Applying What We Know about Student Success to Creating a Model for Faculty Success
Saved in:
| Title: | Applying What We Know about Student Success to Creating a Model for Faculty Success |
|---|---|
| Language: | English |
| Authors: | Audrey J. Jaeger, Laura G. Maldonado (ORCID |
| Source: | Community College Review. 2024 52(4):501-524. |
| Availability: | SAGE Publications. 2455 Teller Road, Thousand Oaks, CA 91320. Tel: 800-818-7243; Tel: 805-499-9774; Fax: 800-583-2665; e-mail: journals@sagepub.com; Web site: https://sagepub.com |
| Peer Reviewed: | Y |
| Page Count: | 24 |
| Publication Date: | 2024 |
| Document Type: | Journal Articles Reports - Research |
| Education Level: | Higher Education Postsecondary Education Two Year Colleges |
| Descriptors: | Community Colleges, Teacher Attitudes, Department Heads, General Education, Faculty, Technical Education, Career Development, Teacher Role, Success, Faculty Development, Teacher Morale, Professional Recognition |
| DOI: | 10.1177/00915521241259022 |
| ISSN: | 0091-5521 1940-2325 |
| Abstract: | Purpose: This conceptual piece applies what we know about student success to introduce a faculty model of success called the Faculty Pathway to Excellence. The model elevates faculty voices in the conversation of student success in community colleges. Method: We collected qualitative data from interviews with faculty at two community colleges and focus groups with faculty from six community colleges to help inform a faculty-focused framework. Proposed model: By changing the conversation to a more comprehensive perspective of faculty success, the model emphasizes the connections, establishment, navigation and leadership, and teaching and learning excellence of faculty members throughout their career trajectories. We define faculty success as faculty retention, faculty satisfaction/sense of belonging, faculty productivity, and ultimately student success (e.g., learning, retention, completion, transfer). Contributions: The development of this Faculty Pathway to Excellence suggests a wider variety of strategies by administration to attract, support, and retain faculty. It also has the potential to help faculty members envision and prepare for the multiple and non-linear pathways in academia. Understanding faculty and their career progression is critical to advance student success conversations. Finding ways to enhance faculty growth and development across all career stages helps students and faculty succeed. |
| Abstractor: | As Provided |
| Entry Date: | 2024 |
| Accession Number: | EJ1438512 |
| Database: | ERIC |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| FullText | Links: – Type: pdflink Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwFAC7eIuBeau_GPKiVXxtB_AAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDEiQY_J6ICQ3n38lXQIBEICBm6m8DaUSjxiKQ5r8JgCUdP6AeTER5PkKXBk5iN9RDbdhYZH3kJEkhpg_LMCEGj4_qsgI8sByYN5DA60w-DIE9sFImAXJUFAgQWCpHCY-wXSANbfGUHb68U1NIeRItVJ0-X_RWpNvYBfxombGZWimbnblGMoan8s54sLxyEXvRmYf43EL9hU7q-rdOg_dDlt5Jf1s3Nplkp1FAHR8 Text: Availability: 1 Value: <anid>AN0179435199;ccr01oct.24;2024Sep06.05:45;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0179435199-1">Applying What We Know About Student Success to Creating a Model for Faculty Success </title> <p>Purpose: This conceptual piece applies what we know about student success to introduce a faculty model of success called the Faculty Pathway to Excellence. The model elevates faculty voices in the conversation of student success in community colleges. Method: We collected qualitative data from interviews with faculty at two community colleges and focus groups with faculty from six community colleges to help inform a faculty-focused framework. Proposed model: By changing the conversation to a more comprehensive perspective of faculty success, the model emphasizes the connections, establishment, navigation and leadership, and teaching and learning excellence of faculty members throughout their career trajectories. We define faculty success as faculty retention, faculty satisfaction/sense of belonging, faculty productivity, and ultimately student success (e.g., learning, retention, completion, transfer). Contributions: The development of this Faculty Pathway to Excellence suggests a wider variety of strategies by administration to attract, support, and retain faculty. It also has the potential to help faculty members envision and prepare for the multiple and non-linear pathways in academia. Understanding faculty and their career progression is critical to advance student success conversations. Finding ways to enhance faculty growth and development across all career stages helps students and faculty succeed.</p> <p>Keywords: faculty pathway; community college; faculty learning; professional learning; student success</p> <p>Community college faculty teach, support, guide, and mentor students with a broad range of academic abilities from diverse cultural and economic backgrounds ([<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref1">24</reflink>]). They have heavy teaching loads and spend a significant amount of time assisting students with challenges inside and outside of the classroom ([<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref2">41</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib80" id="ref3">80</reflink>]). Community college faculty roles expanded even further during the COVID-19 global pandemic (referred to as pandemic). The pandemic shed light on tremendous disparities for community college students. Their road to completion is littered with systemic barriers.</p> <p>Like a flash of lightning in the night, the pandemic revealed all the cracks and fissures hidden in the landscape and gave us a stark and unsparing look at the cavernous wealth and attainment gap before us in our Black and Brown urban communities, in the immigrant communities of our Gateway Cities and in our poor white communities in the rural regions. While the struggles of these communities are not new to educators in the field, the depth of the needs, as well as their systemic and entrenched nature, now shapes and informs a national conversation as never before ([<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref4">35</reflink>], p. 8).</p> <p>The pandemic confirmed community college faculty are essential in helping students navigate broken systems ([<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref5">35</reflink>]). Comprehensive student success reform must involve all institutional members, and in particular, faculty, who have been left out in postsecondary reform efforts despite the evidence of their value in improving student learning and outcomes ([<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref6">25</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib90" id="ref7">90</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib105" id="ref8">105</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0179435199-2">Purpose</hd> <p>As much as the pandemic revealed failures in educational systems, particularly for students of color and low-income students, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref9">35</reflink>] also acknowledged a transformation in community college systems and student success work. At the center of the transformation is a community college's connection to the surrounding community and a faculty invested in the change. [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref10">48</reflink>] applied their knowledge of how students succeed to how faculty succeed and developed a faculty model of success called the Faculty Pathway to Excellence. We offer a brief review of diverse populations and student success conversations taking place at community colleges and emphasize the important role faculty have in student learning and success in this conceptual piece. An overview of the proposed faculty model of success, along with implications and contributions for its use in practice and policy, is provided.</p> <hd id="AN0179435199-3">Serving a Diverse Population</hd> <p>The 1,038 community colleges in the United States serve 6.1 million credit students and 4.1 million non-credit students a year ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref11">6</reflink>]). The comprehensive nature of the community college mission provides an open door to all individuals seeking to expand their knowledge and opportunities for advancement. Community colleges are an affordable option for those seeking higher education. Due to their open admissions policy, geographic proximity, and financial affordability, community colleges are more likely to serve student populations whose parents did not graduate from college (30%), who are students of color (27% Hispanic, 12% Black, 6% Asian/Pacific Islander; and 1% Native American), with an average age of 27 years, and attending part-time ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref12">6</reflink>]). A majority of full-time students (62%) and part-time students (72%) have work responsibilities ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref13">6</reflink>]). Community colleges enroll more people of color and/or of low-income backgrounds (44% vs. 15% high income) than other higher education segments ([<reflink idref="bib75" id="ref14">75</reflink>]). They also enroll a large portion of students with disabilities or veteran status ([<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref15">65</reflink>]).</p> <p>Students arrive at community college with diverse backgrounds and different learner needs ([<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref16">3</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref17">43</reflink>]). Faculty may teach younger students enrolled in dual enrollment classes, recent high school graduates entering college for the first time, or individuals returning or completing credentials and degrees. Adult learners, some with undergraduate or graduate degrees, may also return to community colleges to change careers. Faculty need to be prepared to teach these multi-generational learners who have been exposed to various educational systems. Community college teaching requires many skills beyond discipline knowledge to be able to interact with diverse learners ([<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref18">43</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib95" id="ref19">95</reflink>]). Additionally, community colleges offer various forms of course delivery (e.g., hybrid, flex, online, and in-person) requiring faculty to learn technologies, learning management systems, and classroom management skills. Keeping up with students in an ever-changing global society is always a challenge ([<reflink idref="bib89" id="ref20">89</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib96" id="ref21">96</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0179435199-4">Student Success Conversations in Community Colleges</hd> <p>Community colleges have contributed to the postsecondary landscape by providing Americans access to general and career technical education, basic skills and remedial education, workforce development, and continuing education opportunities over the past 120 years ([<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref22">27</reflink>]). Enrollment at community colleges boomed in the 1970s, increasing from 1.6 million to 4.5 million by the end of the decade ([<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref23">22</reflink>]). Community colleges addressed these increased enrollments by increasing course and program offerings and expanding access through developmental education programs, such as adult education and English as a second language courses ([<reflink idref="bib106" id="ref24">106</reflink>]). Conversations surrounding the community college access agenda were referred to as community college version 1.0 ([<reflink idref="bib106" id="ref25">106</reflink>]). A shift occurred in how community colleges were viewed at the beginning of the 21st century. When enrollment was the primary indicator of success for community colleges, these institutions were viewed positively because they were providing access to postsecondary education to a diverse student population with various attendance reasons ([<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref26">19</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib106" id="ref27">106</reflink>]). The U.S. Department of Education published community college graduation rate by institution, and the numbers indicated a dismally low rate of completion, around 20% on average from cohorts entering 2000 through 2013 ([<reflink idref="bib100" id="ref28">100</reflink>]). The open doors of community colleges became known as <emph>revolving doors</emph> because the majority of students entering these institutions did not complete a certificate, diploma, or degree ([<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref29">19</reflink>]). The focus transitioned from access to completion ([<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref30">19</reflink>]) or a combination of access and completion, otherwise known as community college version 2.0 ([<reflink idref="bib106" id="ref31">106</reflink>]).</p> <p>The national completion agenda was firmly established in 2010 when the administration of former President Obama and numerous educational organizations set ambitious goals for increasing the completion of college credentials by 2020 ([<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref32">26</reflink>]). Additionally, a majority of jobs require skills training beyond high school but not at the level of a bachelor's degree ([<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref33">76</reflink>]). Researchers have found completing any education beyond a high school diploma significantly increases earnings over a lifetime ([<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref34">12</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref35">60</reflink>]). In addition, the likelihood of being unemployed decreases as educational level increases ([<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref36">52</reflink>]).</p> <p>To meet national completion goals and address the economic imperative of creating a skilled workforce and improving social mobility, community colleges have received not only increased attention but significant funding from the federal government and private foundations to improve student outcomes and the competitive advantage of our nation (Bill &amp; Melinda Gates Foundation, n.d.; [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref37">34</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref38">61</reflink>]). [<reflink idref="bib106" id="ref39">106</reflink>] explained how reform efforts swept across community colleges with an early focus on more traditional models of reform aimed at <emph>fixing</emph> certain parts of the student experience over the past two decades (i.e., advising, developmental education, instructional support) and a more recent focus on reforms that comprehensively <emph>redesign</emph> the entire student pathway ([<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref40">9</reflink>]).</p> <p>In a 2017 article, Thomas Bailey, the president of Teachers College at Columbia University and founding director of the Community College Research Center, described three traditional reform efforts that were implemented in community colleges in the early 2000s with the intent of improving completion. The first, Achieving the Dream's Community Colleges Count initiative, heavily funded by the Lumina Foundation and eight other national partners, engaged 160 community colleges from 30 states to use institutional data to improve student success, identify obstacles to completion, and implement promising and proven strategies ([<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref41">29</reflink>]). A second reform effort, the Developmental Education Initiative, supported by the Bill &amp; Melinda Gates Foundation, was focused on redesigning developmental, or remedial, education ([<reflink idref="bib84" id="ref42">84</reflink>]). Developmental education has been called the <emph>Bermuda triangle</emph> of community college because so many students enter but disappear, unable to successfully complete remedial math and/or English required for enrollment in college-level work, even though they earned a high school diploma or the equivalent ([<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref43">37</reflink>]). The Accelerated Learning Program ([<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref44">1</reflink>]) at the Community College of Baltimore County, the third reform effort [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref45">9</reflink>] described, was indicative of the many institution-specific initiatives implemented during this time tailored to the unique needs of community college students. The co-requisite format of this program allowed developmental education students to enroll in developmental reading and college-level English at the same time with an instructional support component ([<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref46">1</reflink>]). Following early positive results, this model was replicated across many states in an effort to improve course success and progression rates ([<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref47">1</reflink>]).</p> <p>Despite being well-funded, well-designed, well-intentioned, and implemented by devoted and passionate community college faculty and staff, the results were not substantial for college completion efforts ([<reflink idref="bib106" id="ref48">106</reflink>]). Some positive results were realized for the limited number of participants directly involved in these initiatives, but overall institutional success did not increase ([<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref49">28</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib84" id="ref50">84</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib85" id="ref51">85</reflink>]). [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref52">9</reflink>] suggested the lack of significant improvements in completion were due to two primary reasons. First, targeted interventions are typically designed as pilot programs that in reality will never scale to impact more than a small percentage of students. Institutions often plan to scale them but for various reasons, including funding, time, and changes in leadership, the systemic modifications necessary to institutionalize the promising practices never occur. The second reason these efforts do not generate a significant improvement in student success is that they are narrowly focused on one point along the community college student pathway. When programs are implemented in isolation, the positive results may be short-lived and lessened as the student progresses and no longer has the additional support systems specific to the programs. As Bailey stated, "Many of the initial reforms motivated by the completion agenda were in effect not designed to promote completion but, rather, to improve an intermediate step. Improving the intermediate outcomes had only modest effects on overall completion" (pp. 38–39).</p> <p>Given the shortcomings of traditional reform, comprehensive community college reform initiatives have emerged that involve examining the entire student pathway and redesigning the student experience from start to finish, with a clear focus on student success. Complete College America, Completion by Design, and the American Association of Community College's Guided Pathway Project are three of the major national initiatives aimed at comprehensive reform ([<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref53">53</reflink>]).</p> <p>[<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref54">30</reflink>], a national community college initiative, was a 5-year project aimed at comprehensively redesigning the student experience at community college in three states: Florida, North Carolina, and Ohio. This initiative, launched in 2011 and funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, introduced the loss-momentum framework, which focused reform efforts on eliminating barriers and generating momentum across the student pathway from connection through completion ([<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref55">30</reflink>]). The framework began with <emph>connection</emph>, which includes students' interest in college enrollment through application to the college. It is followed by <emph>entry</emph> in which students enroll and move through the completion of their first college-level course. The third component of the loss-momentum framework is <emph>progress</emph>, which includes entry into a program of study through the completion of 75% of the requirements. Finally, the last component of the framework is <emph>completion</emph>, illustrated by a student completing their program of study, which leads to a credential with labor market value.</p> <p>[<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref56">30</reflink>] helped colleges ask questions and direct resources to keeping students on the path to achieving their goals ([<reflink idref="bib90" id="ref57">90</reflink>]). Results from this initiative were promising with all nine colleges reaching the majority of their target goals 3 years before anticipated ([<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref58">30</reflink>]). Overall, these nine colleges achieved positive increases in intermediate key performance indicators of success such as: (a) a 10% increase in student completion of entry-level math in the first-term, (b) a 12% increase in student completion of entry-level English in the first-term, (c) a 12% increase in student completion of 12 credit hours in first term, and (d) an 8% increase in student completion of 24 credit hours in the first year ([<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref59">30</reflink>]). This work led to specific changes at each college, although not transformational ones.</p> <p>The experiences and insights gained from the Completion by Design initiative laid the foundation for the current Guided Pathways Movement and the design principles described in <emph>Redesigning America's Community Colleges: A Clearer Path to Student Success</emph> ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref60">10</reflink>]). Currently, more than 40 community colleges are participating in:</p> <p>An integrated, institution-wide approach to student success based on intentionally designed, clear, coherent and structured educational experiences, informed by available evidence, that guide each student effectively and efficiently from her/his point of entry through to attainment of high-quality postsecondary credentials and careers with value in the labor market ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref61">5</reflink>], "What is the pathways model?").</p> <p>Unlike the previously described comprehensive reform initiatives, the Guided Pathways Model has an explicit focus on student learning with objectives that specifically engage faculty to enhance the instructional environment ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref62">5</reflink>]).</p> <p>[<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref63">10</reflink>] provided guidance to leaders on how to comprehensively redesign their institutions. They draw comparisons between how <emph>cafeteria</emph>, or traditional, community colleges approach student success and the processes and practices along the student pathway to how Guided Pathways colleges do so. The Guided Pathways Model focuses on four key pillars: "(a) mapping pathways to student end goals; (b) helping students choose and enter a pathway; (c) keeping students on path; and (d) ensuring students are learning" ([<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref64">50</reflink>], p. 3).</p> <p>Using data and numerous case studies of community colleges across the nation, the authors argued in favor of a clearer, more coherent, and structured approach to the student experience ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref65">10</reflink>]). The current AACC's ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref66">5</reflink>]) Guided Pathways Project builds upon the lessons learned from Completion by Design.</p> <p>Each of these reform efforts led to improvements in practice, but collective efforts have not yet yielded the desired results ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref67">11</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib90" id="ref68">90</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib106" id="ref69">106</reflink>]). Students are motivated to have a better life after they graduate ([<reflink idref="bib106" id="ref70">106</reflink>]). This postgraduation success, otherwise known as college completion version 3.0, could mean obtaining work or being ready for a baccalaureate degree-granting institution ([<reflink idref="bib106" id="ref71">106</reflink>]). What has been observed of the reform movements so far suggests that no one solution will work, and no successful solution will be simple.</p> <p>The New Learning Compact (NLC) was one attempt to advance educational reform efforts ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref72">11</reflink>]). The NLC offered ideas to incorporate professional learning to meet the challenges of the pandemic and prepare institutional leaders for continuous changes. The NLC framework linked individual practice with institutional, community, and ecosystem levels "to support learning-centered and equity-minded educational change" ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref73">11</reflink>], p. 22). While field testing the NLC framework through seminar-based learning, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref74">38</reflink>] found all five participant colleges successfully used the framework to drive significant institutional change. For example, Northeast Wisconsin Technical College was able to leverage a newly established Center for Teaching and Learning to pilot the NLC professional learning model to enhance college-wide assessment practices, meet accreditation requirements, and address a key strategic goal ([<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref75">38</reflink>]). The NLC approach included faculty, advisors, and other student services professionals to integrate professional learning across all levels for student success. Learners and learning were considered the center of work across institutions ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref76">11</reflink>]).</p> <p>Although the role of faculty in advising, teaching, and guiding students grows, so does the need for effective teaching and advising strategies; thus, faculty must become more adaptive to diverse learners ([<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref77">39</reflink>]). [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref78">2</reflink>] noted faculty learning is fundamental to providing students with quality learning experiences. The pandemic brought new light to the systemic barriers students faced and encouraged academic and student affairs across the institution to take a collaborative approach to teaching and learning initiatives ([<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref79">35</reflink>]). Both areas need each other to support themselves and the whole student ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref80">11</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref81">46</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib88" id="ref82">88</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0179435199-5">Faculty Role in Student Learning and Success</hd> <p>Faculty member engagement with students plays a large role in the educational process ([<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref83">33</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib93" id="ref84">93</reflink>]). At Bachelor-degree-granting institutions, faculty-student interactions play a major role in student engagement and success, especially for underserved and underrepresented students ([<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref85">55</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref86">63</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib99" id="ref87">99</reflink>]). Student outcomes such as persistence ([<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref88">21</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref89">64</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib102" id="ref90">102</reflink>]), completion ([<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref91">54</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref92">55</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref93">68</reflink>]), grade improvement ([<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref94">7</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref95">8</reflink>]), and soft skill development ([<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref96">17</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib103" id="ref97">103</reflink>]) have all been associated with the quality and frequency of faculty-student interactions. When faculty possess a growth mindset related to their student's abilities to learn, a positive association can be observed with credential completion ([<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref98">55</reflink>]). [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref99">31</reflink>] found a positive relationship between faculty participation in professional development workshops and student outcomes, with assessment of classroom assignments helping faculty deepen their understanding of pedagogy and student learning.</p> <p>At community colleges, faculty are a frequent and ongoing point of contact for students ([<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref100">39</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib90" id="ref101">90</reflink>]) and often a stronger predictor of learning than peer engagement at community colleges ([<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref102">62</reflink>]). Faculty in semester-long faculty development programs at community colleges had increased rates of students completing their courses and persisting to the next year ([<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref103">71</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib82" id="ref104">82</reflink>]). The use of transparently designed assignments by faculty has been shown to improve the success of all students in university and community college classrooms across various disciplines ([<reflink idref="bib104" id="ref105">104</reflink>]). Utilizing an experimental design, [<reflink idref="bib104" id="ref106">104</reflink>] worked with faculty to revise assignments using design principles that clearly articulated their purpose, the expected tasks, and the criteria for success. Faculty impacted the success of their students in first-year courses by creating more transparency in their teaching practices, which led to richer learning experiences for their students ([<reflink idref="bib104" id="ref107">104</reflink>]).</p> <p>The classroom is often the primary place for student and faculty engagement at community colleges ([<reflink idref="bib93" id="ref108">93</reflink>]). Community college faculty tend to teach more students than their colleagues at baccalaureate degree-granting institutions ([<reflink idref="bib95" id="ref109">95</reflink>]), with teaching being a primary responsibility ([<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref110">43</reflink>]). Institutions, especially community colleges, have increased their reliance on contingent appointments, or part-time, temporary, or non-tenure track faculty appointments to teach students ([<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref111">49</reflink>]). Employment of contingent faculty has increased dramatically ([<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref112">49</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib98" id="ref113">98</reflink>]) with the percentage now around 80% at community colleges ([<reflink idref="bib101" id="ref114">101</reflink>]). [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref115">42</reflink>] identified a typology of adjunct instructor lifestyles, motivation, and distinctions to explain the varying types of people that accept teaching positions at community colleges. There are <emph>specialists, experts, or professionals</emph> who work full-time in addition to part-time teaching to share their expertise. <emph>Freelancers</emph> have other full- or part-time positions in addition to teaching a class to supplement their income. <emph>Career enders</emph> are at or near the end of their work lives but want to stay in touch with academia. <emph>Aspiring academics</emph> are usually at the start of their careers and use teaching to gain experience or earn income. Each type of instructor brings a range of former and current work experiences that may allow for the sharing of promising practices ([<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref116">42</reflink>]). Honoring the experiences of all faculty produces knowledge that can be used in the design of faculty success initiatives.</p> <p>The preparedness of individuals for community college faculty roles often varies. Although it is common for community college faculty to have Master's degrees in disciplines, with more and more faculty obtaining doctoral degrees ([<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref117">67</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib87" id="ref118">87</reflink>]), faculty may arrive at their jobs with little pedagogical training to prepare them for diverse learners at community colleges ([<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref119">43</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref120">59</reflink>]). A background in teaching methodology may not be listed as a requirement in the job description ([<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref121">14</reflink>]). Thus, some faculty begin teaching and either develop their teaching methods through trial and error ([<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref122">3</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref123">43</reflink>]), refer to how they were taught ([<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref124">56</reflink>]), or base it on their own preferred learning style ([<reflink idref="bib92" id="ref125">92</reflink>]). Additionally, community college faculty often do more than just teach—they serve as a liaison between students and the campus community ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref126">2</reflink>]). Faculty are continuously learning and preparing for classroom teaching, but they also need to be knowledgeable about the diversity of students entering their classrooms and campus services to better support student needs ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref127">2</reflink>]). Community college faculty are often expected to serve as generous educators, defined as "faculty who invest in teaching, student success, and the college with near boundless commitment and empathy" ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref128">2</reflink>], p. 191). Thus, community college faculty are constantly improving their teaching methods while also playing a critical role in supporting student success.</p> <hd id="AN0179435199-6">Proposed Model for Faculty Success</hd> <p>If we think of faculty success as critical to student success, the loss-momentum framework for student success ([<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref129">30</reflink>]) can be adapted to address similar components for faculty success. This framework served as the foundation for the current Guided Pathways Movement as previously discussed in this article. For students, the four main areas include connection, entry, progress, and completion. Selecting and completing a program of study is a major decision along these four main areas. Guided Pathways offer strategies for students to consider academic options, select a program of study, and create a plan ([<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref130">50</reflink>]). Guided Pathways involve mapping programs to specific courses, milestones, and outcomes so that students have a plan for future career and educational endeavors ([<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref131">50</reflink>]). The maps help simplify decision making and increase motivation for students to complete the plan ([<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref132">50</reflink>]). The reforms have also required community colleges to re-envision the teaching and support provided to students ([<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref133">51</reflink>]). Students need a clear path to completion, and they can achieve that through the Guided Pathways framework.</p> <p>Faculty, similar to students, need strategies to progress from the connection phase to the teaching and learning excellence phase. We are suggesting a model of faculty success based on literature and practice. The model is informed by faculty at community colleges, whose immediate and continual feedback was embedded in our process. We define faculty success as faculty retention, faculty satisfaction/sense of belonging, faculty productivity, and ultimately student success (e.g., learning, retention, completion, transfer), although we recognize institutions and faculty unions may have different interpretations of faculty success. Faculty unions are not explored in this model but are important to consider at community colleges as they often shape work and how success, promotion, and continued appointment are defined and valued.</p> <hd id="AN0179435199-7">Methods</hd> <p>We shared components with faculty during regularly scheduled engagements as the model was being developed as part of a grant-funded project over the course of several years. To determine the final components of the model, we gathered qualitative data from focus groups and interviews.</p> <hd id="AN0179435199-8">Focus Group Data Collection</hd> <p>After receiving Institutional Review Board approval from their university, the senior researcher led a series of focus groups with faculty at six community colleges varying in size, location, and types of curricula offered. The focus groups were part of a large teaching and learning effort in a particular state. We sought to understand the experiences of faculty from connection to the college throughout their career. The tenure of faculty at their institutions ranged from 6 months to over 20 years.</p> <p>Focus groups are used for data collection methods when the researcher wants to explore particular areas of interest through group discussion ([<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref134">73</reflink>]). They were a productive data gathering method as participants shared their own experiences and heard from others. This resulted in some participants clarifying their responses ([<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref135">45</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref136">72</reflink>]). Questions for a focus group were broad and focused on the original loss-momentum framework ([<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref137">30</reflink>]). [<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref138">73</reflink>] noted that collecting data through focus groups allows quick and reliable data, varying in depth and range of information. In this case, we gathered data that helped us build on the previous student-focused framework to develop a faculty-focused framework.</p> <hd id="AN0179435199-9">Interview Data Collection</hd> <p>After receiving Institutional Review Board approval from their university and boards of each institution, the third and fourth researchers conducted semi-structured interviews with participants lasting approximately 20 to 90 min. Interviews provided an avenue to explore the framework, and semi-structured interviews allowed for flexibility with follow-up questions to participants' responses ([<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref139">72</reflink>]). The researchers conducted 31 interviews at two community colleges that were named as finalists for the Aspen Prize for Community College Excellence. Participants were 15 department chairs and 16 full-time faculty from general education and career-technical programs. The sample was representative of various disciplines and programs available at the colleges and matched the demographics of the general faculty population. Questions explored department chairs' perceptions of their communication with faculty and information sharing practices. Researchers asked chairs to reflect on the ways they communicated vision, motivated faculty, and provided social support. Researchers also asked faculty to reflect on their perceptions of the chairs' communication.</p> <hd id="AN0179435199-10">Data Analysis</hd> <p>The first, third, and fourth researchers recorded focus groups and interviews and transcribed them using an online service. The first author used descriptive coding and a priori coding to the loss-momentum framework to interpret the collected focus group data. The third and fourth researchers used first- and second-coding cycles to analyze the interview data ([<reflink idref="bib86" id="ref140">86</reflink>]). The first cycle of coding consisted of gaining an initial understanding and early analysis of the data through open coding. The researchers used in vivo coding to capture quotations from participants to prioritize their voices. Then they used Themeing the Data to group the codes into thematic patterns. They reviewed, organized and reanalyzed the first round of coding during second cycle coding and used pattern coding to further develop the codebook and identify themes ([<reflink idref="bib86" id="ref141">86</reflink>]). The coding process was an iterative process ([<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref142">72</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0179435199-11">Faculty Pathway to Excellence</hd> <p>We provide an overview of the model and specific strategies for using the model in conversations about career trajectories (see Figure 1). We identify loss points for faculty. Avoiding faculty loss is critical because higher education can operate more efficiently and better serve campus stakeholders by keeping skilled employees in place ([<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref143">69</reflink>]). Losing talented employees results in the loss of institutional knowledge, experienced mentors, and diverse employees in the workplace ([<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref144">40</reflink>]).</p> <p>Graph: Figure 1. Faculty pathway to excellence.</p> <p>The Faculty Pathway to Excellence ([<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref145">48</reflink>]) starts with the connection prospective faculty have to a particular community college prior to employment through their first year at the college. Creating a sense of belonging is a critical component of the CONNECTING PHASE of the faculty pathway. [<reflink idref="bib91" id="ref146">91</reflink>] defined sense of belonging as "the degree to which an individual feels respected, valued, accepted, and needed by a defined group" (p. 87). Strategies for faculty success in this area include well-advertised recruitment for faculty positions, appealing job descriptions that connect faculty and student success, faculty onboarding that extends beyond a basic orientation, inclusive hiring practices from outreach efforts to interview protocol, and ongoing communication from the institution to the faculty member. The hiring process is often a starting point for recruitment and selection ([<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref147">57</reflink>]) and the importance of professional learning should be emphasized throughout the hiring process ([<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref148">39</reflink>]). Examples of loss points for faculty in this phase include a slow, inequitable, and unstructured hiring process, lack of clear vision and focus for the institution, distinctions between part- and full-time faculty or between university transfer/general education faculty and career-technical faculty that create a status divide, and inequitable and excessive requirements for new faculty that distract from teaching and learning. A perceived culture of incivility or a lack of campus collegiality is another loss point during this phase ([<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref149">44</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib97" id="ref150">97</reflink>]). Leadership needs to act when concerns about sense of belonging, bias, or discrimination are articulated in campus climate surveys and other outlets ([<reflink idref="bib89" id="ref151">89</reflink>]). Helping faculty connect to their institution and develop a sense of belonging will create space for them to engage in activities focused on teaching and learning.</p> <p>The second phase as identified by [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref152">48</reflink>] is the ESTABLISHING PHASE. This phase for faculty occurs in years two and three and focuses on faculty learning. Faculty often have expertise in their discipline but lack knowledge in the other topics that are required to support student success including pedagogy, student development, equity, and student learning ([<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref153">14</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref154">15</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref155">16</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref156">58</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref157">59</reflink>]). Some faculty may need to learn how to assess student-learning outcomes and how to use information for continual improvement of their instructional practices ([<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref158">39</reflink>]) and others need opportunities to learn culturally relevant pedagogical practices. Teaching to be more dynamic, relevant, and culturally responsible should not be the sole responsibility of faculty ([<reflink idref="bib90" id="ref159">90</reflink>]). An important success strategy in this phase is appropriate mentoring and professional development for faculty to engage in their own learning. Professional learning helps faculty develop their teaching quality and use of evidence-based resources ([<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref160">31</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref161">39</reflink>]). Additionally, professional development should also be aligned to institutional goals and considered during the resource allocation process ([<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref162">39</reflink>]). [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref163">23</reflink>] looked at studies examining the relationship between faculty participation in professional development and student outcomes and found a positive relationship between the two. Loss points for faculty in this phase include a lack of high-quality, intentional opportunities, including a lack of professional development focused on evidence-based teaching and learning strategies, and deficit-minded perspectives suggesting students are the reason for low completion/transfer rates, and insufficient data, along with a lack of awareness as to how to use the data to support change and improvement ([<reflink idref="bib90" id="ref164">90</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib106" id="ref165">106</reflink>]).</p> <p>[<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref166">48</reflink>] termed the third phase as FOCUSING ON TEACHING AND LEARNING EXCELLENCE. This phase includes an emphasis on the scholarship of teaching and learning, achieving excellence in the role of teacher. This stage is relevant at any time in faculty members' careers but most likely after the first 2 years as faculty are establishing themselves. Strategies for success include institutional support to improve teaching and learning, sharing effective practices with peers, critical analysis of ideas, and appropriate professional learning on tools and techniques related to continuous improvement and strategic action. Faculty and staff should be recognized and encouraged to build teaching and learning efforts, such as through building a sense of shared value through college ceremonies, increasing their pay, or making them eligible for promotion ([<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref167">39</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib81" id="ref168">81</reflink>]). The institutional priority of faculty teaching must be clearly communicated by leadership and linked to student learning outcomes ([<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref169">39</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib90" id="ref170">90</reflink>]). Loss points in this phase include the lack of role models on campus for engaging in scholarship and research and a lack of institutional support for this type of activity. [<reflink idref="bib79" id="ref171">79</reflink>] found faculty reporting more learning related to pedagogical techniques were more likely to stay at the institution and feel increased career agency, which they defined as feeling control over the direction of their career and making intentional choices to focus their careers in personally meaningful ways. A lack of recognition and reward for engaging in teaching and learning excellence is an additional loss point. Recognition is especially important during the pandemic as faculty changed their teaching and advising loads and spent more time developing online course content than in previous semesters ([<reflink idref="bib83" id="ref172">83</reflink>]).</p> <p>The fourth phase of the Faculty Pathway to Excellence ([<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref173">48</reflink>]) is NAVIGATING AND LEADING and occurs after several years of work at a college. This phase is characterized by faculty taking on leadership roles, such as department chairs, among their peers and navigating the challenges of increased workload. Understanding the workload of faculty and supporting equitable practices at the department and college level are important. Building trust among faculty and administrators and having transparent processes will support faculty as they engage in leadership on campus. Community colleges often look from within to develop their next set of academic leaders; therefore, institutions must create cultures that foster leadership from all levels and empower faculty to develop their leadership skills and abilities ([<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref174">36</reflink>]). Environmental and personal factors influence faculty interest and desire to move into formal leadership positions ([<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref175">66</reflink>]). Institutional characteristics that impact faculty decision making include a positive, innovative culture, encouragement from faculty peers, and being asked to lead by someone at a higher level. Personal factors affecting the decision to transition into leadership include concerns about leaving the teaching role and the level of challenge associated with the role ([<reflink idref="bib94" id="ref176">94</reflink>]). Loss points for this phase include a lack of data available to make informed decisions about workload, a lack of transparency accountability and transparency in workload decisions, lack of empathy for the expanding faculty workload, insufficient opportunity for faculty to be engaged in institutional decision making, and lack of leadership development opportunities ([<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref177">32</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib74" id="ref178">74</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib78" id="ref179">78</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib77" id="ref180">77</reflink>]). These four phases, as part of the Faculty Pathway to Excellence ([<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref181">48</reflink>]), are critical to the conversation about faculty involvement in the student success conversation.</p> <hd id="AN0179435199-12">Implications</hd> <p>The development of this Faculty Pathway to Excellence ([<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref182">48</reflink>]) suggests a wider variety of strategies that administration can use to attract, support, and retain faculty. By changing the conversation to a more comprehensive perspective of faculty success, the model emphasizes the connections, establishment, navigation and leadership, and teaching and learning excellence of faculty members. This model elevates faculty voices in the conversation of student success. The model also describes the components of faculty success at community colleges. By helping faculty succeed, institutions are helping students succeed. We suggest several ways administration and faculty members can use the Faculty Pathway to Excellence ([<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref183">48</reflink>]) in current practice and policy discourse.</p> <hd id="AN0179435199-13">Implications for Practice</hd> <p>The model has the potential to help faculty members envision and prepare for the multiple and non-linear pathways in academia. Current professional development efforts may address important topics such as culturally relevant pedagogy and disaggregating course outcome data, but these do not address the longitudinal path and complexities of faculty careers. Topics rarely focus on the changing needs of faculty as they move through their career. Faculty are typically responsible for their own careers, and department chairs, heads, and leadership play a pivotal role in navigating these complexities. Faculty often have autonomy to make decisions about their course content and delivery methods. They may have to use a template for their syllabi to make sure policies and information are provided consistently to students across courses, but faculty often have input. Academic departments may also be involved in teaching-related decisions ([<reflink idref="bib90" id="ref184">90</reflink>]), although structure and procedures may vary greatly between community colleges. Departments often offer workshops, discussions, and observations to improve faculty teaching and student learning ([<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref185">14</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref186">20</reflink>]). However, faculty may not feel comfortable asking for assistance or attending sessions because decisions regarding promotion also take place at the departmental level ([<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref187">14</reflink>]). Academic leaders can support the professional learning of department chairs and prepare faculty to take on departmental roles.</p> <p>Professional learning should be offered to both full-time and adjunct faculty ([<reflink idref="bib81" id="ref188">81</reflink>]). This model can be helpful to consider what work expectations are included in job descriptions, advertisements, interview questions, and onboarding processes ([<reflink idref="bib98" id="ref189">98</reflink>]), and these may be similar or different for part- and full-time faculty. Academic leaders can use this model when meeting with faculty at a rank or employment status to ask questions related to support, motivation, and guidance that faculty may (or may not) be experiencing. The model will help open up conversations about current obstacles and goals for faculty. Department chairs may learn about faculty members' successes that they could champion and highlight, and faculty members can learn about how institutional goals align with their own professional goals.</p> <p>Ongoing faculty mentoring is another key piece of the model. Mentoring can happen both formally and informally, but formal programs may be a better option ([<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref190">41</reflink>]). Although mentoring is more commonly provided to newer faculty members, offering mentoring to mid-career faculty or post-tenured faculty may help to re-engage some faculty members. Typically, faculty members may only talk about their progress during an annual review with a department chair. Being paired with a mentor in later faculty stages helps faculty explore ways to value new and promising practices for teaching and learning.</p> <p>Some community colleges have centers for teaching and learning ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref191">13</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref192">25</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref193">47</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib90" id="ref194">90</reflink>]). These centers can serve as the facilitators of discussions surrounding faculty pathways. Faculty can share innovative practices and strategies with each other, participate in ongoing professional development, and reflect on their current practices ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref195">13</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref196">47</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib90" id="ref197">90</reflink>]). Even if these centers exist, they are often undervalued or underresourced ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref198">11</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib90" id="ref199">90</reflink>]). Although creating centers for teaching and learning takes resources, institutional leaders matching their budgeting process to student success priorities have been successful in promoting faculty learning and engagement with the result of improving student outcomes ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref200">10</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0179435199-14">Implications for Policy</hd> <p>We suggest several ways administration can make important policy decisions to recruit, hire, and retain diverse faculty. Human resource professionals can write advertisements and job descriptions to reflect work expectations, such as the employee's role in student success initiatives ([<reflink idref="bib98" id="ref201">98</reflink>]). For example, faculty job descriptions and interview questions should include more about the faculty's role in the college's student success efforts. Colleges should provide clear communication to applicants and new hires about how student success is connected to contracts, evaluations, organizational support, recognitions and rewards, and general role expectations. Departmental leadership should provide professional learning opportunities to help faculty understand the misperceptions, assumptions, and biases that often exist within search committees and shape the hiring processes ([<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref202">57</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib89" id="ref203">89</reflink>]).</p> <p>Academic leaders can create opportunities for faculty to be successful, while also ensuring those opportunities are equitable. Strategies for faculty success include the following: opportunities such as course releases with no reduction in pay to examine student outcome data, internal funding to support innovative teaching practices, conference travel funds to learn and share promising practices for student success, and compensation for professional learning that focuses on equity ([<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref204">15</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref205">16</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref206">58</reflink>]).</p> <p>Faculty need clear evaluations guidelines because community college faculty often evaluate their colleagues and have influence over their career trajectories ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref207">2</reflink>]). The pandemic, which uprooted student and faculty lives, influenced administrators to reconsider many policies: colleges allowed faculty to rate themselves, made student-course evaluations optional, and emphasized quality articles over number of published articles ([<reflink idref="bib83" id="ref208">83</reflink>]). The Faculty Pathway to Excellence ([<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref209">48</reflink>]) encourages policy audits to ensure specificity, equity, and transparency in policy development and implementation ([<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref210">15</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref211">16</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref212">58</reflink>]).</p> <p>There should be greater transparency and opportunities for faculty voices in governance, as a lack of faculty voice in workload decisions is a common loss point. Faculty need to have a voice in the selection and implementation of student success initiatives and projects. A variety of faculty (e.g., full-time and adjunct) should also be represented on faculty councils and committees ([<reflink idref="bib81" id="ref213">81</reflink>]), which may require an organizational culture shift to re-organize faculty membership on campus-wide committees.</p> <hd id="AN0179435199-15">Directions for Future Research</hd> <p>Researchers should test and refine the Faculty Pathway to Excellence ([<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref214">48</reflink>]), a model informed from qualitative work. The model should be further applied as a conceptual framework in qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-methods research examining faculty entry and progression (or lack of) at academic institutions. Faculty may need different kinds of support and opportunities at different stages. Qualitative data from faculty could illuminate information or pieces of the model that resonate or do not resonate. Quantitative data collected from surveys could gather feedback from faculty about their opinions on the strategies. Researchers could also explore the forms of support institutions provide to faculty members and where the support fits into the model. Another area of exploration would be better understanding faculty perceptions of institutional support and career progression and how it shapes their teaching practices.</p> <hd id="AN0179435199-16">Conclusion</hd> <p>Community colleges receive attention and funding from the federal government and private foundations to improve student outcomes, meet national completion goals, and prepare skilled workers ([<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref215">4</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref216">18</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref217">34</reflink>]). Although reform efforts have focused on certain pieces of the student experience (i.e., advising, development education, instructional support) or in the redesign of the student pathway ([<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref218">9</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref219">70</reflink>]), the efforts have failed to fully engage faculty and their role in student success initiatives ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref220">11</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib90" id="ref221">90</reflink>]). Understanding faculty and their career progression is critical to advance student success conversations. Finding ways to enhance faculty growth and development across all career stages helps students and faculty succeed. The Faculty Pathway to Excellence ([<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref222">48</reflink>]) elevates faculty in student success initiatives and expands our understanding of the phases and trajectories of faculty members' entry and progression in academic life.</p> <ref id="AN0179435199-17"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref44" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Accelerated Learning Program. (n.d.). What is ALP? Retrieved April 30, 2024, from <ulink href="http://alp-deved.org/what-is-alp-exactly/">http://alp-deved.org/what-is-alp-exactly/</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref78" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Aguilar-Smith S., Gonzales L. D. (2021). A study of community college faculty work expectations: Generous educators and their managed generosity. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 45(3), 184–204. <ulink href="http://doi.org/10.1080/10668926.2019.1666062">http://doi.org/10.1080/10668926.2019.1666062</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref16" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Alexander A., Karvonen M., Ulrich J., Davis T., Wade A. (2012). Community college faculty competencies. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 36(11), 849–862. https://doi.org/10.1080/10668926.2010.515511</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref215" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> American Association of Community Colleges. (2017). Community colleges: Addressing the skills gap. https://<ulink href="http://www.aacc.nche.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/SkillsGapReportforPrint.pdf">www.aacc.nche.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/SkillsGapReportforPrint.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref61" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> American Association of Community Colleges. (2020). Tools for leaders. https://<ulink href="http://www.pathwaysresources.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/PathwaysLeadersToolkit-04192018.pdf">www.pathwaysresources.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/PathwaysLeadersToolkit-04192018.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref11" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> American Association of Community Colleges. (2023). Fast facts 2023. https://<ulink href="http://www.aacc.nche.edu/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Fast%5fFacts%5f2024.pdf">www.aacc.nche.edu/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Fast%5fFacts%5f2024.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref94" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Anaya G. (1999). College impact on student learning: Comparing the use of self-reported gains, standardized test scores, and college grades. Research in Higher Education, 40(5), 499–526. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1018744326915</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref95" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Anaya G., Cole D. (2001). Latina/o student achievement: Exploring the influence of student-faculty interactions on college grades. Journal of College Student Development, 42(1), 611–622. https://<ulink href="http://www.researchgate.net/publication/285632628%5fLatinao%5fstudent%5fachievement%5fExploring%5fthe%5finfluence%5fof%5fstudent-faculty%5finteractions%5fon%5fcollege%5fgrades">www.researchgate.net/publication/285632628%5fLatinao%5fstudent%5fachievement%5fExploring%5fthe%5finfluence%5fof%5fstudent-faculty%5finteractions%5fon%5fcollege%5fgrades</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref40" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Bailey T. (2017). The need for comprehensive reform: From access to completion. EDUCAUSE Review, 52(3), 33–44. https://er.educause.edu/-/media/files/articles/2017/5/erm17313.pdf</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bailey T., Jaggars S., Jenkins D. (2015). Redesigning America's community colleges: A clearer path to student success. Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/10.4159/9780674425934</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bass R., Eynon B., Gambino L. M. (2019). The new learning compact: A framework for professional learning and educational change. Every Learner Everywhere. https://<ulink href="http://www.everylearnereverywhere.org/resources/the-new-learning-compact/">www.everylearnereverywhere.org/resources/the-new-learning-compact/</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Baum S., Ma J., Payea K. (2013). Education pays 2013: The benefits of higher education for individuals and society. College Board. https://research.collegeboard.org/pdf/education-pays-2013-full-report.pdf</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Beach A. L., Sorcinelli M. D., Austin A. E., Rivard J. K. (2016). Faculty development in the age of evidence: Current practices, future imperatives. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003444787</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Beaumont J. (2020). Cross-disciplinary professional development at community colleges. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 44(2), 99–116. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1238371</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bensimon E. M. (2007). The underestimated significance of practitioner knowledge in the scholarship on student success. Review of Higher Education, 30(4), 441–469. https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2007.0032</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bensimon E. M., Dowd A. C., Witham K. (2016). Five principles for enacting equity by design. Diversity &amp; Democracy, 19(1), 1–7. https://<ulink href="http://www.stephens.edu/files/resources/five-principles-for-enacting-equity-by-design-1-4.pdf">www.stephens.edu/files/resources/five-principles-for-enacting-equity-by-design-1-4.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bjorklund S. A., Parente J. M., Sathianathan D. (2004). Effects of faculty interaction and feedback on gains in student skills. Journal of Engineering Education, 93(2), 153–160. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2004.tb00799.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bill &amp; Melinda Gates Foundation. (n.d.). The frontier set. https://usprogram.gatesfoundation.org/news-and-insights/usp-resource-center/resources/the-frontier-set</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Boggs G. R. (2011). The American community college: From access to success. About Campus, 16(2), 2–10. https://doi.org/10.1002/abc.20055</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bolitzer L. (2019). What we know (and don't know) about adjunct faculty as teachers at four-year institutions. The Review of Higher Education, 43(1), 113–142. https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2019.0092</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Braxton J., Bray N., Berger J. (2000). Faculty teaching skills and their influence on the college student departure process. Journal of College Student Development, 41(2), 215–226. https://scholarworks.umass.edu/cie_faculty_pubs/1/</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Brint S., Karabel J. (1989). The diverted dream: Community colleges and the promise of educational opportunity in America, 1900–1985. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780195048155.001.0001</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Brown J., Kurzweil M. (2017). Instructional quality, student outcomes, and institutional finances. American Council on Education. https://<ulink href="http://www.acenet.edu/Documents/Instructional-Quality-Student-Outcomes-and-Institutional-Finances.pdf">www.acenet.edu/Documents/Instructional-Quality-Student-Outcomes-and-Institutional-Finances.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bunch G. C., Schlaman H., Lang N., Kenner K. (2020). "Sometimes I do not understand exactly where the difficulties are for my students": Language, literacy, and the new mainstream in community colleges. Community College Review, 48(3), 303–329. https://doi.org/10.1177/0091552120920358</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Burleson S. D. (2019). The role of relational trust in promoting faculty engagement in student success reform efforts at community colleges (Publication No. 27810162) [Doctoral dissertation, North Carolina State University]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Center for Community College Student Engagement. (2010). The heart of student success: Teaching, learning, and college completion (2010 CCCSE Findings). The University of Texas at Austin, Community College Leadership Program. https://cccse.org/sites/default/files/2010_National_Report.pdf</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chase-Mayoral A. M. (2017). The global rise of the U.S. community college model. New Directions for Community Colleges, 2017(177), 7–15. https://doi.org/10.1002/cc.20237</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cho S. W., Kopko E., Jenkins D., Jaggars S. S. (2012). New evidence of success for community college remedial English students: Tracking the outcomes of students in the Accelerated Learning Program (CCRC Working Paper No. 53). Columbia University, Teachers College, Community College Research Center. https://ccrc.tc.columbia.edu/publications/ccbc-alp-student-outcomes-follow-up.html</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Community College Research Center. (2020). Achieving the dream: Community colleges count. https://ccrc.tc.columbia.edu/research-project/achieving-the-dream.html</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Completion by Design. (2019, February 20). Completion by design. https://<ulink href="http://www.completionbydesign.org/s/">www.completionbydesign.org/s/</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Condon W., Iverson E. R., Manduca C. A., Rutz C., Willett G. (2016). Faculty development and student learning: Assessing the connections. Indiana University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Culpepper D., Misra J., O'Meara K., Jaeger A. J. (2022). Addressing workload equity: Seven strategies for department chairs. The Department Chair, 32(3), 8–9. https://doi.org/10.1002/dch.30423</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Day C. (2004). A passion for teaching. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203464342</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Drummer C., Marshburn R. (2014). Philanthropy and private foundations: Expanding revenue sources. New Directions for Community Colleges, 2014(168), 77–89. https://doi.org/10.1002/cc.20122</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Eddinger P. Y. (2020, November 10). Insights from the pandemic: The reckoning and the hope at our nation's community colleges [Lecture notes]. Belk Center for Community College Leadership and Research, North Carolina State University. https://belk-center.ced.ncsu.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/128/2022/10/Dallas-Herring-Lecture-Booklet-2020-j.pdf</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Eddy P. L., Garza R., Amey M. J. (2016, November 27). Leading from the middle. The Chronicle of Higher Education.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Esch C. (2010, April 8). Community colleges: Higher education's Bermuda triangle (The Hechinger Report). https://hechingerreport.org/community-colleges-higher-educations-bermuda-triangle/</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Eynon B., Bass R., Iuzzini J., Gambino L. M. (2022). The new learning compact: A systematic approach to a systematic problem. The Magazine of Higher Learning, 54(2), 38–46. <ulink href="http://doi.org/10.1080/00091383.2022.2030162">http://doi.org/10.1080/00091383.2022.2030162</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Eynon B., Iuzzini J. (2020). ATD teaching and learning toolkit: A research-based guide to building a culture of teaching and learning excellence. Achieving the Dream. https://<ulink href="http://www.achievingthedream.org/teachinglearningtoolkit">www.achievingthedream.org/teachinglearningtoolkit</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Figueroa O. (2015). The influences impacting staff turnover in higher education. Journal of Management and Sustainability, 5(4), 86–93. <ulink href="http://doi.org/10.5539/jms.v5n4p86">http://doi.org/10.5539/jms.v5n4p86</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fugate A. L., Amey M. J. (2000). Career stages of community college faculty: A qualitative analysis of their career paths, roles, and development. Community College Review, 28(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/009155210002800101</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gappa J. M., Leslie D. W. (1993). The invisible faculty: Improving the status of part-timers in higher education. Jossey-Bass.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Grubb W. N. (Ed.). (1999). Honored but invisible: An inside look at teaching in community colleges. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203900857</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Harris J. (2019). Challenges of nursing faculty retention. The Midwest Quarterly, 60(3). 251–270. https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A583693211/AONE?u=anon~3a8549be&amp;sid=bookmark-AONE&amp;xid=014ad868</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hennink M. M. (2013). Focus group discussions: Understanding qualitative research. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:osobl/9780199856169.001.0001</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hessling P. A., Robinson E. E., Capps J. A., Gallardo-Williams M. T. (2018). Cross-disciplinary reading circles: Community building, collaboration, and professional growth. Journal of Faculty Development, 32(3), 19–24. https://eric.ed.gov/?q=the+reading+teacher+literature+circles&amp;id=EJ1192044</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hines S. R. (2017). Evaluating centers for teaching and learning: A field-tested model. To improve the academy, 36(2), 89–100. <ulink href="http://doi.org/10.3998/tia.17063888.0036.202">http://doi.org/10.3998/tia.17063888.0036.202</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jaeger A. J. (2017, September). Focus on faculty: Loss momentum and the faculty role [Keynote address]. Completion by Design, Raleigh, NC, United States.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jaeger A. J., Eagan M. K. (2011). Navigating the transfer process: Analyzing the effects of part-time faculty exposure by academic program. American Behavioral Scientist, 55(11), 1510–1512. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764211409383</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jenkins D., Lahr H., Fink J., Ganga E. (2018a). What we are learning about guided pathways. Part 1: A reform moves from theory to practice. Columbia University, Teachers College, Community College Research Center. https://ccrc.tc.columbia.edu/media/k2/attachments/guided-pathways-part-1-theory-practice.pdf</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jenkins D., Lahr H., Fink J., Ganga E., Kopko E., Brown A. E., Patterson P. (2018b). What we are learning about guided pathways. Part 2: Case studies. Columbia University, Teachers College, Community College Research Center. https://ccrc.tc.columbia.edu/media/k2/attachments/guided-pathways-part-2-case-studies.pdf</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Josephson A. (2022, April 6). The average salary by educational level. SmartAsset Advisors. https://smartasset.com/retirement/the-average-salary-by-education-level</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kilgore W., Wilson J. (2017, September). The state of college completion initiatives at U.S. community colleges. American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers. https://<ulink href="http://www.aacrao.org/docs/default-source/signature-initiative-docs/transfer/the-state-of-college-completion-initiatives-nbsp-at-u-s-community-colleges.pdf?sfvrsn=8589f844%5f4">www.aacrao.org/docs/default-source/signature-initiative-docs/transfer/the-state-of-college-completion-initiatives-nbsp-at-u-s-community-colleges.pdf?sfvrsn=8589f844%5f4</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kuh G. D., Hu S. (2001). The effects of student-faculty interaction in the 1990s. Review of Higher Education, 23(3), 309–332. https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2001.0005</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kuh G. D., Kinzie J., Buckley J. A., Bridges B. K., Hayek J. C. (2006). What matters to student success: A review of the literature. ASHE Higher Education Report. Jossey-Bass. https://nces.ed.gov/npec/pdf/kuh_team_report.pdf</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lei S. A. (2008). Assessment techniques of instructors in two community colleges in a state-wide system. Education, 128(3), 392–411. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ816909</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lester J., Bers T. (2010). Hiring and recruiting female faculty. New Directions for Community Colleges, 2010(152), 41–58. https://doi.org/10.1002/cc.426</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Liera R. (2020). Equity advocates using equity-mindedness to interrupt faculty hiring's racial structure. Teachers College Record, 122(9), 1–42. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146812012200910</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lightner R. (2013). Collecting evidence about what works: Scholarship of teaching and learning FCC. In Sipple S., Lightner R. (Eds.), Developing faculty learning communities at two-year colleges: College models to improve teaching and learning (pp. 21–41). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003444152</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Liu V. Y. T., Belfield C. R., Trimble M. J. (2015). The medium-term labor market returns to community college awards: Evidence from North Carolina. Economics of Education Review, 44, 42–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2014.10.009</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lumina Foundation. (2016, April). A stronger nation: Postsecondary learning builds the talent that helps us rise (Annual Report). https://<ulink href="http://www.luminafoundation.org/files/publications/stronger%5fnation/2016/A%5fStronger%5fNation-2016-Full.pdf">www.luminafoundation.org/files/publications/stronger%5fnation/2016/A%5fStronger%5fNation-2016-Full.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lundberg C. A. (2014). Peers and faculty as predictors of learning for community college students. Community College Review, 42(2), 79–98. https://doi.org/10.1177/0091552113517931</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lundberg C. A., Schreiner L. (2004). Quality and frequency of faculty-student interactions as predictors of learning: An analysis by student race/ethnicity. Journal of College Student Development, 45(5), 549–656. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2004.0061</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lundquist C. A., Spalding R. J., Landrum R. E. (2002). College students' thoughts about leaving the university: The impact of faculty attitudes and behaviors. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory, &amp; Practice, 4(2), 123–133. https://doi.org/10.2190/FLAL-7AM5-Q6K3-L40P</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ma J., Baum S. (2016). Trends in community colleges: Enrollment, prices, student debt, and completion. College Board. https://research.collegeboard.org/pdf/trends-community-colleges-research-brief.pdf</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Malik N. (2010). A study on motivational factors of the faculty members at University of Balochistan. Serbian Journal of Management, 5(1), 143–149. https://<ulink href="http://www.sjm06.com/SJM%20ISSN1452-4864/5%5f1%5f2010%5fMay%5f1-188/5%5f1%5f143-149.pdf">www.sjm06.com/SJM%20ISSN1452-4864/5%5f1%5f2010%5fMay%5f1-188/5%5f1%5f143-149.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Martinez E. (2018). Changes, challenges, and opportunities for student services at one baccalaureate degree-granting community college. Community College Review, 46(1), 82–103. https://doi.org/10.1177/0091552117744049</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McClenney K. M. (2007). Research update: The community college survey of student engagement. Community College Review, 35(2), 137–146. https://doi.org/10.1177/0091552107306583</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McCurdy J. W. (2014). Organizational commitment and job satisfaction: An examination of staff in higher education (Order No. 3617798) [Doctoral dissertation, The Claremont Graduate University]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McDonough B. (n.d.). Guided career pathways: A new postsecondary framework for today's learners. Jobs for the Future. https://<ulink href="http://www.jff.org/what-we-do/impact-stories/student-success-center-network/guided-career-pathways/">www.jff.org/what-we-do/impact-stories/student-success-center-network/guided-career-pathways/</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McShannon J., Hynes P., Nirmalakhandan N., Venkataramana G., Ricketts C., Ulery A., Steiner R. (2006). Gaining retention and achievement for students program: A faculty development program. Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice, 132(3). https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1052-3928(2006)132:3(204)</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Merriam S. B., Tisdell E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation (4th ed.). John Wiley &amp; Sons.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mertens D. M. (2010). Research and evaluation in education and psychology: Integrating diversity with quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods (3rd ed.). Sage.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Misra J., Kuvaeva A., O'Meara K., Culpepper D. K., Jaeger A. (2021). Gendered and racialized perceptions of faculty workload. Gender &amp; Society, 35(3), 358–394. https://doi.org/10.1177/08912432211001387</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> The National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education. (2011, June). Affordability and transfer: Critical to increasing baccalaureate degree completion [Policy alert]. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED521330.pdf</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National Skills Coalition. (n.d.). The skills mismatch. https://nationalskillscoalition.org/skills-mismatch/</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> O'Meara K., Beise E., Culpepper D., Misra J., Jaeger A. (2020). Faculty work activity dashboards: A strategy to increase transparency. Change Magazine, 52(3), 34–42. https://doi.org/10.1080/00091383.2020.1745579</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> O'Meara K., Lennartz C. J., Kuvaeva A., Jaeger A., Misra J. (2019). Department conditions and practices associated with faculty workload satisfaction and perceptions of equity. Journal of Higher Education, 90(5), 744–772. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2019.1584025</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> O'Meara K., Rivera M., Kuvaeva A., Corrigan K. (2017). Faculty learning matters: Organizational conditions and contexts that shape faculty learning. Innovative Higher Education, 42, 355–376. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-017-9389-8</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Payne T., Herndon S., McWaine L., Major C. (2002). Community college faculty rewards: Expectations and incentives. Community College Enterprise, 8(1), 61–73.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pearch W., Marutz L. (2005). Retention of adjunct faculty in community colleges. The Community College Enterprise, 11(1), 29–44. https://home.schoolcraft.edu/cce/11.1.29-44.pdf</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Perez A. M., McShannon J., Hynes P. (2012). Community college faculty development program and student achievement. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 36(5), 379–385. <ulink href="http://doi.org/10.1080/10668920902813469">http://doi.org/10.1080/10668920902813469</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pettit E. (2021). How to help your faculty stay afloat during the pandemic. In Burned out and overburdened: How to support the faculty (pp. 5–11). The Chronicle of Higher Education. https://<ulink href="http://www.chronicle.com/article/faculty-members-are-suffering-burnout-so-some-colleges-have-used-these-strategies-to-help">www.chronicle.com/article/faculty-members-are-suffering-burnout-so-some-colleges-have-used-these-strategies-to-help</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Quint J. C., Jaggars S. S., Byndloss D. C., Magazinnik A. (2013). Bringing developmental education to scale: Lessons from the developmental education initiative. MDRC. https://<ulink href="http://www.mdrc.org/publication/bringing-developmental-education-scale">www.mdrc.org/publication/bringing-developmental-education-scale</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rutschow E. Z., Richburg-Hayes L., Brock T., Orr G., Cerna O., Cullinan D., Kerrigan M. R., Jenkins D., Gooden S., Martin K. (2011). Turning the tide: Five years of Achieving the Dream in community colleges. MDRC and Community College Research Center, Teachers College, Columbia University. https://ccrc.tc.columbia.edu/publications/turning-the-tide.html</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Saldaña J. (2009). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Sage.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Savoy J., Hill L. (2018). The career pathways of community college STEM faculty: Results of the CIRTL includes pilot study. Wisconsin Center for Education Research. https://cirtlincludes.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/CIRTL_INCLUDES_CC_Pathways_REPORT.pdf</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Scott D., Kezar A. (2019). How student affairs departments can support and engage non- tenure-track faculty. Pullias Center for Higher Education, University of Southern California. https://pullias.usc.edu/download/how-student-affairs-departments-can-support-and-engage-non-tenure-track-faculty/</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Singley Y., Kayes P. E. (2010, October 12). Perspectives: Time for community colleges to lead on diversifying faculty. Diverse: Issues in Higher Education, 27(17), 18. https://<ulink href="http://www.diverseeducation.com/students/article/15089975/perspectives-time-for-community-colleges-to-lead-on-diversifying-faculty">www.diverseeducation.com/students/article/15089975/perspectives-time-for-community-colleges-to-lead-on-diversifying-faculty</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stout K. A. (2018, November 28). The urgent case: Focusing the next generation of community college redesign on teaching and learning [Lecture notes]. Belk Center for Community College Leadership and Research, North Carolina State University. https://belk-center.ced.ncsu.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/128/2022/10/Dallas-Herring-Lecture-2018-M.pdf</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Strayhorn T. (2012). College students' sense of belonging: A key to educational success for all students. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203118924</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Threeton M. D., Walter R. A., Clark R. W., Ewing J. C. (2011). Automotive technology learning styles and preference for experiential learning. International Journal of Vocational Education &amp; Training, 19, 35–52. <ulink href="http://hdl.voced.edu.au/10707/173360">http://hdl.voced.edu.au/10707/173360</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tinto V. (1997). Classrooms as communities: Exploring the educational character of student persistence. Journal of Higher Education, 68(6), 599–623. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.1997.11779003</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tipton E. C. (2016). Pipelines to leadership: Aspirations of faculty in the community college, kentucky community and technical college system (Publication No. 10109832) [Doctoral dissertation, University of Kentucky]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Townsend B. K., Twombly S. B. (2007). Community college faculty: Overlooked and undervalued [Special issue]. ASHE Higher Education Report, 32(6), 1–163. https://doi.org/10.1002/aehe.3206</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Turner C. S. V. (2002). Diversifying the faculty: A guidebook for search committees. Association of American Colleges and Universities. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED465359.pdf</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Twale D. J., De Luca B. M. (2008). Faculty incivility: The rise of the academic bully culture and what to do about it. Jossey-Bass.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Twombly S. B. (2005). Values, policies, and practices affecting the hiring process for full-time arts and sciences faculty in community colleges. Journal of Higher Education, 76(4), 423–447. https://doi.org/10.1353/jhe.2005.0032</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Umbach P. D., Wawrzynski M. R. (2005). Faculty do matter: The role of college faculty in student learning and engagement. Research in Higher Education, 46(2), 153–184. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-004-1598-1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2017). Graduation rate from first institution attended within 150 percent of normal time for first-time, full-time degree/certificate-seeing students at 2-year postsecondary institutions, by race/ethnicity, sex, and control of institution: Selected cohort entry years, 2000 through 2013 (Table 326.20). Digest of Education Statistics. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d17/tables/dt17_326.20.asp?referer=raceindicators</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> U.S. Government Accountability Office. (2017). Contingent workforce: Size, characteristics, compensation, and work experiences of adjunct and other non-tenure-track faculty (GAO-18-49). https://<ulink href="http://www.gao.gov/assets/690/687871.pdf">www.gao.gov/assets/690/687871.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wang H., Grimes J. W. (2000). A systematic approach to assessing retention programs: Identifying critical points for meaningful interventions and validating outcomes assessment. Journal of College Student Retention, 2(1), 59–68. https://doi.org/10.2190/HYY4-XTBH-RJFD-LU5Y</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wawrzynski M., Pizzolato J. E. (2006). Predicting needs: A longitudinal investigation of the relation between student characteristics, academic paths, and self-authorship. Journal of College Student Development, 47(6), 677–692. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2006.0071</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Winkelmes M-A., Copeland D. E., Jorgensen E., Sloat A., Smedley A., Pizor P., Johnson K., Jalene S. (2015). Benefits (some unexpected) of transparently designed assignments. The National Teaching &amp; Learning Forum, 24(4), 4–7. https://doi.org/10.1002/ntlf.30029</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wolfe C. R. (2019). Middle leader communication with faculty during student success reform efforts in two community colleges [Doctoral dissertation, North Carolina State University]. North Carolina State Repository. https://repository.lib.ncsu.edu/items/4112b069-242b-43c3-928a-c68377fd23dd</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wyner J. (2016, November 14). Community College 3.0: What's next for the student success agenda [Lecture notes]. College of Education, North Carolina State University. https://belk-center.ced.ncsu.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/128/2022/10/2016-Dallas-Herring-Lecture-Joshua-Wyner.pdf</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0179435199-18"> <title> Footnotes </title> <blist> <bibtext> The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Laura G. Maldonado</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext>Graph https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6819-3027</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Audrey J. Jaeger; Laura G. Maldonado; Susan Burleson and Constance Wolfe</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author</p> <p></p> <p>Audrey J. Jaeger is the W. Dallas Herring Professor of Community College Education and the founding executive director at the Belk Center for Community College Leadership at North Carolina State University.</p> <p>Laura G. Maldonado is a senior research associate at Advance CTE.</p> <p>Susan Burleson is an executive vice president of academic and student affairs at Davidson-Davie Community College.</p> <p>Constance Wolfe is an executive vice president of student and employee experience at Alamance Community College.</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib80" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib90" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib105" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib75" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib65" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib95" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib89" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib96" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib106" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib100" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib76" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib84" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib85" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref53"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref54"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref60"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref64"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref67"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref74"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref77"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref81"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib88" firstref="ref82"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref83"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib93" firstref="ref84"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref85"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib63" firstref="ref86"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib99" firstref="ref87"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref88"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib64" firstref="ref89"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib102" firstref="ref90"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref91"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib68" firstref="ref93"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref96"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib103" firstref="ref97"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl53" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref99"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl54" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref102"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl55" bibid="bib71" firstref="ref103"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl56" bibid="bib82" firstref="ref104"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl57" bibid="bib104" firstref="ref105"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl58" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref111"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl59" bibid="bib98" firstref="ref113"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl60" bibid="bib101" firstref="ref114"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl61" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref115"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl62" bibid="bib67" firstref="ref117"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl63" bibid="bib87" firstref="ref118"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl64" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref120"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl65" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref121"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl66" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref124"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl67" bibid="bib92" firstref="ref125"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl68" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref133"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl69" bibid="bib73" firstref="ref134"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl70" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref135"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl71" bibid="bib72" firstref="ref136"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl72" bibid="bib86" firstref="ref140"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl73" bibid="bib69" firstref="ref143"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl74" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref144"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl75" bibid="bib91" firstref="ref146"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl76" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref147"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl77" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref149"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl78" bibid="bib97" firstref="ref150"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl79" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref154"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl80" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref155"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl81" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref156"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl82" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref163"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl83" bibid="bib81" firstref="ref168"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl84" bibid="bib79" firstref="ref171"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl85" bibid="bib83" firstref="ref172"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl86" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref174"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl87" bibid="bib66" firstref="ref175"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl88" bibid="bib94" firstref="ref176"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl89" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref177"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl90" bibid="bib74" firstref="ref178"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl91" bibid="bib78" firstref="ref179"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl92" bibid="bib77" firstref="ref180"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl93" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref186"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl94" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref191"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl95" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref193"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl96" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref216"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl97" bibid="bib70" firstref="ref219"></nolink> |
|---|---|
| Header | DbId: eric DbLabel: ERIC An: EJ1438512 AccessLevel: 3 PubType: Academic Journal PubTypeId: academicJournal PreciseRelevancyScore: 0 |
| IllustrationInfo | |
| Items | – Name: Title Label: Title Group: Ti Data: Applying What We Know about Student Success to Creating a Model for Faculty Success – Name: Language Label: Language Group: Lang Data: English – Name: Author Label: Authors Group: Au Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Audrey+J%2E+Jaeger%22">Audrey J. Jaeger</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Laura+G%2E+Maldonado%22">Laura G. Maldonado</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6819-3027">0000-0002-6819-3027</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Susan+Burleson%22">Susan Burleson</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Constance+Wolfe%22">Constance Wolfe</searchLink> – Name: TitleSource Label: Source Group: Src Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Community+College+Review%22"><i>Community College Review</i></searchLink>. 2024 52(4):501-524. – Name: Avail Label: Availability Group: Avail Data: SAGE Publications. 2455 Teller Road, Thousand Oaks, CA 91320. Tel: 800-818-7243; Tel: 805-499-9774; Fax: 800-583-2665; e-mail: journals@sagepub.com; Web site: https://sagepub.com – Name: PeerReviewed Label: Peer Reviewed Group: SrcInfo Data: Y – Name: Pages Label: Page Count Group: Src Data: 24 – Name: DatePubCY Label: Publication Date Group: Date Data: 2024 – Name: TypeDocument Label: Document Type Group: TypDoc Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research – Name: Audience Label: Education Level Group: Audnce Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Postsecondary+Education%22">Postsecondary Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Two+Year+Colleges%22">Two Year Colleges</searchLink> – Name: Subject Label: Descriptors Group: Su Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Community+Colleges%22">Community Colleges</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Attitudes%22">Teacher Attitudes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Department+Heads%22">Department Heads</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22General+Education%22">General Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Faculty%22">Faculty</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Technical+Education%22">Technical Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Career+Development%22">Career Development</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Role%22">Teacher Role</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Success%22">Success</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Faculty+Development%22">Faculty Development</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Morale%22">Teacher Morale</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Professional+Recognition%22">Professional Recognition</searchLink> – Name: DOI Label: DOI Group: ID Data: 10.1177/00915521241259022 – Name: ISSN Label: ISSN Group: ISSN Data: 0091-5521<br />1940-2325 – Name: Abstract Label: Abstract Group: Ab Data: Purpose: This conceptual piece applies what we know about student success to introduce a faculty model of success called the Faculty Pathway to Excellence. The model elevates faculty voices in the conversation of student success in community colleges. Method: We collected qualitative data from interviews with faculty at two community colleges and focus groups with faculty from six community colleges to help inform a faculty-focused framework. Proposed model: By changing the conversation to a more comprehensive perspective of faculty success, the model emphasizes the connections, establishment, navigation and leadership, and teaching and learning excellence of faculty members throughout their career trajectories. We define faculty success as faculty retention, faculty satisfaction/sense of belonging, faculty productivity, and ultimately student success (e.g., learning, retention, completion, transfer). Contributions: The development of this Faculty Pathway to Excellence suggests a wider variety of strategies by administration to attract, support, and retain faculty. It also has the potential to help faculty members envision and prepare for the multiple and non-linear pathways in academia. Understanding faculty and their career progression is critical to advance student success conversations. Finding ways to enhance faculty growth and development across all career stages helps students and faculty succeed. – Name: AbstractInfo Label: Abstractor Group: Ab Data: As Provided – Name: DateEntry Label: Entry Date Group: Date Data: 2024 – Name: AN Label: Accession Number Group: ID Data: EJ1438512 |
| PLink | https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1438512 |
| RecordInfo | BibRecord: BibEntity: Identifiers: – Type: doi Value: 10.1177/00915521241259022 Languages: – Text: English PhysicalDescription: Pagination: PageCount: 24 StartPage: 501 Subjects: – SubjectFull: Community Colleges Type: general – SubjectFull: Teacher Attitudes Type: general – SubjectFull: Department Heads Type: general – SubjectFull: General Education Type: general – SubjectFull: Faculty Type: general – SubjectFull: Technical Education Type: general – SubjectFull: Career Development Type: general – SubjectFull: Teacher Role Type: general – SubjectFull: Success Type: general – SubjectFull: Faculty Development Type: general – SubjectFull: Teacher Morale Type: general – SubjectFull: Professional Recognition Type: general Titles: – TitleFull: Applying What We Know about Student Success to Creating a Model for Faculty Success Type: main BibRelationships: HasContributorRelationships: – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Audrey J. Jaeger – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Laura G. Maldonado – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Susan Burleson – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Constance Wolfe IsPartOfRelationships: – BibEntity: Dates: – D: 01 M: 10 Type: published Y: 2024 Identifiers: – Type: issn-print Value: 0091-5521 – Type: issn-electronic Value: 1940-2325 Numbering: – Type: volume Value: 52 – Type: issue Value: 4 Titles: – TitleFull: Community College Review Type: main |
| ResultId | 1 |
