds Q29A2.........Publications Career articles/creative works in nonrefereed/nonjuried Q29A1.........Publications Career articles /creative works in refereed/juried media Q29A4.........Publications Career book s, textbooks, monographs, reports Q29A6.........Publications Career patent s or computer software products Q29A5.........Publications Career presenta tions, exhibitions, or performances Q29A3.........Publications Career reviews of books, articles, or creative works X07Z29.......Publications Car eer total publications Q29C2.........Publications Recent jo int articles/creative worksnonref/nonjuried Q29C1.........Publications Recent joint arti cles/creative works-refereed/juried Q29C4.........Publications Recent joint books textbooks, monographs, reports Q29C6.........Publications Recent joint pate nts or computer software products Q29C5.........Publications Recent joint presentations, exhibitions, or performances Q29C3.........Publications Recent joint re views of books, articles, creative works Q29B2.........Publications Recent sole articles/creative works-nonref/nonjuried Q29B1.........Publications Recent sole articles/creative works-refereed/juried Q29B4.........Publications Recent sole books textbooks, monographs, reports Q29B6.........Publications Recent sole pate nts or computer software products Q29B5.........Publications Recent sole presentations, exhibitions, or performances Q29B3.........Publications Recent sole revi ews of books, articles, or creative work

PAGE 160

Appendix B: (continued) X02Z29.......Publications Recent total ar ticles/works in nonref/nonjuried media X01Z29.......Publications Recent total articl es/works in refereed/juried media X04Z29.......Publications Recent total books textbooks, monographs, reports X06Z29.......Publications Recent total pate nts or computer software products X05Z29.......Publications Recent total presentations, exhibitions, or performance X03Z29.......Publications Recent total re views of books, articles, or works X08Z29.......Publications Recent total total publications Q60I............Rating Rating of audio visual equipment Q60D...........Rating Rating of availability of research assistants Q60C...........Rating Rating of availability of teaching assistants Q60A...........Rating Rating of basic re search equipment/instruments Q60F...........Rating Rating of centra lized computer facilities Q60J............Rating Rating of classroom space Q60G...........Rating Rating of internet connections Q60B...........Rating Rating of labor atory space and supplies Q60N...........Rating Rating of library holdings Q60K...........Rating Rating of office space Q60E...........Rating Rating of personal computers and local networks Q60M..........Rating Rating of secretarial support Q60L...........Rating Rating of studio/performance space Q60H...........Rating Rating of technical support for computer-related activities Q52..............Research Any creativ e work/writing/research Q53..............Research Any creative wo rk/writing/research, type Q54..............Research Any funded research Q55..............Research Any funded research, PI/Co-PI Q55A...........Research Any funded rese arch, PI/Co-PI number of grants/contracts Q56..............Research Any funded rese arch, number supported by all grants X01Z59A....Research Average gran t/contract award, DKs excluded X02Z59A....Research Average gran t/contract award, DKs excluded, collapsed X04Z59A....Research Average gran t/contract award, DKs imputed, collapsed X03Z59A....Research Average gran t/contract award, dks imputed Q59B2.........Research How were funds used, program/curriculum development Q59B1.........Research How were funds used, research Q59B3.........Research How were funds used, something else Q57E...........Research Source, federal government Q57C...........Research Source, for-profit business Q57B...........Research Source, foundation or other nonprofit organization

PAGE 161

Appendix B: (continued) Q57A...........Research Source, institution Q57F...........Research Source, other not specified Q57G...........Research Source, other university ed inst Q57D...........Research Source, st ate or local government Q59A...........Research Total funds r eceived from all sources YQ59A........Research Total funds received from all sources, DKs imputed Q58..............Research Total number of gran ts/contracts received from all sources X01Z60.......Satisfaction Quality of facilities/resources overall X02Z60.......Satisfaction Quality of facilities/resources-sum X01Z65.......Satisfaction Satisfaction overall with instruc duties, mean score X01Z66.......Satisfaction Satisfaction overa ll with other parts of job, mean score Q66C...........Satisfaction Satisfaction with advancement opportunity Q65C...........Satisfaction Satisfaction with authority make other job decisions Q65A...........Satisfaction Satisfaction with au thority to decide course content Q65B...........Satisfaction Satisfaction with au thority to decide courses taught Q66H...........Satisfaction Satisfaction with benefits Q66E...........Satisfaction Satisfaction with e ffectiveness of faculty leadership Q66F...........Satisfaction Satisfaction with freedom to do outside consulting Q66J............Satisfaction Satisf action with job overall Q66B...........Satisfaction Satisfact ion with job security Q65G...........Satisfaction Satisfaction with quality of graduate students Q65F...........Satisfaction Satisfaction with quality of undergraduate students Q66G...........Satisfaction Satisfaction with salary Q66I............Satisfaction Satisfaction w ith spouse employment opportunity Q65E...........Satisfaction Satisfaction with time available for class preparation Q65D...........Satisfaction Satisfaction with time available to advise students Q66D...........Satisfaction Satisfaction with time to keep current in field Q66A...........Satisfaction Satisf action with work load Q62A2.........Workload Administrative committees chaired, curriculum Q62C2.........Workload Administrative committees chaired, governance Q62B2.........Workload Administrative committees chaired, personnel Q62D2.........Workload Administrative co mmittees chaired, something else X02Z62.......Workload Administrative committees chaired, total Q62A1.........Workload Administrative committees served on, curriculum Q62C1.........Workload Administrative committees served on, governance Q62B1.........Workload Administrative committees served on, personnel Q62D1.........Workload Administrative committees served on, something else X01Z62.......Workload Administrative committees served on, total Q63..............Workload Administrative committees, average hours/week spent X01Z30.......Workload Average to tal hours per week worked

PAGE 162

Appendix B: (continued) Q30A...........Workload Hours/week pa id activities at institution Q30C...........Workload Hours/week paid activity not at institution Q30D...........Workload Hours/week unpaid (pro bono) activity not at institution Q30B...........Workload Hours/week unpaid activities at institution Q30B1.........Workload Hours/week unpaid activities at in stitution, type Q31A5.........Workload Time actually spent at administration Q31A3.........Workload Time actually spent at research X01Z31.......Workload Time actually spent at teaching Q31A2.........Workload Time actually spent at teaching graduates Q31A1.........Workload Time actually spent at teaching undergraduates X03Z31.......Workload Time actually spen t in other activities, collapsed Q31A7.........Workload Time actually spent on consulting Q31A4.........Workload Time actually spent on professional growth Q31A6.........Workload Time actually spent on service activity Q31B5.........Workload Time preferred at administration Q31B3.........Workload Time preferred at research X04Z31.......Workload Time preferred at teaching Q31B2.........Workload Time preferred at teaching graduates Q31B1.........Workload Time preferred at teaching undergraduates X05Z31.......Workload Time pref erred in other activities Q31B7.........Workload Time preferred on consulting Q31B4.........Workload Time preferred on professional growth Q31B6.........Workload Time preferred on service activity

PAGE 163

About the Author John P. Kurnik received a Bachelor of Arts degree in Music Education in 1979 from Westfield State College, Westfield, Massac husetts and a Master of Music degree in Music Merchandising in 1982 from the University of Miami, Coral Gables, Florida. He has been an assistant professor in the De partment of Business Technologies at St. Petersburg College in Clearwater, Florida since 1987. There he develops and teaches courses in Micro Computer Applications, Business, Marketing, Advertising, and Global Marketing. His special interests include internationa l education, mentoring part-time faculty and working on curriculum development. At St. Petersburg College, John was the primary merchandising professor for the co lleges Central American Scholarship Program and curator of Microsofts Working Connections technology grant. He has helped to establish several technologybased marketing, business, and computer applications courses at Jefferson College in Guayaquil, Ecuador. John remains active in the arts as Direct or of the Clearwater, Florida Community Jazz Band, and plays regularly in an 18 piece big band.