A comparison of learning outcomes for dual-enrollment mathematics students taught by high school teachers versus college faculty.

Dual enrollment allows students to earn college credit while concurrently enrolled in high school. Transferability of the credit is key concern, as some institutions discriminate between credits earned in courses taught by college faculty and those taught by high school teachers. This study tracked students who enrolled in dual-enrollment mathematics courses during a five-year period at a large, multicampus community college in Florida and found that students who had high school teachers for dual-enrollment mathematics courses earned significantly (p<.01) better grades in subsequent coursework at the state universities than those taught by college faculty. Discussion of findings is included.

**********

Dual enrollment, an accelerated mechanism that allows high school students to enroll in college courses while concurrently enrolled in high school (Title XVI, Florida Statutes, 1999), is available in 47 states, 21 of which have comprehensive programs where the state subsidizes the tuition for the courses and students receive credit toward both college and high school graduation (Education Commission of the States, 2001). Considerably flexible by design, dual enrollment courses can be taught on high school or college campuses, by high school teachers or college faculty members, and may take place before, during, or after normal high school hours. Depending on local agreements, program logistics or statutes, such programs may also be called dual credit or concurrent enrollment; however, the basic premise of providing postsecondary enrollment options to high school students remains the same. Unlike those students enrolled in Advanced Placement (AP) courses, dual enrollment students do not need to take a test administered by an external source to qualify for the college credit. In AP courses "a tremendous premium is placed on one day's performance" (Harkins, 1998, p. 60). The awarding of credit through dual enrollment is based upon the entire course, "giving teachers many opportunities to evaluate learning" (p. 62).

Studies show that dual enrollment partnerships are beneficial to students, parents, high schools, and postsecondary institutions alike (Greenburg, 1989). Motivated students earn college credit in high school, parents realize substantial financial savings, high schools are able to offer courses that might otherwise not be available to students, and colleges gain access to some of the high schools' brightest students.

While the concept is simple, it is not without problems. The premise of dual enrollment programs has been that motivated high school students could build a transcript of college coursework "that would move students through the baccalaureate degree process quicker" (Windham, 1997, p. 9). However, from the start there has been "increasing concern about the willingness of colleges to accept the credit earned ..." (Wilbur & LaFay Jr., 1978, p. 23). "If students have to repeat the courses they took as dual enrollment students once they enroll at a university, then the acceleration aspect of dual enrollment is lost" (Windham, 1997, p. 10). If credits cannot be easily transferred, the intent of the program cannot be realized.

Generally, acceptance of credits earned through dual enrollment can only be guaranteed at the institution (or in the case of Florida, the state system) that offers the program. In fact, a primary limitation of dual enrollment continues to be transferability of credit. Greenburg (1989) found "There is no guarantee that credits will be accepted at other institutions" (p. 25). "The college credits earned by students ... are transferable only to the extent that other colleges are willing to accept them" (p. 29) and "... the transferability of the college credits earned by the high school students depends on the articulation the community college has been able to arrange with four-year institutions" (p. 36). Policymakers across the country are raising concerns, as some students are finding "concurrent enrollment credits earned while they were in high school will not transfer" (Boswell, 2001, p. 13).

As with any transfer credits, each institution evaluates and accepts credits in accordance with the institution's own policies. When it comes to dual enrollment credits, proponents see it as a win-win program (Mees, 1999) that "will significantly cut down the time and expense to an associate or baccalaureate degree" (Andrews, 2000, p. 16). The sentiment of many university officials, however, was summed up by Gary Ripple, Lafayette College's director of admissions. "We believe a college-level course should be offered on a college campus, taught by a college professor, with college students in the room. That's the fundamental reason we do not recognize some of these gypsy courses" (Reisberg, 1998, p. A40). Lafayette College is one of a number of private institutions that refuse to accept credits earned in dual enrollment courses taught by high school teachers.

Tulane University in Louisiana is an institution that clearly addresses in its student handbook the university's policy on dual enrollment credit earned in courses taught by high school teachers. The institution refuses to consider for credit "courses sponsored by a college or university but taught at high schools by high school teachers in classes composed primarily of high school students" (Tulane College Freshman Handbook, 2001, Appendix A, p.1). If a community college or university offers a dual enrollment program, the transfer credits will only be accepted at Tulane if "the courses were taught by faculty of that college/university" (p. 1).

Decisions about transferability of credit based purely upon who teaches the course places no value on actual learning. Gerald S. Edmonds, associate director of Syracuse University's Project Advance, says critics of dual enrollment taught by high school teachers "don't understand the research and training" that underlie the program (Reisberg, 1998, p. A40). The possibility that a qualified high school teacher might provide an exceptional learning experience is overlooked. Course content and outcomes become irrelevant.

High school teachers who teach college-level dual enrollment courses for accredited postsecondary institutions must meet the teaching credentials established by the regional accreditation agency, thus giving them adjunct faculty status (Commission on Colleges, 1999). While adjunct faculty have for years been treated as "the academic underclass" (Benjet & Loweth, 1989, p. 40), dual enrollment faculty are often a far more controversial kind of adjunct faculty, especially if their primary employer is a high school.

Literature Review

The Carnegie Commission (1971) suggested the need for structural changes in the United States system of higher education. Ideas such as omitting one of the high school or college years, creating a three-year bachelor's program, and awarding college credit for senior high school work were all included in the commission's report. In 1971, a national survey of curriculum articulation between schools and colleges found excessive overlap of material in high school and college (Blanchard, 1971), suggesting a waste of time and money. Such reports emphasized the need for partnerships that would provide for less repetition and smoother transition from high school to college.

By the late 1970s, dual enrollment partnerships had emerged throughout the United States as a means of providing opportunities for motivated, academically prepared high school students to begin their college careers. In Florida, dual enrollment was provided for by statute in 1979, giving Florida high school students who met specific criteria the right to proceed to college-level coursework at no cost.

As new programs emerged, the need grew for instructors to teach college-level courses to high school students. Adjunct faculty, long recognized for increasing institutional flexibility (Lankard, 1993; McGuire, 1993; Osborn, 1990), filled the need. Logistics such as scheduling and transportation, as well as the youthful age of program participants, made taking dual enrollment courses at the high school campuses "without leaving the familiarity of their surroundings" (Reisberg, 1998, p. A40) extremely attractive. Often large dual enrollment programs such as Syracuse University's Project Advance utilized high school teachers exclusively in their programs (Greenburg, 1989). These high school teachers, often simultaneously teaching at community colleges or universities in the evening, provided the same service to dual enrollment programs that adjuncts provided to higher education in general.

With the growing popularity of dual enrollment, researchers throughout the United States began to report on the effectiveness of such programs. Studies repeatedly have shown positive outcomes with dual enrollment programs (Boyer, 1981; Brown, 1993; Legg, 1993; Washington State Board for Community and Technical Colleges, 1995; Windham, 1997; Chatman & Smith, 1998; Clayton, 1999). The researchers have found former dual enrollment students performed equally as well as regular college students in subsequent coursework and, once in college, maintained as high or higher grade point averages as all other transfer students.

Yet dual enrollment programs everywhere continue to come "under attack" (Reisberg, 1998, p. A40) when it comes to who teaches the courses. This information, however, should not come as a surprise to the higher education community. It has been a source of controversy for decades (Rifkin, 1998). Faculty and administrators often perceive nontenured faculty in a negative light (Banachowski, 1996). Adjunct faculty have been referred to as "a corps of unregulated personnel" (The National Education Association in McGuire, 1993, p.2), "gypsy scholars"(Reed, 1985, p. 41), and as "a necessary evil" and a "cheap fix" (McGuire, 1993, p. 2).

Yet for all the negative perceptions of adjunct faculty, there is a limited amount of data to substantiate such claims (Banchowski, 1996). In fact, studies repeatedly have shown positive outcomes with adjunct faculty (Clark, 1990; Iadevaia, 1991; Davis, DeFilippis, & Ghaffari-Samai, 1994; Bolge, 1995). In each case the researchers found no significant differences in learning between students taught by adjuncts and those taught by full-time faculty. Additionally, researchers found no difference between full-time and adjunct faculty in professional characteristics such as degree of professionalism, quality of work, and student preference (Sworder, 1987; Banochowski, 1996; Rifkin, 1998).

There is, however, a very specific group of adjunct faculty that has yet to be adequately studied -- high school teachers. The learning outcomes for dual enrollment students taught by high school teachers need to be compared to the outcomes of dual enrollment students taught by regular college faculty. A difference in outcomes might justify a difference in transferability of credit. Similar outcomes, however, would support the need for equitable transfer policies.

Therefore, two hypotheses are proposed concerning the learning outcomes for dual enrollment students taught by high school teachers versus college faculty. They are the following:

1. There is no statistically significant difference in the learning outcomes for dual enrollment students taught by high school teachers and those taught by college faculty as measured by students' success (grades) in subsequent college coursework for which the dual enrollment course should have prepared them.

2. There is no statistically significant difference between the distribution of course grades of dual enrollment students taught by high school teachers and those taught by college faculty in the grades earned in subsequent college coursework for which the dual enrollment course should have prepared them.

Method

This study examines learning outcomes for students who enrolled in dual enrollment mathematics courses during a five-year period at a large multicampus community college in Florida. Two groups were followed in the study: one containing subjects who had high school teachers as instructors for college-level dual enrollment mathematics courses and the other who had college faculty as instructors for college-level dual enrollment mathematics courses. The study is retrospective in that all subjects have completed high school as well as subsequent mathematics coursework at one of Florida's 10 state universities. Existing data determined whether the treatment (who taught the dual enrollment courses) made a significant difference in outcomes regarding subsequent coursework in mathematics.

Among the disciplines offered through dual enrollment with the participating community college, mathematics offers the greatest opportunity to compare learning outcomes of students taught by college faculty with those taught by high school teachers. Each year there are numerous sections of mathematics courses taught through dual enrollment at the community college's district high schools. Both high school teachers and college faculty are utilized equally in these courses. This similar allocation of high school teachers and college faculty among the dual enrollment mathematics courses provided for adequate numbers of subjects in each group.

Comparison groups in a quasi-experimental study such as this are considered nonequivalent groups because they are not formed by random assignment. There exists, however, a reasonable basis for comparison of the two groups in this study. Specifically, dual enrollment participants in Florida must have a cumulative unweighted high school grade point average (GPA) of 3.0. Additionally, students in college-credit mathematics courses must demonstrate adequate precollegiate preparation on a basic computational skills assessment (SAT, ACT, or CPT) before being permitted to enroll. These prerequisites assure that students placed in dual enrollment mathematics courses are academically prepared for the material being covered. Both groups in the study, therefore, have similar academic credentials. Finally, regardless of who teaches a college-credit mathematics course for the community college, the approved course outline must be used, as Florida's common course numbering system demands uniformity. These outlines set the minimum competencies necessary for satisfactory performance in the course. Thus, students successfully completing dual enrollment mathematics courses meet the same entrance and exit criteria regardless of the instructor's status as college faculty member or high school teacher.

Limitations

There are several limiting factors that the writer has identified that may be of significance here. The first limitation is that only dual enrollment students that continued their education at one of the 10 state universities in Florida will be tracked in this study. Realistically, this will encompass the vast majority of this community college's dual enrollment students. Those dual enrollment students that continued their education at private universities within Florida or public or private universities outside the state will not be included in the study. This could potentially eliminate some of the brightest students from the sample (those attending highly selective institutions). Furthermore, there is no way of determining if these students will be eliminated in equal numbers from both groups.

A second limiting factor is the amount of training or experience the instructors (both high school teachers and college faculty) possess. Since the study focuses on all sections of mathematics during a five-year period, there is apt to be considerable variance among instructors in this area. All instructors in the study, however, do meet the minimum requirements set forth by the regional accreditation agency, and thus meet the criteria for adjunct faculty status at the community college. Additionally, universities do not typically consider the experience of the instructor when evaluating transfer credits.

Definitions

Some of the terms used throughout this study are either unique to high school and college partnerships or are used in a unique way in the study. Those terms are defined by the writer for the purpose of this study as follows:

1. Adjunct faculty are college instructors who do not hold full-time positions at the college or university. They are generally employed on a "per course" basis. Adjunct faculty must meet the teaching credentials established by the regional accreditation agency for the college at which they teach.

2. College-level instruction is coursework that, upon successful completion, earns a student college credit. For the purpose of this study, dual enrollment courses are always college-level instruction.

3. Dual enrollment is a partnership between high schools and colleges that allows high school students to enroll in college courses while concurrently enrolled in high school. Students receive credit toward a high school diploma and a college degree for dual enrollment courses as provided in the institutions' articulation agreement.

4. Outcome, for the purpose of this study, is the measurable learning attributed to a dual enrollment course as measured by grade point averages in subsequent coursework the student attempts in the discipline (mathematics) after high school graduation.

5. Subsequent Coursework, for the purpose of this study, is defined as the first mathematics course attempted after high school graduation (for students successfully completing at least one dual enrollment mathematics course while in high school).

Subjects

The sample used in this study includes all dual enrollment students at the participating community college who satisfactorily completed (with a grade of C or better) a college-credit mathematics course during the designated five-year period. Only dual enrollment mathematics courses taught on high school campuses are included in the study. The five-year period includes fall and spring terms beginning with fall 1994 and ending with spring 1999. Dual enrollment courses were not offered during the summer terms at the district high schools; therefore, no summer terms are included in the study.

Each student in the sample was assigned to either Group A or Group B based solely upon whether his or her dual enrollment mathematics course was taught by a high school teacher (Group A) or a college faculty member (Group B). There were 1,833 students identified as having taken a dual enrollment mathematics course through the participating community college during the five-year period of the study. Group A contained 920 students; Group B contained 913 students.

Variables

The independent variable in this study is the instructor in the dual enrollment mathematics course. The two levels or conditions of the treatment are "high school teacher" and "college faculty member." The dependent variable in this study is the learning outcomes. Learning outcomes in the dual enrollment courses were determined by grades earned in the first mathematics course taken after high school graduation by students continuing their education at any one of the 10 state universities in Florida. Another variable considered in the analysis is the university attended after high school graduation. Demographic information is looked at as well, permitting for the examination of any unforeseen trends regarding race, particular institutions, or gender.

Procedures

The community college's student database was the resource used to identify the students who enrolled in mathematics courses as dual enrollment students during the terms being studied (fall 1994, spring 1995, fall 1995, spring 1996, fall 1996, spring 1997, fall 1997, spring 1998, fall 1998, and spring 1999). Permission was obtained from the Florida Department of Education, Division of Community Colleges, to utilize the database for this study. Social security numbers identified students in the database although no student was individually identified nor were any students' individual grades reported in the study.

The student database also flags the dual enrollment instructors as either college faculty or high school teachers. This flag was used to divide the sample into two groups: Group A (dual enrollment mathematics students taught by a high school teacher) and Group B (dual enrollment mathematics students taught by a college faculty member).

Existing data contained in the State University System Student Data Course File (SDCF) in Florida provided system-level data for the dual enrollment students that continued their postsecondary education at one of Florida's 10 state universities. The State University System permitted the use of the data for the purposes intended in this study. Access to this statewide database allowed for the tracking of large numbers of dual enrollment students after high school graduation.

The social security numbers for students in Group A and Group B were run against the SDCF for enrollment (after the students' high school graduation dates) in subsequent mathematics courses with course prefixes of MAA, MAC, MAD, MAP, MAS, MAT, MGF, MTG, or STA. Grades for the first mathematics course taken after high school graduation were used in the analysis.

Statistical Analysis

The first research hypothesis states that there is no statistically significant difference at the .05 level between the mean course grades of dual enrollment students taught by high school teachers and those taught by college faculty in subsequent college mathematics courses after high school graduation.

Using a t test to examine the mean course grades of the two groups, a significant difference was found between the learning outcomes of Group A and Group B. Those students who had high school teachers for their dual enrollment mathematics coursework (Group A) had significantly higher grades in subsequent coursework at the universities than those students who had college faculty for dual enrollment mathematics coursework (Group B). This difference is significant at the .01 level (see Table 1). The trend of higher grades for students in Group A as compared to Group B holds true at each of the state universities the former dual enrollment students attended. The specific university a student attended was not a factor in the outcomes. In a three way analysis of variance (by group, by race, by sex), there was no interaction among the three variables. However, across the board, females had significantly higher GPA's than males, regardless of group or ethnicity.

The second research hypothesis states that there is no statistically significant difference at the .05 level between the distribution of course grades of dual enrollment students taught by high school teachers and those taught by college faculty in the grades earned in subsequent college mathematics courses after high school graduation.

Using a chi-square analysis to compare the distribution of subsequent course grades, a significant difference in the distribution of grades for Group A and Group B was found. Those students who had high school teachers for dual enrollment coursework (Group A) had significantly more high grades (A's and B's) than expected. Those students who had college faculty for dual enrollment coursework (Group B) had significantly more low grades (D's and F's) than expected. This difference is significant at the .05 level (see Table 2).

Summary of Findings

Of the 1,833 students identified as having taken a dual enrollment mathematics course during the five-year period studied, 754 students were found to have taken subsequent coursework in mathematics at one of Florida's 10 state universities as of spring 2000. The students were tracked to 9 of the 10 state universities in Florida. The vast majority (87.53%) of the students enrolled in subsequent coursework at one of three institutions: Central Florida (UCF), Florida (UF), or Florida State (FSU). In the analysis of the entire sample, 54 students withdrew from the subsequent mathematics courses, leaving 700 students who received grades utilized in the calculation of a GPA. Students in Group A (dual enrollment taught by high school teachers) earned significantly better grades in subsequent coursework in mathematics after high school graduation than students in Group B and received more high grades (A's and B's) in the subsequent coursework than expected. The trend held true regardless of the university attended or the gender or ethnicity of the students.

Conclusions

This study hypothesized that there would be no difference in outcomes for dual enrollment students taught by high school teachers versus those taught by college faculty. The intent was to provide evidence upon which policy decisions concerning the transferability of dual enrollment credit could begin to be made. What was demonstrated was that the learning outcomes produced by high school teachers were actually superior. Dual enrollment students taught by high school teachers were better prepared for subsequent coursework at the university level than were those taught by college faculty.

Considerations

High school classes are typically scheduled for two times as many contact minutes as college courses. When college faculty in this study traveled to a high school to teach a dual enrollment course, they taught for the number of minutes prescribed by the college (ie., a 3 credit course meets for 3 hours per week). When high school teachers teach dual enrollment classes, they typically meet as prescribed by the high school schedule. Therefore students in this study that were taught by high school teachers typically had two times the exposure to the material, allowing for better mastery.

Secondly, high school teachers may have a decided advantage when teaching dual enrollment courses on a high school campus. They are familiar and at ease with the high school culture. The somewhat chaotic atmosphere of a high school (interruptions, announcements, discipline concerns) is not new or overly troubling to the experienced high school teacher. College faculty are rarely expected to cope with such an environment.

A third consideration is the very different perceptions of teaching dual enrollment for high school teachers versus college faculty. For high school teachers, teaching a dual enrollment course is prestigious and a perk of seniority and experience. These are teachers with advanced degrees and outstanding reputations at their schools. The classes are made up of motivated, often academically gifted, students. For the most part, these are classes of better behaved young people, eager to learn, that make teaching pleasurable. Often teachers receive additional compensation for teaching the dual enrollment classes.

In contrast, college faculty who are assigned a class at a high school might perceive it as anything but prestigious. If the least senior, and therefore, least experienced faculty are "stuck" with the dual enrollment classes, it could explain why the experience may not be the best possible one for students. Dual enrollment classes require extra hours for the college faculty member due to travel and a schedule that is incompatible with that of the college. Even if additional compensation is provided, it may not outweigh the inconvenience.

Finally, high school teachers who teach dual enrollment classes may have an educational advantage over college faculty. While college faculty are considered experts in their field, possessing a minimum of a masters degree in the discipline, often high school teachers have an additional credential. Most high school teachers, in addition to the masters degree in the discipline, have a degree in education. Unlike many college faculty, most high school teachers have a background in such things as learning styles, teaching techniques, developmental stages, and assessment and evaluation. This additional background may prove extremely beneficial in teaching high school students college-level coursework.

Implications

The findings of this study provide a first look at outcomes of the use of high school teachers versus college faculty in dual enrollment classes. It is reasonable to suggest, based on the findings here, that those students denied transfer credit at universities based solely upon who taught their dual enrollment classes, may have been victims of institutional policies. Further research that includes other academic disciplines, as well as dual enrollment programs sponsored by private colleges and large four-year institutions, is needed. Such research may show a trend that will provide colleges and universities a basis upon which equitable transfer policies can be made. The implications are widespread. Students, parents, and institutions will benefit from such policies. The benefits will include savings in time and money. As students learn that their dual enrollment credits will easily transfer, the demand for dual enrollment and thus the overall academic preparedness of high school graduates will increase.

Recommendations

Much like adjuncts in general, high school teachers will probably continue to be regarded as inferior college instructors. This lower regard is evidenced, in part, by transfer policies that discriminate between dual enrollment credits earned in classes taught by high school teachers and those taught by college faculty. However, research has repeatedly shown the negative perception of adjuncts to be widely without merit (Banchowski, 1996; Clark, 1990; Iadevaia, 1991; Davis, DeFilippis, & Ghaffari-Samai, 1994; Bolge, 1995). High school teachers, as a special set of adjunct faculty, need similar studies to support their case. As research on the use of high school teachers in college-level courses expands to include many disciplines, venues, and formats, the concerns and preconceived notions of policymakers can begin to be answered on the basis of these studies. Those who continue to argue that college classes should be taught on a college campus with college faculty and other college students in the classroom may begin to realize that dual enrollment is not intended to provide a college experience; it is intended to provide college-level content to academically prepared high school students.

Table 1

Mean Grades of Former Dual Enrollment Mathematics Students in
Subsequent Coursework in Mathematics

                                    Standard       Standard
Group                 N    [bar]X   deviation   error of measure

A (High School
Teachers for DE)     345   2.7261    1.1284          0.0607

B (College Faculty   355   2.4773    1.2983          0.0689
for DE)

A-B (Difference) *         .2488     1.2175          0.092

* Note. t=2.71, critical value of t=1.960 at p<.05 (critical value
of t=2.576 at p<.01) in two-tailed test. There is a significant
difference between the mean grades of the two groups.
Table 2

Distribution of Grades of Former Dual Enrollment Mathematics Students
in Subsequent Coursework in Mathematics

                               Grade

Group               A       B       C        D

Group A
(H.S. Teacher
for DE)

  Observed         93      118      84       30
  Expected        90.26   111.2   81.782   34.907

Group B
(College
Faculty for DE)

  Observed         88      105      80       40
  Expected        90.74   111.8   82.218   35.093

Total              181     223     164       70

                           Grade

Group               F        W      Total

Group A
(H.S. Teacher
for DE)

  Observed          20       31
                                     378
  Expected        30.918   26.928

Group B
(College
Faculty for DE)

  Observed          42       23
                                     376
  Expected        31.082   27.072

Total               62       54      754

* Note. [chi square] = 11.4085, the critical value of
[chi square]=11.070, df5, p<.05. There is significant
difference in the distribution of grades for the two
groups using the chi-square statistic.

References

Andrews, H.A. (2000). The dual-credit explosion at Illinois' community colleges. Community College Journal, December 2000/January 2001, 12-16.

Articulated Acceleration, Title XVI. Chapter 240.116, (2)(a)1, FL. Stat. (1999).

Banachowski, G. (1996). Perspectives and perceptions: A review of the literature on the use of part-time faculty in community colleges. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 398 943).

Benjet, R.G., & Loweth, M. (1989). A perspective on the academic underclass, the part-timers. Teaching English in the Two-Year College, 16(1), 40-42.

Blanchard, B.E. (1971). A national survey of curriculum articulation between the college of liberal arts and the secondary school. Chicago: DePaul University.

Bolge, R.D. (1995). Examination of student learning as a function of instructor status (full-time versus part-time) at Mercer County Community College. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 382 241).

Boswell, K. (2001). State policy and postsecondary enrollment options: Creating seamless systems. In P.F. Robertson, B.G. Chapman, and F. Gaskin (Eds.) Systems for offering concurrent enrollment at high schools and community colleges (pp. 7-14). New Directions for Community Colleges, No. 113. San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass.

Boyer, E.L. (1981). High school/college partnerships that work Current Issues in Higher Education, 1, 1-4.

Brown, J.L. (1993). The high school partnership program at Kansas City Kansas Community College. Paper presented at the Annual International Conference of the National Institute for Staff and Organizational Development on Teaching Excellence and Conference Administrators, Austin, TX.

Carnegie Commission on Higher Education. (1971). Continuity and discontinuity: Higher education and the schools (pp. 93-98). In Mayhew, L.B. (Ed.), The Carnegie Commission on Higher Education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Chatman S., & Smith, K. (1998, April). Dual-credit preparation for further study in foreign languages. NASSP Bulletin, 82 (597), 99-107.

Clark, B.A. (1990). Comparison of the achievement of students taught by full-time versus adjunct faculty in the chemistry of hazardous materials course: Governance and management. Unpublished Ed.D. Practicum. Fort Lauderdale, FL: Nova Southern University.

Clayton, M. (1999, February 2). After-school activity? Try college. Christian Science Monitor, 91 (46), 15-21.

Commission on Colleges. (1999). Criteria for accreditation. Decatur, GA: Southern Association of Colleges and Schools.

Davis, J.D., DeFilippis, D.C., & Ghaffari-Samai, P. (1994, April). The relationship of student ratings, faculty status and student writing performance. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.

Education Commission of the States. (2001, July). Postsecondary options: Concurrent/dual enrollment. ECS StateNote: Enrollment. Denver, CO: ECS Clearinghouse.

Greenburg, A.R. (1989). Concurrent enrollment programs: College credit for high school students. Bloomington: Phi Delta Kappa Education Foundation.

Harkins, S.C. (1998). Concurrent enrollment partnerships: Structure, relationships, and success elements of programs offering college courses at the high school taught by the high school teacher. (Doctoral Dissertation, University of Pittsburgh, 1998). Proquest Digital Dissertations, AAT9837579.

Iadevaia, D.G. (1991). A comparison of full-time to part-time faculty and full-time to part-time science faculty in terms of student success at Pima Community College. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 339 403).

Lankard, B.A. (1993). Part-time faculty in adult and vocational education. Columbus, OH: ERIC Clearinghouse on Adult, Career, and Vocational Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED363 797).

Legg, S. (1993). Utilization of accelerated credit. University of Florida research report. Gainesville, FL: Office of Instructional Resources, University of Florida.

McGuire, J. (1993). Part-time faculty: Partners in excellence. Leadership Abstracts, 6(6), 1-3 (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 367 429).

Mees, R. (1999). Dual-credit courses: Survey information from selected community colleges in Illinois. John A. Logan College: Carterville, IL.

Osborn, R. (1990). Part-time faculty development. What do we know and what can we use? Community Services Catalyst, 20(2), 17-21.

Reed, S. (1985, August 18). The troubled faculty. New York Times Education Summer Survey, 41-42.

Reisberg, L. (1998, June 26). Some professors question programs that allow high-school students to earn college credits: Proliferation of dual enrollment and increase in advanced placement raise doubts about rigor. The Chronicle of Higher Education, pp. A39-A40.

Rifkin, T. (1998, April). Differences between the professional attitudes of full- and part-time faculty. Paper presented at the American Association of Community Colleges Convention, Miami, FL.

Sworder, S. (1987). Determination of the effect of an instructor's employment status (full-time or part-time) on the decision of students to enroll. (Ed.D. Practicum, Nova University). (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 277 408).

Tulane College Freshman Handbook. (2001). Online documents: Tulane University. (Appendix A). Retreived, September 14, 2001, from the World Wide Web: www.tulane.edu.

Washington State Board for Community and Technical Colleges. (1995). 1993-1994 Running start: A progress report to the 1995 legislature. Washington Office of the State Superintendent of Public Instruction, Olympia, WA.

Wilbur, F.P., & LaFay, J.W. (1978). High school and community college dual enrollment: Issues of rigor and transferability. Tallahassee. Florida State Board of Community Colleges. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 413 936).

Laura Hebert is the director of College Transition Programs at Valencia Community College in Orlando, Florida. [e-mail]