1	Effects of Student’s Exposure to Full-time/Part-time Faculty on the First-year Retention Rate Paper Presented at the 2003 Mid-Western Educational Research Association Annual Meeting October 15-18, 2003 Columbus, Ohio Hasina Khanom Joe Jurczyk Cleveland State University
2	Summary This study presents an analysis of four years of enrollment data to determine whether there is a statistical relationship between freshman exposure to two levels of faculty status (part-time vs. full-time) and freshman retention (both one-semester and one-year retention). For a copy of the paper on which this presentation is based contact Hasina Khanom at h.khanom@csuohio.edu .
3	Introduction The Freshman year is perhaps the most critical time for undergraduate students in determining their future in higher education.
4	Introduction The stresses that such students typically face at this time can have detrimental consequences in academic performance and may lead to attrition. One important factor that may affect the dynamics of this condition is the role and type of instructors in a student’s classes. This is expected to have a substantial impact on student’s academic planning, their success in school, and their decision-making for the future.
5	Study Focus This study focuses on two concepts from an administrative perspective: Faculty status Student retention
6	Literature Review Retention factors can be classified into two categories (Beal and Noel, 1980): Student characteristics Environmental characteristics
7	Literature Review Student characteristics Includes such aspects as individual academic factors (e.g. high school performance, study habits) demographic factors (e.g. age, gender, race) financial factors (e.g. student need, loan eligibility status)
8	Literature Review Environmental characteristics Attributes of the institution such as the type of school (e.g. private versus public), curriculum, and support services offered. The quality and nature of the instruction.
9	Literature Review The Consortium for Student Retention Data Exchange (2001) found that the average one year retention rate for freshmen was 79.8% for schools participating in their voluntary research. The ACT further distinguishes the retention rates by institution types based on highest degree offered (Table 1).
10	Table 1 First Year Retention by Institution Type and Program Type
11	Literature Review Within the last decade, higher educational institutions have relied more on the use of non-tenured and part-time faculty to perform instructional duties (Schuster, 1998; Caison, 2002). The trend of using more part-time is a result of budgetary constraints, and a desire on the school’s part for increased staffing flexibility.
12	Literature Review Table 2 illustrates the growth from 1992 to 1998 by tenure and rank. (National Center for Educational Statistics.) Part-time faculty members spend 54% of their time teaching undergraduate students compared to only 44% for full-time members.
13	Table 2 Full-time and Part-time Instructional Faculty: Fall 1992 and Fall 1998
14	Literature Review Few studies focus on both student retention and faculty status. Schools would benefit from the understanding of whether or not the hiring of part-time faculty is really a solution for a short-term problem, often a financial one.
15	Research Questions Is there a relationship between faculty status and freshman retention? Specifically… Are students having full-time professors in their classes more likely to return the following semester than students with part-time faculty? Are students having full-time professors in their classes more likely to return the following year than students with part-time faculty?
16	Methodology Cohorts Student cohorts are defined as first-time, full-time, degree-seeking, undergraduate students There are approximately one thousand students in the cohort group each fall semester (See Table 3)
17	Table 3 Students in Cohort Group, 1999-2002
18	Methodology Demographic and enrollment data was collected for the cohort groups for the fall semesters between 1999 and 2002. Enrollment data was also collected for the following spring and fall semesters students in the cohort groups.
19	Methodology Included in this data was information on the number of classes taken by students and the faculty members who were teaching each course. Based on faculty demographic data, it was determined whether each course was taught by a full-time or part-time instructor.
20	Methodology The exposure of full-time part-time faculty for the fall-to-fall category was calculated as an average of fall and spring terms such that Exposure equals [(% of ft faculty in fall# of hours registered +% of ft faculty in spring# of hours registered)] / [Total Fall Hours +& Total Spring Hours]
21	Data Analysis and Results In order to analyze whether faculty status have any affect on student retention it was first determined the extent of FT-PT faculty exposure to which students had
22	Data Analysis and Results Table 4 shows a breakdown of students into groups based on percentage of credit hours taught by full-time faculty In other words, the higher the percentage, the more hours taught by full-time faculty and the lower the percentage, the more hours taught by part-time faculty
23	Table 4 Exposure of First-time Freshmen to Full-time Faculty in First (Fall) Semester (in Number)
24	Data Analysis and Results Table 5 shows the fall to spring retention rate for each of the four years between 1999 and 2002
25	Table 5 Fall to Spring Semester Retention Rate
26	Data Analysis and Results Table 6 shows that between 50% (Fall 2000) and 62% (Fall 2002) of all the freshmen had more than 75% of their first semester coursework taught by part-time faculty.
27	Table 6 Fall Cohort Retention Rates by Faculty Status of Fall Courses (in Percentage)
28	Data Analysis and Results A substantial 21% to 28% of freshmen took classes that were all taught by part-time faculty At the same time only 3-4% of freshman had at least 75% of their first semester courses taught by full-time faculty with only 1% to 2% of the freshmen class taught exclusively by full-time faculty
29	Data Analysis and Results As Table 7a shows with the exception of the highest level of 100% (which represents less than 2% of the cohort group each year) there are slight increases in the freshman spring retention rate as the percentage of full-time faculty increases Based on the data, the increases are not significant at .95 level for three of the four years (with the year 2000 as the lone exception) or for all four years (Table 7b)
30	Table 7a Exposure of First-time Freshmen to Full & Part-time Faculty in the First Semester and Fall to Spring Retention
31	Table 7b Relationship Between Faculty Status and Fall-to-Spring Retention – Pearson Correlation
32	Data Analysis and Results Calculations for the one-year retention were made in a similar manner to the one-semester retention The overall annual retention rate (fall-to-fall) for all four years is between 60% and 66% for each of the four years (Table 8) Because the period of measurement is longer (one year vs. one semester), the retention rate is lower than the fall-to-spring retention for all four years
33	Table 8 Fall to Fall Semester Retention Rate
34	Data Analysis and Results Tables 9 and 10 show that, for each of the four years being studied 38% to 43% of all the freshmen had between 25 and 50% of their coursework taught by part-time faculty during their first year While 36 to 43% of all freshmen had between none and 25% of their coursework were taught by part-time faculty during their first year, only 1% of the freshmen class were taught exclusively by full-time faculty
35	Table 9 Average (Fall & Spring) Exposure of First-time Freshmen to Full-time Faculty
36	Table 10 Fall Cohort Retention Rates by Faculty Status of Courses (in Percentage)
37	Data Analysis and Results As Table 11a shows, there are significant increases in the retention rate as the percentage of Full-Time Faculty increases Correlation data is presented in Table 11b
38	Table 11a Fall to Fall Cohort Retention Rates by Faculty Status of Courses (%)
39	Table 11b Relationship Between Faculty Status and Fall-to-Fall Retention – Pearson Correlation
40	Data Analysis and Results Overall the relationship between faculty status and student retention is stronger between the fall-to-fall period than for the fall-to-spring period
41	Data Analysis and Results This finding may be explained by the nature of cohort students: With the commitment of taking classes on a full-time basis, the cohort students may be more likely to endure a complete year of courses at the same place before making a decision to return to the institution
42	Future Areas of Research While this research concentrated on college freshman and the effect of full-time and part-time faculty on their academics, there are a number of other areas which would yield additional insight into the effect of faculty on student retention
43	Future Areas of Research While the freshman year is certainly the most critical year in the collegiate life of an undergraduate student, looking at other school years, as well as graduate and professional students could yield additional information
44	Future Areas of Research It would also be beneficial to analyze data at a departmental or college level. While this research compared full-time to part-time faculty, additional breakdowns of the members of these groups may generate additional insight.