This Project Was Funded by a Macquarie University Learning and Teaching Grant

This project was funded by a Macquarie University Learning and Teaching Grant

This report brings together findings from activities undertaken in fulfillment of the Adjunct Needs Evaluation Grant project 2007/8. A description of the Grant’s purpose, aims, and method is given below. The main findings are summarised and recommendations made for addressing the issues.

The report methodology is based on a qualitative and exploratory approach, and as such care has been taken to reduce design weaknesses associated with this type of research. This was done by using a range of strategies. Sampling bias was addressed by attempting to select a diverse and representative subject pool for interviews. A range of structured and semi-structured question formats were used and careful scrutiny of recording and reporting was undertaken. In addition, interviewer training and on-going consultation with the lead researcher was undertaken to reduce biased reporting. The findings provide an insight into the issues of concern to adjuncts as well as some ideas and options on how these might be addressed.

One of the challenges in undertaking the project was striking a balance between reporting issues and themes based on the number of times a comment was repeated by a single subject and the number of times it is raised by multiple subjects. In reporting on interviews, the goal has been to capture major issues and themes that represent majority responses, while giving voice to unique minority responses in a balanced way. In the report below, the five main questions of interest are listed and findings have been reported under each of these questions. The issues are then clustered under themes and aligned with recommendations across areas of functional and operational responsibility.

THE GRANT

The Grant’s purpose was to assess the needs of, and suggestions from, MGSM adjuncts. MGSM has become increasingly reliant on adjuncts for delivery of not only elective but also core units in MGSM’s programs. Furthermore, changes in MGSM’s organisational structure has meant that adjuncts are often operating without direct supervision from anyone with expertise in their subject area, and there is no-one review of adjunct-taught courses for coherence or consistency with other courses within the discipline. These and other changes have led to a need to identify, understand and manage the adjunct experience more effectively and efficiently. The review also aims to provide insight into what MGSM does well, and where MGSM can improve itself by learning from competitors.

The main aims of the project were therefore to ascertain:

1. Adjuncts’ views about MGSM teaching;
2. How MGSM teaching could be made more effective and/or more efficient;
3. What adjuncts see as the greatest challenges in their role;
4. What adjuncts would like to see done to support them in their role and
5. Adjuncts’ views about what MGSM can learn from its competitors.

Method

Data collection was primarily based on face to face semi-structured interviews, with the exception of adjuncts located overseas, who were interviewed by phone. As the project progressed, however, time and funding constraints led to the use of survey style questionnaires sent out by email. This reduced travel time and costs and also reduced the complexity of coordinating meeting times and locations suitable to the interviewee and interviewer, since travel costs were not funded in the grant. A full list of the questions asked to interviewees, summarized transcripts of interviews and questionnaire responses are included in the appendix. Names have been removed from interview transcripts to preserve respondent confidentiality.

All interviews were conducted by a research assistant, after discussion with Suzan Burton, Associate Dean of Learning and Teaching at the commencement of the project. The research assistant developed the first draft of this report, which was then developed in collaboration with Suzan Burton.

Since recording and transcription were not included in the budget, transcripts are based on the interviewer’s notes taken during the session. In transcribing interviews, care was taken to accurately convey what was reported by the interviewee. Direct quotations have thus been drawn directly from interview transcripts with only minor editing for the purpose of abridging conversational to written language.

Subject selection

The first step in selecting adjunct subjects was to identify those adjuncts that had had current or recent experience working for MGSM. A list was obtained from organization resources staff, with priority given for interviews to adjuncts who were currently working for MGSM, and who were not ex-faculty. Next priority for interviews was adjuncts who had recently worked for MGSM, but who were not currently working for MGSM, and final (lowest) priority was given to adjuncts who had previously been on faculty.

Participants

43 adjuncts was approached to participate, and a total of 16 respondents achieved, giving a response rate of 37%.

Participant Teaching Load

The average number of units taught per year by adjuncts was 4, with a maximum of 10 units taught in a single year. (This information has been extracted from subject responses. For detailed information see appendix)

Participant Teaching Locations

The percentage of adjuncts teaching at MGSM’s various campus locations is shown below. Most adjuncts (95%) had taught at North Ryde, followed by CBD (70%), Hong Kong (55%) and Singapore (30%).

Participant Commencement at MGSM

The longest serving adjunct commenced in 1992 and thus has been associated with MGSM for 16 years. The modal year of commencement for the sample was 2008, reflecting 3 adjuncts commencing in the current year. The average number of years adjuncts have been associated with MGSM was 6 years.

Responses to main questions

1. Adjuncts views about teaching at MGSM

Overall, adjuncts appear to enjoy working at MGSM and preferred it to other institutions. Some mentioned that they would not consider working for other institutions. A number mentioned the ‘status’ associated with the School. The type of students MGSM attracts is viewed was generally seen as a positive feature of the teaching environment, while also presenting challenges.

‘MGSM students are interested in learning’,

‘MGSM students are stimulating to teach’,

‘MGSM students are highly engaged’,

‘MGSM students are challenging to teach’.

When asked about what has gone well in their teaching, there were a range of response typified by the quotes below;

‘There are good support resources, facility and class composition’,

‘There is good support from student services administration’,

‘In Australia the facilities are very good’,

‘The assignment of a staff officer as a point of contact for printing, and web services is a very good system’,

‘Excellent teaching environment, a really rewarding experience’,

‘People in organisation resources are always very good, I can’t speak highly enough of them, my materials are always on time’,

‘Location, facilities and support are all excellent, a thoroughly enjoyable place to work’,

‘The program is well organised, adjuncts are given some latitude to change topic to focus on areas of expertise and move topics around’,

‘Everything is really fine, competent, administration is commendable’.

Adjuncts also identified some points for improvement and areas of weakness;

‘I would suggest MGSM have a forum or discussion with the subject stream leader to coordinate better’,

‘It would be helpful if adjuncts felt that they were valued and not dispensable’,

‘I have taught at AGSM and MGSM, the big difference is involvement in academic administration and politics. There we had meetings every two weeks, where we were informed about what’s happening which was a plus, however the time commitment was a minus’,

‘I had technology problems for 8 weeks, the IT didn’t work …and I think it resulted in poor student feedback, I am not sure from whom I should seek advice’,

‘This was my first unit, the experience was quite daunting I quickly realised that I had little idea about the standard and expectations of MGSM and the students’.

Overall positive comments focused on MGSM’s students, teaching facilities and student administration. Negative comments focused on recognition, communication, particularly in terms of being valued, getting feedback and having a collegial type forum. Other issues include; dealing with technology problems and concern about the possibility of a flow on effect generating negative student feedback. Also mentioned was having someone with whom to discuss academic and student issueswith as well as general teaching and administrative issues. Adjuncts would like a more comprehensive guide to MGSM’s teaching standards and student expectationsprior to starting to help them adjust and pitch the content to desired level.

(Information extracted from subject responses. For more detailed information see appendix)

2. How MGSM could be made more effective and or efficient

Adjuncts provided a range of suggestions for better meeting their needs. The following areas include points for improvement across a number of categories; academic and teaching, communication, administration, information technology, timetabling, legal and contract, SETS and performance feedback, induction and orientation.

Academic and Teaching suggestions

Suggestions from adjuncts covered a range of issues, including;

‘Improved access to the library and better coordination of contracts to ensure library access is extended and one doesn’t get library privileges cut off, or email and other university services stop without warning’.

One adjunct mentioned that they;

‘Had the experience of being ‘dropped off’ the system and didn’t receive emails sent from students via the MQ email system’.

Another adjunct asked for,

‘asupport pack of course materials and to have research passed on, also support for finding new articles, DVDs, websites, and YouTube sites that would complement what I teach’.

And yet another mentioned that

‘I receive no help with the resourcing of unit materials’.

A number of comments pertained to desiring greater contact and communication with MGSM, especially by using a variety of means including technology aided methods.

Comments included;

‘There is not a high level of interaction between teaching staff for example through academic meetings and professional development sessions’,

‘There is a fair amount of flexibility, you are able to ‘do your own thing’,

‘There is little input from the discipline convenor regarding the program outcomes and parameters for content’,

‘I would like increased use ofcase based teaching and make continuous improvements on course content, format,and assignments’,

‘there is a need to ensure all lecturers have the same subject format to ensure consistency’,

‘More coordination of adjuncts and course structure is needed to achieve consistent course coordination’,

‘I would like more liaisonswith other lecturers and discipline convenor to ensure consistency of quality’.

Some miscellaneous points included;

‘Students are let through with poor English’,

‘Everything is geared to dumbing down the system’,

‘I would like more freedom’,

‘I like MGSM in that it is light on obligations’,

‘I like the bureaucracy to be minimal’.

Timetabling comments revolved around being given more notice and regular teaching.

‘It would be good if the timetabling was complete months in advance’,

‘If timetables were complete well in advance it would to allow me to get it booked in the diary and be available’,

‘More advanced warning of the teaching schedule would be desirable’,

‘I am disappointed that there has been no offer of teaching for awhile’,

‘I have not been given regular teaching, adjuncts are at a disadvantage when they are not given regular teaching’.

Other timetabling issues include the suggestion that class sizesshould be kept small,

‘A class size of around 25 – 30 is ideal, 50 – 60 is too large for postgraduate education, you need to be able to get to know the students and interact closely with them’.

Guest Lecturers

Adjuncts indicated they would like to bring guest lecturers into the class to broaden the knowledge base and discussion. Comments included;

‘There seems to bea lack of infrastructure, processes, policy with regards to supporting guest lecturers to our classes’,

‘It would be good if MGSM could make available small gifts, for example, bottle of wine, some memento such as a pen with the MGSM logo, for guest speakers’.

‘Guest speakers bring valuable practical experience to the classes’.

SETS & feedback issues raised by adjuncts

‘I am concerned about the influence of SETs, particularly regarding ongoing work’,

'I am concerned about the lack of feedback’,

‘There are really no standards except for the SETS evaluations. Teachers could make it really easy for students and no one would complain so long as they get good marks’,

‘There was student dissatisfaction arising from perceived workload differences across classes in the same unit as well as different exams for the same unit. This caused difficulties and I think it might be reflected in the SETS’,

‘The importance of the SETS is a sad thing especially if a lower SETS results in less or no work’,

‘You get no feedback on your teaching’.

The perceived value of adjuncts by MGSM was a concern. Adjuncts mentioned that;

‘It would be helpful if adjuncts felt they were valued and not dispensable’,

‘Treating adjuncts as second class citizens is a problem’,

‘Respecting the different skill set and experience adjuncts bring to the classroom would be appreciated’,

‘It is becoming a diminishing proposition for adjuncts as they are now called ‘casual teachers’ and more and more privileges have been taken away for example, parking and invitations to meetings and events’.

A miscellaneous comment by one adjunct who was doing a DBA and who wanted greater interaction with the research faculty members, mentioned that;

‘There was no incentive to publish’.

Satisfaction with the status quo was reflected in comments by two adjuncts,

‘I want nothing more from MGSM’ and ‘I ama contented adjunct’.

Communication points for improvement covered;

‘I would like a consistent point of contact via the website’,

‘I would like more collegiality and academic interaction, for example, a couple of weeks ago,at another institution, I attended a great presentation on new technology, it would be great to do this on a regular coordinated basis’,

‘I would like to know what is happening with colleagues’,

‘There is no collegiality’,

‘Getting a newsletter occasionally is good. It was appreciated when the Acting Dean was sending out information’,

‘It would be good to invite adjuncts to appropriate MGSM events, for example, staff meetings, the Christmas party’,

‘MGSM should ensure adjuncts are kept up to date with requirements through more regular contact’.

Legal and contracts were mentioned by some and points for improvement that adjuncts mentioned included;

‘The biggest bug bear is not teaching support but the ridiculous contract’,

‘The contract continues to ask for ownership of IP and various legal comforts that are not going to be given by any sensible lecturer’,

‘I have had my legal representatives go over the contract and have been advised that it is unenforceable’,

‘The contract asks you to be covered for third party property damage. I have asked the university to recommend an insurer who will cover for this type of damage but they can’t provide one and none of my enquiries have met with a positive response’.

Induction andOrientation suggestions from adjuncts;

‘A formal induction for the adjuncts might be valuableto gain a consistent understanding of MGSM services, processes and procedures’,

‘Introduce an induction program for adjuncts to help to build the academic teaching skills with coaching/mentoring from the full-time staff, including supervision and feedback’,

‘Orientation and induction packages would be useful as would professional development workshops’.

Administration issues identified;

‘I would like a contact list so I don’t have to chase around trying to find out how to get things done’,

‘MGSM needs a better front-of-house image, the reception experience is often lacklustre, and the staff is too young, poorly trained, and scruffy. They try their best but the whole "concierge" experience could be substantially improved’,

‘MGSM needs to focus on making things easy and anticipate remote requirements’,

‘It is important to make things as easy as possible for adjuncts as well as students; provide support out-of-hours by introducing staggered and flexible rosters for administrative staff. It is often difficult to access support over weekends’,

‘I like relatively little administration’,

‘The contracts and payments are administratively complex’,

‘Contracts are overly complex’,

‘Contracts entail excessive administration especially payments. This should be much easier’.

Information Technology suggestions;

‘I would like more control over uploading information’,

‘MGSM needs to address time lag issues between Singapore and Sydney and also teaching blocks as you need access out of hours’,

‘There is no one to upload files out of hours in Sydney’,

‘Bandwidth is an issue, especially when sending large files to Macquarie University. There seem to constantly be problems with firewall or virus checking which blocks some material, slows things down and is a point of frustration’,

‘I would like direct access to the academic management system, remote library access and wireless broadband accesses’,

‘MGSM needs to stay at the forefront of technology; wireless broadband should be up by now for all users including Executive Hotel. Not having up-to-date technology makes us look out of touch’.

Other IT related issues include;

‘MGSM should provide an adjunct hot-seat office where we can print’,

‘MGSM should add adjunct profiles to the MGSM Website asall our major competitors do’,