A comparison of access to the Internet and use of the Web for instruction: a national study of full-time and part-time community college faculty.

This research explored the issues of access to the internet and use of the web for instructional purposes between full-time and part-time community college faculty. The findings that 40% of part-time faculty do not have Internet access at work would seem to indicate that part-time faculty are poorly integrated into the technology infrastructure of institutions.

Introduction

The increased use of part-time faculty in community colleges has generated considerable debate and discussion. The National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES, 1997a) estimated that, in 1988, 52% of all community college faculty were part time. In 1993 that number increased to 64% (NCES, 2001a). Furthermore, between 1991 and 1992, 37% of all postsecondary faculty who left their institution did so because of retirement. Specifically at community colleges during that period, 50% of exiting faculty had retired (NCES, 1997b). The increased rate of retirement at two-year colleges creates a situation where future percentages of part-time faculty may be even higher, depending in large part on the policies that community colleges adopt in the future.

In addition to an increase in the use of part-time faculty, community colleges also have the greatest number of enrollments in distance education courses with 48% (1,472,000 students), while public four-year institution enroll 31% (NCES, 2003). Nine percent of all students at community colleges participate in distance education; of the community college students participating in distance education, approximately 60% are taking internet-based courses (NCES, 2002a). It is projected that the number of students taking on-line courses will reach 2.2 million by 2004 (Green, 2000; Moe, 2002). Projections indicate that by the year 2025, forty-five million people worldwide could be learning through online higher education opportunities (Moe, 2002). These data support the notion that a greater percentage of community college faculty are involved in distance education, particularly on-line education, than faculty at four-year institutions (NCES, 2002b). While the data are not available, it may be assumed that even more faculty use Web sites to provide some type of course information to enhance traditional courses, even though the course may not be an actual distance education course. It is important that the large cadre of part-time community college faculty have the same access to the Internet and opportunity to develop web-enhanced courses as do their full-time counterparts. It is also important to determine if part-time faculty are as engaged in the use of computer technology for instruction as are full-time faculty.

The purpose of this study is to compare access to the Internet and use of the web for instructional purposes between full-time and part-time community college faculty using data from the National Study of Post Secondary Faculty (NCES, 2002a). The specific research questions for this study are the following:

1. Is there a relationship between the availability of Internet access and faculty status (full time or part time)?

2. Is there a relationship between the use of Web sites to provide instructional information and faculty status?

3. Do the two faculty groups vary in their use of Web sites to provide instructional information by discipline area?

4. Is there a relationship between how Web sites are used and faculty status?

5. Is there a relationship between use of e-mail to communicate with students and faculty status?

Methods

Sample and Data

Data for this study are from the 1999 National Study of Postsecondary Faculty (NSOPF:99), a survey project funded by the National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES, 2001b). The data are collected every 5 years, and NSOPF:99 is the most current version of the data at the time of publication. A two-stage stratified clustered probability design was used to select the sample for NSOPF:99. The first stage consisted of sampling postsecondary institutions, and the second stage consisted of sampling faculty from first-stage institutions. The final data set consisted of responses from a representative sample of 17,600 faculty working either full time or part time at a variety of postsecondary educational institutions (N = 960). There were 4,392 public two-year college faculty respondents from 298 public two-year colleges. For analysis in this study, only two-year faculty at public institutions who met the following criteria were included: teaching was their primary responsibility, they taught credit courses, and they were not administrators. Applying this criteria resulted in 3,195 respondents (1,524 part-time faculty and 1,671 full-time faculty). Some totals will not be 3,195, since some respondents did not respond to all questions or else the questions were not applicable to some respondents.

Variables and Analysis

For the first research question, respondents indicated if they had had Internet access during the fall 1998 term (at home and work, at work only, at home only, or no Internet access). These responses were cross tabulated with faculty status (full time or part time), and chi-square was used to determine if a significant relationship exists between Internet access and faculty status.

The second research question responses were examined by cross tabulation between respondents' answers to a question on the use of Web sites for class information (yes or no) and faculty status (full time or part time). Chi-square was used to detect significance.

Since the use of part-time faculty varies considerably by discipline at community colleges, the third research question examined the use of Web sites for course information for faculty status (full time and part time) by discipline area. The NSOPF:99 data were subset to create the following five discipline groups: humanities, natural-physical-mathematical sciences, social sciences, business, and occupational programs. Chi-square was used to detect relationships between Web site use for courses and faculty status by discipline area.

The variables for the fourth research question (of whether both groups use class Web sites in the same way) were measured by respondents' answers to five separate questions. Each respondent indicated yes or no for whether they used the class Web site for each of the following options: to post syllabus and office hours, to post homework assignment and readings, to post exams and exercises for immediate scoring, to post exam results, and to provide links to other information. To answer this question, several techniques were used. First, the uses of Web sites were rank ordered by types of usage by full-time and part-time faculty groups. Next, a chi-square analysis was done to determine if significant differences existed between full-time and part-time faculty groups for each type of Web site use.

The final research question was answered by comparing respondents' answers to whether they used electronic mail (e-mail) to communicate with students in their class (yes or no) by faculty status (full time or part time). Chi-square was used to detect differences between full-time and part-time faculty groups. All analyses used p < .05 for hypothesis testing.

Results

While the results for the first research question indicate that the majority of both full-time (93%) and part-time faculty (84%) have some type of Internet access, 40% of part-time faculty do not have access to the Internet at their college (compared to 14% for full-time faculty). Chi-square [chi square](3, N = 3153) = 294, p < .0001 indicates that there is a significant relationship between faculty status and availability of Internet access (Table 1). More specifically, a greater percentage of full-time faculty (86%) have Internet access at work and at work and home than do part-time faculty (60%). A greater percentage of part-time faculty (40%) have Internet access only at home or no Internet access compared to full-time faculty (14%). This finding may impact some of the other findings in this study, since Internet access is one critical factor in using web-based instruction.

The results of research question number two, [chi square] (1, N = 3244) = 8.4, p = .004, indicate that there is a significant relationship between full-time and part-time faculty status and the use of Web sites for instructional information (Table 2). While the majority of faculty did not use Web sites to convey class information (72% for full-time faculty and 77% for part-time faculty), there was a significant, albeit slight, difference. More full-time faculty (28%) used Web sites to convey a variety of class information than did part-time faculty (23%).

The percentage of full-time faculty varied considerably by discipline area: business had 55% full-time faculty (45% part time), humanities had 45% full-time faculty (55% part time), the natural-physical-mathematical sciences had 57% full-time faculty (43% part time), occupational programs had 66% full-time faculty (34% part time), and the social science had 44% full-time faculty (56% part time). Results of the third research question indicate that a significantly greater percentage of full-time faculty in three of five discipline areas (business, natural-physical-mathematical sciences, and social sciences) used Web sites to provide class information for students compared to part-time faculty (Table 3). Even for full-time faculty in the social sciences, while the chi-square test was not significant (p > .05), the percentage trends indicated that more full-time faculty used Web sites for student information than did part-time faculty. For faculty in occupational programs (the largest group), the distribution of Web site use for class information was almost identical for both fulltime and part-time faculty (77%-78% do not use Web sites and 22%-23 % use Web sites). With the exception of faculty in occupational programs and the social sciences, a greater percentage of full-time faculty use Web sites for dissemination of class information than do part-time faculty.

The NSOPF:99 questionnaire had five separate questions that asked respondents if they used course Web sites for specific purposes (yes or no). Identified in Table 4 is a rank order, by faculty status, of the percentage responses for the following specific uses of class Web sites: (1) provide links to other information, (2) class syllabus and general information, (3) homework, assignments and readings, (4) practice exams that need scoring, (5) post exams or exam results.

Table 4 demonstrates that full-time and part-time faculty rankings for uses of class Web sites are very similar. While more full-time faculty may use Web sites for class information, the reasons both groups use the web are very similar.

The final research question (Table 5) sought to determine if there was a difference between e-mail use for the two faculty groups. A question on the NSOPF:99 questionnaire asked respondents to indicate (yes or no) if they use e-mail to communicate with students in their classes. Results of the chi-square [chi square] (1, N = 3293) = 64, p < .001 indicated that a significantly greater percentage of full-time faculty (48%) use e-mail to communicate with students in their class than do part-time faculty (34%).

Discussion

Nontraditional course-delivery methods are increasing at all institutions (Lewis, Snow, Farris, & Levin, 1999), and a greater percentage of community college faculty are involved in nontraditional courses than faculty at other types of institutions (NCES, 2002a). These nontraditional methods are slowly becoming the traditional method of delivery. PowerPoint presentations take the place of overheads, references to Web sites take the place of handouts, and online webcams take the place of face-to-face contact.

The findings of this study--that 40% of part-time faculty do not have Internet access at work--would seem to indicate that part-time faculty are poorly integrated into the instructional infrastructure of the institution, at least from an instructional-technology standpoint. Not having access to the Internet may be one factor that accounts for less utilization by part-time faculty of Web sites to provide course information and of e-mail to communicate with students in their classes. The NSOPF:99 data were collected in the fall of 1998 (released in the fall of 2002), and it may be that conditions have changed since then. A follow-up study should be done with the next release of NSOPF to determine if access to the Internet and use of web-based instruction have improved for part-time faculty.

The Internet has become a vital tool in course development and teaching. Internet access is not only important for faculty--it is also important for students. The Internet gives students easier access to faculty and information. This aspect may be important for community colleges since the vast majority of their students are nonresidential.

Thus, the use of web-based technology is critical for meeting the needs of diverse learners at community colleges. Two examples illustrate this point.

One example involves the growing student population who work full time and are pursuing degrees on a part-time basis. When faculty have Internet access and Web pages for their courses, this technology gives the working student much more flexibility in meeting the requirements of the course. Assignments may be submitted through e-mail rather than in person. Questions may be asked and answered by e-mail rather than having to make an appointment with the faculty member during office hours. In short, when faculty have Internet access, it gives students greater flexibility in meeting their educational goals.

Students with disabilities rely on various types of assistive technology (any device that enables people with disabilities to function better in their environment) to function successfully in the classroom. The number of students with disabilities enrolled in higher education is growing rapidly, with the largest enrollments at community colleges (Buggey, 2000).

Faculty need to use web-based and other technologies to accommodate diverse learners. It is interesting to note that the data in NSOPF:99 indicate a significant percentage of part-time faculty at these institutions are not using institutional funds to improve instruction [chi square] (1, N = 3244) = 463, p < .001 (Table 6). Only 10% of part-time faculty used institutional funds to improve instruction, while 44% of full-time faculty used such funds (NCES, 2001). This lack of institutional support for improvement of instruction may have some impact on part-time faculty's use of Web-enhanced courses.

With the exception of faculty in occupational programs, part-time faculty in other disciplines generally use Web sites less than do full-time faculty to provide student information. While less availability to Internet access may be one factor that impacts Web utilization, another may be that the greatest percentage of part-time faculty is generally in mathematics, English, and some sciences. If semester enrollments increase, the immediate demand for part-time faculty to cover general education areas will be more immediate and last minute. It may be difficult on short notice for newly hired part-time faculty to develop and design a Web site for student information. The NSOPF:99 data indicate that part-time faculty with longer tenure at an institution use Web sites more than those who are recently hired. Unexpected enrollment increases may create situations where new part-time faculty need to be hired on very short notice, and thus instructional design time will be minimal.

Simply put, this situation calls for greater administrative vision on the part of educational institutions. Resources need to be available to meet the changing educational needs of students. The more that community colleges integrate computer access into their curricula, the more flexibility will be available to students.

Conclusion

Community colleges are leaders in providing distance education, yet the data in NSOPF:99 indicate a significant percentage of part-time faculty at these institutions do not have access to the Internet and are not using institutional funds to improve instruction. Part-time faculty play an indispensable role in meeting the needs of students and should be better integrated into the structures of colleges.

Further, it is imperative that avenues be provided for part-time faculty members to use technology in their courses. The diversity of learners at community colleges, particularly disabled and part-time students, will be severely disadvantaged by the lack of web-based technology in the classroom. Students who work full time will find pursuing an education more available, obtainable, and practical if both full-time and part-time faculty have access to the Internet and use the web to meet the needs of diverse learners.

Table 1
Internet Access by Employment Status

Frequency                         Employed P/T or F/T
(Row Pct)
(Col Pct)                   Part time   Full time    Total

Both at home and at work       601         854       1455
                             (41.3)      (58.7)
                             (39.6)      (52.3)     (46.2)

At work only                   308         550        858
                             (35.9)      (64.1)
                             (20.3)      (33.7)     (27.2)

At home only                   377         118        495
                             (76.2)      (23.8)
                             (24.8)       (7.2)     (15.7)

No access to the Internet      233         112        345
                             (67.5)      (32.5)
                             (15.3)       (6.9)     (10.9)

Total                         1519        1634       3153
                             (48.2)      (51.8)     (100.0)

Table 2
Use of Web sites for Class Information

Frequency         Employed P/T or F/T
(Row Pct)
(Col Pct)   Part time   Full time    Total

Yes            360         478        838
             (43.3)      (56.7)
             (23.6)      (28.1)      (26)

No            1184        1222       2406
             (49.1)      (50.9)
             (76.4)      (71.9)      (74)

Total         1544        1700       3244
             (47.6)      (52.4)     (100.0)

Table 3
Use of Web sites for classes by Discipline

                          Discipline

                                            Natural/
                                            Physical
         Business *       Humanities       Sciences *

        PT        FT     PT        FT     PT        FT

Yes     26        35     25        28     18        26
No      74        65     75        72     82        74

                 Discipline

        Occupational        Social
         Education        Sciences *

        PT        FT     PT        FT

Yes     23        22     21        27
No      77        78     79        73

Note. All numbers are column percentages.

* p [less than or equal to] .05.

Table 4
How Faculty Used Web sites

                                              Employed P/T or F/T

Specific Uses of Class Website               Part time   Full time

(1) Provide links to other information          81          81
(2) Class syllabus and general information      73          77
(3) Homework, assignments and readings          62          65
(4) Practice exams that need scoring            27          29
(5) Post exams or exam results                  23          23

Note. All cell numbers are percentages of faculty that use the
Web in the stated way.

Table 5
Use of E-mail to Communicate with Students

Frequency    Employed P/T or F/T
(Row Pct)
(Col Pct)   Part time   Full time    Total

Yes            542         825       1367
             (39.7)      (60.3)
             (34.4)      (48.1)     (41.5)

No            1036         890       1926
             (53.8)      (46.2)
             (65.7)      (51.9)     (58.5)

Total         1578        1715       3293
             (47.9)      (52.1)     (100.0)

Table 6
Use of Institutional Funds to Improve Teaching

Frequency    Employed P/T or F/T
(Row Pct)
(Col Pct)   Part time   Full time    Total

Yes            155         747        902
             (17.2)      (82.8)
             (10.0)      (43.9)     (27.8)

No            1389         953       2342
             (59.3)      (40.7)
             (90.0)      (56.1)     (72.2)

Total         1544        1700       3244
             (47.6)      (52.4)     (100.0)

References

Akroyd, D. (1999, April). Satisfaction and institutional support of full-time and part-time community college faculty: A national perspective. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association (Division J), Montreal, Canada.

Avakian, A. N. (1995). Conflicting demands for adjunct faculty. Community College Journal, 65, 34-36.

Buggey, T. J. (2000). Accommodating students with special needs in the on-line classroom. In R. E. Weiss, D. S. Knowlton, & B. W. Speck (Eds.), Principles of effective teaching in the on-line classroom (pp. 41-46). New Directions for Teaching and Learning, no. 84. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Gappa, J. M., & Leslie, D. W. (1993). The invisible faculty: Improving the status of part-timers in higher education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Green, J. (2000, October 23). The online education bubble. The American Prospect, 11. Retrieved August 4, 2003, from http://www.prospect.org/print/ V11/22/green-j.html

Lewis, L., Snow, K., Farris, E., and Levin, D. (1999). Distance education at postsecondary educational institutions: 1997-98 (NCES Publication No. 2000-013). Retrieved July 1, 2004, from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2000/ 2000013.pdf

Moe, M. T. (2002). Emerging trends in post secondary education: The view to 2012. Paper presented at the Education Industry Finance and Investment Summit "Driving Post-Secondary Education" conference, Washington, DC. Retrieved August 4, 2003, from http://www.usdla.org/html/whatsNew/ newsAlerts.htm

Monroe, C., & Denman, S. (1991). Assimilating adjunct faculty: Problems and opportunities. A CA Bulletin, 77, 56-62.

National Center for Educational Statistics (1997a). 1993 National Study of Postsecondary Faculty (NSOPF-93). Instructional faculty and staff in higher education institutions: Fall 1987 and fall 1992 (NCES Publication No. 97-470). Retrieved July 1, 2004, from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs97/97470.pdf

National Center for Educational Statistics. (1997b). 1993 National Study of Postsecondary Faculty (NSOPF-93). Retirement and other departure plans of instructional faculty and staff in higher education (NCES Publication No. 98-254). Retrieved July 1, 2004, from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs98/ 98254.pdf

National Center for Educational Statistics. (2001a). 1999 National Study of Postsecondary Faculty (NSOPF:99). Background characteristics, work activities, and compensation of faculty and instructional staff in postsecondary institutions: Fall 1998 (NCES Publication No. 2001-152). Retrieved July 1, 2004, from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2001/2001152.pdf

National Center for Educational Statistics. (2001b). National Study of Postsecondary Faculty NSOPF:99 public access data analysis system (DAS) [Data file on CD-ROM]. (NCES Publication No. 2001-203). Available from http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2001203

National Center for Educational Statistics. (2002a). 1999 National Study of Postsecondary Faculty (NSOPF:99). Methodology report (NCES Publication No. 2002-154). Retrieved July 1, 2004, from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2002/ 2002154.pdf

National Center for Educational Statistics. (2002b). Distance education instruction by postsecondary faculty: Fall 1998. (NCES Publication No. 2002-155). Retrieved July 1, 2004, from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2002/2002155.pdf

National Center for Educational Statistics. (2002c). The condition of education 2002. Indicator 38: Student participation in distance education (NCES Publication No. 2002-025). Retrieved October 1, 2003, from http:// nces.ed.gov//programs/coe/20021pdf/38_2002.pdf

National Center for Educational Statistics. (2003). Distance education at degree-granting postsecondary institutions: 2000-2001 (NCES Publication No. 2003-017). Retrieved July 1, 2004, from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2003/2003017.pdf

Roueche, J., Roueche, S., & Milliron, M. (1995). Strangers in their own land: Part-time faculty in American community colleges. Washington, DC: Community College Press.

Duane Akroyd is an associate professor of Higher Education and Director of Graduate Programs in the Department of Adult and Community College Education at North Carolina State University. [e-mail]

Audrey Jaeger is an assistant professor of Higher Education in the Department of Adult and Community College Education at North Carolina State University. [e-mail]

Melissa Jackowski is a doctoral candidate in the Department of Adult and Community College Education at North Carolina State University. [e-mail]

Logan C. Jones is a doctoral student in the Department of Adult and Community College Education at North Carolina State University. [e-mail]