Perspectives of Non-Tenured Track Faculty Members
and Doctoral Students Included in Mentorship and Professional Development
and Doctoral Students Included in Mentorship and Professional Development
Allison M. Kroesch
Department of Special Education • Illinois State University
Department of Special Education • Illinois State University
Yojanna Cuenca-Carlino
Department of Special Education • Illinois State University
Department of Special Education • Illinois State University
Luminita Hartle
Department of Special Education • Illinois State University
Department of Special Education • Illinois State University
Sara Porter
Department of Special Education • Illinois State University
Department of Special Education • Illinois State University
Lauralyn Randles
Department of Special Education • Illinois State University
Department of Special Education • Illinois State University
Samuel Whitley
Department of Special Education • Illinois State University
Department of Special Education • Illinois State University
Mandy White
Department of Special Education • Illinois State University
Department of Special Education • Illinois State University
Adrianne Locke
Department of Special Education • Illinois State University
Department of Special Education • Illinois State University
Jamillah Gilbert
Department of Special Education • Illinois State University
Department of Special Education • Illinois State University
Ashley Wolinski-Norton
Department of Special Education • Illinois State University
Department of Special Education • Illinois State University
Krystal Lewis-Pratl
Department of Special Education • Illinois State University
Department of Special Education • Illinois State University
Non-tenured track faculty (NTTF) members and doctoral students (DS) often do not have the same opportunities to collaborate and participate in professional development with a variety of tenured-track faculty (TTF) members within a department. To increase collaboration, an Associate Professor in the Department of Special Education at Illinois State designed and implemented the GROWTH Mentoring Program. This program, in its fourth semester of implementation, encourages teams of faculty members (NTTF, TTF, and DS) to reflect on taught lessons with a peer, learn from various workshops, and participate in organized writing days. The purpose of this manuscript is to share the perspectives of the benefits and challenges of this mentorship program through the lenses of NTTF and DS who have participated in the program for the past year.
Keywords: mentoring, reflection on teaching practices, professional developments
Perspectives of Non-Tenured Track Faculty Members
and Doctoral Students Included in Mentorship and Professional Development
and Doctoral Students Included in Mentorship and Professional Development
Undergraduate and graduate students at the university level learn from tenured track faculty (e.g., assistant, associate, and full professors) and non-tenured track faculty (NTTF) members throughout the nation. Since the 1980s, the available positions for TTF have declined while positions for NTTF have slowly increased (Curtis, 2014). According to the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) and Inside Higher Education, NTTF teach more than 54% of all college courses at four-year public institutions (AAUP, 1993). Yet, often these faculty members are not included in curriculum alignment, research, meetings, or even social gathering with their colleagues. In fact, most NTTF can be thought of as an invisible teacher (Alleman & Haviland, 2017; Cengage, 2009).
Non-tenure track faculty, often referred to as adjunct faculty, are employed on a semester-long or nine-month contracts (ISU-NTTFA, 2006). Typically, these faculty are assigned traditional instructional courses or supervision of field/lab experiences. Many NTTF are employed full-time in other capacities (e.g., K-12 teacher educators); therefore not having the opportunity to regularly attend faculty meetings or course team meetings. Many TTF members collaborate even less with part-time NTTF (Cengage, 2009). Often, NTTF are seen as a “threat to tenure, academic freedom, self-governance, academic autonomy, and collegiality” instead of an important resource to the department or college (Alleman & Haviland, 2017, p. 528). Additionally, the same authors reported that some NTTF may feel isolation and exclusion. Despite of these issues, Waltman, Bergom, Hollenshead, Miller, & August (2012) found that NTTF are committed to teaching, and passionate about supporting their students. When NTTF were asked why they like their jobs, the most common responses were because they have the opportunity to teach and make a positive impact on students (Waltman et al., 2012).
Other stakeholders within a department are doctoral students (DS). DS are strongly encouraged to conduct studies with TTF that share common research lines and interests. Some DS even teach undergraduate and graduate classes as part of their doctoral programs to gain more teaching experience to prepare for TTF positions. Nonetheless, DS typically have very little knowledge of TTF and/or NTTF members within large department that are outside their content area/committee members. According to the Government Accountability Office (GAO, 2016), 85% of college presidents state that teaching is critically important to student success. However, less than 20% of doctoral graduates receive training on pedagogical methodologies.
In an effort to promote collegiality and collaboration among TTF and NTTF, the Department of Special Education at Illinois State University (ISU) encourages these professionals to engage and collaborate in departmental meetings, course team meetings, and social gatherings. These initiatives allow all members to take leadership roles and feel united in the decision-making process aimed to ensure that our undergraduate and graduate students receive high-quality instruction from all faculty members.
Throughout their studies at ISU, full-time DS are provided with opportunities to teach a variety of courses in the department and become involved in research with their advisor and/or other TTF closely aligned with their research interests. When DS teach a class for the department, they are also involved in course team meetings. The goal of these collaborations and partnerships is to promote learning and professional growth to prepare them for a career in higher education by exposing them to various teaching methodologies and philosophies.
GROWTH: A Collaborative Faculty Development Program
In 2017, professional development and mentoring became a focus for TTF, NTTF, and DS alike through the creation of the GROWTH Mentoring Program developed and facilitated by an Associate Professor in the Department. GROWTH stands for: “Goal setting and, Reflection, On who you are and What you want to accomplish in, Teaching and research in Higher education (Cuenca-Carlino et al., 2019).” Members of GROWTH voluntarily participate each semester in professional development about various topics and have the opportunity to work in dyads, triads or quadrads to reflect on pedagogical practices.
At the start of each semester, GROWTH participants identify a set of teaching behaviors they would like to reflect on (e.g., student engagement, opportunities for students to respond, clear directions) to inform their teaching practices. Each team member records two 15-20-minute lessons. Then, they share those lessons through Vosaic Connect with their teammates. Vosaic Connect is an innovative video analysis platform that allows faculty to identify and annotate performance behaviors (Cuenca-Carlino et al., 2019). Faculty give and receive formative feedback on each other’s teaching assets, brainstorm ideas on how to become more effective in the classroom, learn new teaching strategies and approaches, and develop self-awareness about their own teaching behaviors (Cuenca-Carlino et al., 2019). In addition to the two video lessons, faculty can also conduct face-to-face observations to give feedback and allow for personal reflection about the classroom environment. Teams change each semester and faculty are paired up randomly or based on interest working with another faculty member (e.g., TTF paired with TTF; TTF paired with NTTF; NTTF paired with other NTTF, etc.). This allows participants to work and learn from a variety of faculty members each semester.
Professional development via workshops is another strong component of GROWTH. These consist of four, 4 to 5-hour workshops per semester (including lunch) focusing on a variety of topics such as teaching methodologies, research, supporting college students’ learning and emotional needs, and culturally responsive teaching and learning practices. The selection of topics is participant driven (based on end of semester feedback) and/or related to identified issues at the university level about our student population. The intent of the professional development and mentoring aligns to the core values described in the Educate •Connect •Elevate: Illinois State – The Strategic Plan for Illinois’ First Public University 2018-2023: “I.B.2 maximize employee growth through learning and professional development opportunities” and provide “III.B.1 professional development towards cultural competencies and inclusion.” Finally, participants also have the option to partake in “writing days” where faculty meet to work on their individual writing projects in a supportive and accountable environment. Data for program evaluation purposes is also collected systematically from different sources (e.g., surveys, feedback forms, informal discussions and feedback) to evaluate professional development workshops and overall satisfaction of the program (Cuenca-Carlino et al., 2019).
GROWTH is an innovative program that was developed with many goals in mind: reflection, collaboration, and mentorship. Although NTTF and DS may be considered “invisible” faculty in other universities (Cengage, 2009), in the Department of Special Education at ISU, GROWTH has eliminated those barriers to ensure that faculty feel supported and welcomed. As an incentive, participants receive monetary stipends to use for classroom materials, licensure for Vosaic Connect, and video recording tools (e.g., tripods to hold a tablet).
The purpose of this manuscript is to share our views as NTTF, DS, or NTTF/DS of the benefits and challenges of participating in a mentoring and professional development program such as GROWTH. The reported views are from all authors of this manuscript who participated in the program between Fall 2017 to Fall 2018 semesters.
Methods
Participants
Although faculty were not required to participate in GROWTH, several faculty committed to the program over the past three semesters. See Table 1 for a breakdown of overall program participants from each semester. Below we provide a description of each NTTF, DS, or NTTF/DS who is part of GROWTH.
Doctoral student participant. Samuel participated in GROWTH as a DS for Fall 2017 and Spring 2018 semesters. At the time, Samuel took a sabbatical from his elementary school psychologist position to become a full-time DS. Throughout his two semesters in GROWTH, he attended workshops and participated in teaching sessions as part of his doctoral studies. Afterwards, Samuel then transitioned to a NTTF/DS position in addition to working as a full-time school psychologist. He currently teaches 1-2 university courses focusing on assessment and behavior in the Department of Special Education.
Non-tenure track faculty. Lumi and Adrianne began GROWTH in Spring 2018. Lumi graduated with her Ed.D. from the Department of Special Education in Fall 2017. She specializes in working with families of young children with disabilities and teaches early childhood general and special education courses. Adrianne also specializes in early childhood, with an emphasis in Deaf education.
Sara started GROWTH in Fall 2018. Her background is in educational administration where she was an Assistant Principal and Director of Special Education for seven years. Sara is a faculty member who coordinates and supervises students in their clinical experiences. All three of these professionals started as full time NTTF in August 2017 and continue to be involved in GROWTH.
NTTF/DS Participants. The last six participants started in GROWTH as NTTF/DS: Jamillah, Allison, Krystal, Ashley, Lauralyn, and Mandy. Jamillah, Allison, and Lauralyn started GROWTH in Fall 2017. Currently, Jamillah is teaching part-time for the department, takes doctoral classes with the Educational Administration and Foundations Department, and attends GROWTH workshops.
Allison was a full-time doctoral student and a full-time assistant clinical professor within the Department of Special Education when she started in GROWTH. She has since graduated with her Ed.D. in Special Education and continues as an assistant clinical professor mentoring new faculty participating in GROWTH. Lauralyn participated in GROWTH during Fall 2017 and Spring 2018 while she was a full-time doctoral student and teaching courses under a federal grant. Her related field is low vision and blindness.
Krystal and Ashley started GROWTH in Spring 2018. They both coordinate the field-base clinical experiences for teacher candidates within their 4th year in special education in the Chicagoland suburbs and Chicago Public Schools respectively. Additionally, both take doctoral level classes. Even though both professors live in the Chicagoland area, they are active participants in GROWTH.
The newest member of GROWTH and the university is Mandy, whom started in Fall 2018. Mandy joined the university splitting her full-time position as an assistant clinical professor with the Department of Special Education and School of Teaching and Learning. Additionally, she is also a doctoral student in the Department of Special Education.
Survey Design and Analysis
We were interested in reflecting and sharing our experiences as NTTF, DS, and NTTF/DS in GROWTH. We obtained a list of faculty members involved in the program from the GROWTH facilitator and created a survey to gather our collected views. The first set of questions on the survey were related to our educational background, status within the university, and level of involvement within GROWTH. Next, we asked five open-ended questions that specifically addressed how GROWTH has helped faculty develop as professionals, challenges of participation, and suggestions for additional topics or areas that would further enhance their teaching and research practices. The final section consisted of six Likert-type scale questions (i.e., 0- not applicable to 5-strongly agree) pertaining to the benefits of participating in GROWTH (e.g., connection with faculty members, continued ability to reflect and feel supported within the department, their understanding of culturally responsive practices, and their ability to gain insights into a tenure-track position roles and responsibilities).
To analyze the open-ended data, we (i.e., the first two authors) individually read and created recurring themes from the responses. Once we identified common themes, we compared them and established a consensus to develop a final list of codes (Saldan͂a, 2014). For Likert-scale questions, we used descriptive statistics to calculate the mean and range of the responses (Gravetter & Wallnau, 2008).
References
We present the results based on the themes that emerged. Common themes included self-reflection on teaching, insight of a tenure-track position, collaboration, professional development topics, and challenges of being involved in GROWTH.
Self-reflection on Teaching
All participants (N=10) alluded to the importance of teaching observations to improve teaching practices. Five responders stated that using video recorded lessons through Vosaic Connect to tag teaching behaviors was beneficial. Additionally, they stated receiving feedback from peers was useful. Six participants specifically reported that observing other colleagues teach gave them a new perspective on strategies they could utilize in their own classrooms. One NTTF/DS stated that focusing on teaching practices instead of course content was valuable. Even though faculty receive incentives for participating in the program, one NTTF stated “because I enjoy being a part of GROWTH so much, the incentives, although nice and appreciated, are secondary.”
Another faculty member expressed the importance of modeling good teaching practices to our undergraduate students (i.e., future teacher educators) as they are required to video record their own teaching practices as part of their licensure and degree. A NTTF reported that “prior to GROWTH, I had never recorded my teaching. All reflections had been based on opinion and not evidence. GROWTH has provided a format, template, and schedule for evidence-based reflection, collaboration, and feedback. I also appreciate how GROWTH is completed within our department as it improves relations, collegiality, and professional growth.”
One participant stated that the combined analyses of the video and/or live lessons, along with the reflective debrief sessions helped identify student engagement strategies that effectively support undergraduate and graduate students. After analyzing my videos and discussing my teaching with my colleagues, I realized I could incorporate teaching strategies, such as technology, that allowed for increased participation from all students.”
Insight into a Tenure-track Position
Doctoral students indicated that GROWTH helped them understand the demands and expectations of higher education (i.e., research and teaching requirements). GROWTH offered the opportunity to observe how TTF planned and executed their research endeavors. Specifically, some DS learned how TTF address logistical routines related to improving their teaching and scholarship. This was beneficial as some DS may seek a TTF position after graduation. One DS stated “GROWTH helped me link research to applied settings, problem-solve new experiences, and collaborate with more experienced educators about teaching and researching.”
Further, some DS participated in GROWTH while also receiving credit as part of their doctoral studies (e.g., SED 598.01: Professional Practice in Teacher Preparation). These DS worked collaboratively with a faculty mentor that was part of GROWTH and completed additional reflection and assignments to meet the requirement of the course. “Since I took GROWTH as an independent study, I also read several articles on teaching in higher education and had opportunities to reflect on my teaching and incorporate new strategies.”
Collaboration
There was a consensus amongst DS and NTTF/DS that some of the central benefits of participating in the GROWTH Mentoring Program were directly related to the establishment and development of various academic and professional relationships. One NTTF/DS reported “GROWTH provided me a built-in support system for my first semester teaching at the college level. I had people to talk to about my successes and struggles. I always knew they would be there to provide feedback in a non-critical way.” Another NTTF/DS stated “I also appreciate the post-conversation to connect with other faculty at a deeper level. As an off-campus employee, we don't often have opportunities to collaborate beyond our niche and it is meaningful when we step outside of that to learn from others on campus.”
One NTTF/DS indicated that collaborating with various faculty members at GROWTH helped identify new possible lines of research. GROWTH allowed that participant to have a wider perspective on faculty multiple and divergent research agendas, methodological expertise, pedagogical approach, and professional training designations. Further, a second participant stated an added benefit was that it helped her find the final committee member for her dissertation. Another NTTF stated, “Trying to find balance in the workload and teaming with colleagues that have similar schedules is the most beneficial for the success in GROWTH.” Ultimately, GROWTH has helped faculty feel a part of a team. “Since attending GROWTH I have felt more included, heard, and valued.”
Professional Development Topics
Professional development had an overall positive impact on all participants. At the time of the survey, participants identified more instruction was needed on how to prepare undergraduate teacher candidates about the curricular demands of the field. Additionally, faculty identified the need for more culturally responsive training and mental health awareness when working with students. These topics were addressed post-survey; specifically, recent GROWTH workshops addressed culturally responsive practices and mental health/anxiety concerns in undergraduate students. Finally, DS and NTTF/DS reported the need for more classes on research and writing techniques, especially for those that live out of town and cannot participate in writing days.
Challenges
Two NTTF/DS stated that giving feedback to their partner who might also be their professor was intimidating at first. Yet, as a whole, when asked if GROWTH allowed them to gain insight into the roles and responsibilities of tenure-track positions, participants overall agreed (M = 3.9, range 2-9) and all felt a strong connection to the faculty and staff as a result of GROWTH (M = 4.7, range 4-5). One NTTF/DS stated, “The ever-present challenge of teaching full-time with the same colleagues who serve as my own lecturers/professors was lessened simply by the professional and social activities embedded within GROWTH.”
The main challenge identified by all participants was time. The typical full-time teaching load for most NTTF is four courses a semester. Many of the participants at the time also had an overload, were continuing their education within their doctoral studies, and/or conducting research. Nonetheless, all participants fully committed to GROWTH as they saw the benefits of the program outweighed the challenges. One NTTF/DS expressed “Teaching a full-time load, and taking classes is of course a lot to balance. Having days to come to campus add to the scheduling/time management piece, but I do absolutely love the PD and feel that it is so valuable. If the PD was not high quality, I think it would be a challenge to drive down to campus each month, but I personally feel that I get so much out of it that I will continue for my own personal growth.”
Discussion
GROWTH has had a positive impact for NTTF, DS, and NTTF/DS over the past year. Participants rated the program very highly related to strengthening faculty relationships. The interpersonal interactions within GROWTH sessions helped develop a collegial camaraderie amongst the NTTF/DS, especially as they were all at different points in completing the doctoral coursework. Further, NTTF/DS became mentors, not only peers. These cross-faculty relationships have previously been identified as a contributing factor in the development of doctoral students’ professional identity (Smith & Hatmaker, 2014).
Another benefit of GROWTH was to utilize the experience in the mentoring program to learn/research various teaching strategies that faculty could implement in their own courses. By exploring various research based instructional practices in higher education, faculty felt they delivered content more competently to undergraduate and graduate students. Some participants reported GROWTH differed from other mentor-type approaches in that the power dynamic within the peer groups was horizontal as opposed to vertical. Having the opportunity to work with a variety of faculty was successful for all participants. For DS and NTTF/DS, the structure of this relationship recognized the autonomy of the doctoral students while simultaneously providing them with expert collaboration (Mazerolle, Bowman, & Klossner, 2015). The interaction of these two characteristics has been previously shown to exert positive effects on DS perceptions of their education and skills development (Mazerolle, Bowman, & Klossner, 2015). Positive relationships between the DS, TTF, and NTTF positioned the participants as co-learners and allowed reciprocal feedback (Jaeger, Sandmann, & Kim, 2011).
Our findings outlined important issues related to collaboration, collegiality, and supports between DS, NTTF and TTF at a four-year university. As a result of GROWTH, participants have had varied opportunities to engage in social events, professional development workshops, and other events or meetings within the department. One factor that positively stands out as a result of this mentorship program is that faculty are not paired hierarchically, and collegiality and respect are essentials elements of this program. Alleman and Haviland (2017) found that “collegiality is a core value and a unifying element” (p. 505) to academic leadership in higher education. Moreover, strong collegiality leads to better collaboration and open communication between the faculty, which ultimately leads to the institution success (Haviland, Alleman, & Allen, 2017).
The program has also laid the foundation for innovative and future research. First, some NTTF have extensive experience in education and they are willing to engage in scholarship with TTF to enhance their status in the department or college. Second, we believe that close collaboration, trust, and open communication between NTTF and TTF has increased the quality of teaching for our undergraduate and graduate students. When employees trust their colleagues and leaders, the productivity is increased, and loyalty among stakeholders is strengthened (Covey, 2006). Ultimately, the program helped participants recognize the value of continuous growth towards mastery (Sweitzer, 2009).
Recommendations
Despite all the teaching stressors and other challenges that university instructors face, GROWTH provides a platform for professional development and collegiality where the main goal is to improve the quality of teaching for all instructors. Collegiality and respect within a department is the framework to support the implementation of a program such as GROWTH. We recommend departments consider developing and implementing a formal and structured mentoring program to allow faculty members to work collaboratively, give constructive feedback, and dedicate time to fully self-reflect about teaching practices.
Additionally, providing professional development that is faculty driven and based on their needs and the needs of the students we serve is key to successful buy-in from participants. Further, providing incentives is a good way to get initial investment; however, once participants see value and take ownership in a professional development and mentorship program such as GROWTH, the program itself becomes the “incentive.” Also, providing lunch during professional development workshops as we do in GROWTH, is a good way to establish social interactions and engagement between faculty at all levels (Alleman & Haviland, 2017). All these opportunities have allowed us to become more collegial and has increased the collaboration between faculty.
When developing a professional development and mentoring program it is essential to have a team leader who is motivated, dedicated, supportive, approachable, and knowledgeable about the department, college, and university needs and priorities. Moreover, all faculty need to be heard and appreciated; thus, it is important all members feel welcome and as equals regardless of their rank or years of teaching experience. Dedicating time to establish a culture of trust and parity among participants is essential. Team leaders also need to be understanding of time constraints and professional/personal life balance. Time commitment is a challenge for all faculty alike; for this reason, we also recommend varied meeting times to ensure all faculty can participate.
Setting clear expectations at the beginning of the semester and securing buy-in and commitment from participants will increase the likeliness of positive outcomes. Further, purposefully collecting data for program evaluation is critical for the sustainability and success of a professional development/mentoring program. Therefore, programs need to be data driven to ensure long term outcomes. Knowing that our institution encourages excellence in teaching to promote student success, a professional development and mentoring program such as this, is a valuable mean for helping faculty become better at teaching and thus provide the utmost support for our undergraduate and graduate students. To iterate our motto, “Gladly we learn and teach.”
References
Alleman, N. F., & Haviland, D. (2017). “I expect to be engaged as an equal”: Collegiality expectations of full-time, non-tenure-track faculty members. Higher Education, 74(3), 527–542. doi: 10.1007/s10734-016-0062-4
American Association of University Professors (AAUP). (1993). The status of non-tenure-track faculty. Retrieved from https://www.aaup.org/
Cengage. (2009). Experiences, challenges, and perspectives of adjunct instructors. Retrieved from https://assets.cengage.com/pdf/wp_experiences-of-adjunctinstructors.pdf
Covey, S. M. R. (2006). The speed of trust: He one thing that changes everything. New York, NY: Free Press.
Cuenca-Carlino, Y., Kaczorowski, T., Jones-Bock, S., Gardiner-Walsh, S., Zablocki, M., Kroesch, A., …& Whitley, S. (2019). Growing reflective practice in academia: The journey begins with us. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Curtis, J. W. (2014). The employment status of instructional staff members in higher education, fall 2011. A report showing the growth in non-tenure-track appointments. Washington, DC: American Association of University Professors. Retrieved from https://www.aaup.org/sites/default/files/files/AAUP-InstrStaff2011-April2014.pdf
GAO Report on Non-Tenure-Track Faculty. (2014). Retrieved from https://www.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2017/11/21/gao-report-non-tenure-track-faculty
Gravetter, F. J., & Wallnau, L. B. (2008). Essentials of statistics for the behavioral sciences (6th ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson-Wadsworth.
Haviland, D., Alleman, N. F., & Cliburn Allen, C. (2017). ‘Separate but not quite equal’: Collegiality experiences of full-time non-tenure-track faculty members. The Journal of Higher Education, 88(4), 505–528. doi: 10.1080/00221546.2016.1272321
Illinois State University Non-Tenure Track Faculty Association. (2006). Bylaws of the Illinois State University non-tenure track faculty association. Normal, IL.
Jaeger, A. J., Sandmann, L. R., & Kim, J. (2011). Advising graduate students doing community-engaged dissertation research: The advisor-advisee relationship. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 15(4), 5–25.
Mazerolle, S. M., Bowman, T. G., & Klossner, J. C. (2015). An analysis of doctoral students’ perceptions of mentorship during their doctoral studies. Athletic Training Education Journal, 10(3), 227–235. doi: 10.4085/1003227
Saldaña, J. (2013). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Smith, A. E., & Hatmaker, D. M. (2014). Knowing, doing, and becoming: Professional identity construction among public affairs doctoral students. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 20(4), 545–564.
Sweitzer, V. (2009). Towards a theory of doctoral student professional identity development: A developmental networks approach. The Journal of Higher Education, 80(1), 1–33. doi: 10.1080/00221546.2009.11772128
Waltman, J., Bergom, I., Hollenshead, C., Miller, J., & August, L. (2012). Factors contributing to job satisfaction and dissatisfaction among non-tenure-track faculty. The Journal of Higher Education, 83(3), 411–434.
American Association of University Professors (AAUP). (1993). The status of non-tenure-track faculty. Retrieved from https://www.aaup.org/
Cengage. (2009). Experiences, challenges, and perspectives of adjunct instructors. Retrieved from https://assets.cengage.com/pdf/wp_experiences-of-adjunctinstructors.pdf
Covey, S. M. R. (2006). The speed of trust: He one thing that changes everything. New York, NY: Free Press.
Cuenca-Carlino, Y., Kaczorowski, T., Jones-Bock, S., Gardiner-Walsh, S., Zablocki, M., Kroesch, A., …& Whitley, S. (2019). Growing reflective practice in academia: The journey begins with us. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Curtis, J. W. (2014). The employment status of instructional staff members in higher education, fall 2011. A report showing the growth in non-tenure-track appointments. Washington, DC: American Association of University Professors. Retrieved from https://www.aaup.org/sites/default/files/files/AAUP-InstrStaff2011-April2014.pdf
GAO Report on Non-Tenure-Track Faculty. (2014). Retrieved from https://www.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2017/11/21/gao-report-non-tenure-track-faculty
Gravetter, F. J., & Wallnau, L. B. (2008). Essentials of statistics for the behavioral sciences (6th ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson-Wadsworth.
Haviland, D., Alleman, N. F., & Cliburn Allen, C. (2017). ‘Separate but not quite equal’: Collegiality experiences of full-time non-tenure-track faculty members. The Journal of Higher Education, 88(4), 505–528. doi: 10.1080/00221546.2016.1272321
Illinois State University Non-Tenure Track Faculty Association. (2006). Bylaws of the Illinois State University non-tenure track faculty association. Normal, IL.
Jaeger, A. J., Sandmann, L. R., & Kim, J. (2011). Advising graduate students doing community-engaged dissertation research: The advisor-advisee relationship. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 15(4), 5–25.
Mazerolle, S. M., Bowman, T. G., & Klossner, J. C. (2015). An analysis of doctoral students’ perceptions of mentorship during their doctoral studies. Athletic Training Education Journal, 10(3), 227–235. doi: 10.4085/1003227
Saldaña, J. (2013). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Smith, A. E., & Hatmaker, D. M. (2014). Knowing, doing, and becoming: Professional identity construction among public affairs doctoral students. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 20(4), 545–564.
Sweitzer, V. (2009). Towards a theory of doctoral student professional identity development: A developmental networks approach. The Journal of Higher Education, 80(1), 1–33. doi: 10.1080/00221546.2009.11772128
Waltman, J., Bergom, I., Hollenshead, C., Miller, J., & August, L. (2012). Factors contributing to job satisfaction and dissatisfaction among non-tenure-track faculty. The Journal of Higher Education, 83(3), 411–434.
Table 1
| Category | Fall 2017 | Spring 2018 | Fall 2018 |
|---|---|---|---|
| TTF | 7 | 6 | 12 |
| NTTF | 0 | 2 | 4 |
| DS | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| NTTF/DS | 3 | 6 | 3 |
| Total | 11 | 14 | 20 |
© 2019 Illinois State University
