Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer


Vol. 2 No. 1 (2015): CLEARvoz Journal

Evaluating Adjunct Professors for Promotion: A Case Study Approach to Review Adjunct Student Evaluation of Teachers Over Time

February 9, 2015


Student assessment of courses and instructors can provide meaningful data about effective educational practices.  Adjunct faculty make-up the majority of teachers in higher education but they are often not evaluated consistently or promoted to permanent faculty.  Instead, evaluations of adjunct faculty are primarily used to identify inadequacies.  The deficit thinking model argues that educational leaders should not use the term “at-risk” as a pretense to explain student outcomes.  Similarly, this study argues for the extension of the deficit thinking model to adjunct faculty. This retrospective mixed-methods case study investigated student feedback for one higher education teacher to understand procedures or best practices in the process of self-analysis for teaching effectiveness.  The three emergent themes from the study included instructor effectiveness (69.47%), course effectiveness (18.56%), and areas of improvement (11.97%). Findings indicate that in some instances educational leaders in higher education should shift thinking about the way contingent faculty are evaluated, promoted, and included in academic institutions.


  1. Ary, D., Jacobs, L. C., & Sorensen, C. (2010). Introduction to research in education (8th ed.).
  2. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth-Cengage Learning.
  3. Catano, V. M. & Harvey, S. (2011). Student perception of teaching effectiveness: Development
  4. and validation of the evaluation of teaching competencies scale (ETCS) Assessment &
  5. Evaluation in Higher Education, 36(6), 701–717. doi:10.1080/02602938.2010.484879
  6. Centra, J. A. (2003). Will teachers receive higher student evaluations by giving higher
  7. grades and less course work? Research in Higher Education, 44(5), 495-518.
  8. Clayson, D. E. & Haley, D. A. (2011). Are students telling us the truth? A critical look at the student evaluation of teaching. Marketing Education Review, 21(2), 101–112.
  9. doi:10.2753/MER1052-8008210201
  10. Creswell, J. W. (2004). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating
  11. quantitative and qualitative research (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
  12. Creswell, J. W. (2012). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five
  13. approaches (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications.
  14. Culver, S. (2010). Course grades, quality of student engagement, and students’ evaluation of
  15. instructor. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 22(3), 331-336.
  16. Elenes, C. A. (2001). Transformando fronteras: Chicana feminist transformative pedagogies.
  17. Qualitative Studies in Education, 14(5), 689-702.
  18. Ewing, A. M. (2012) Estimating the impact of relative expected grade on student evaluations of teachers. Economics of Education Review, 31, 141–154.
  19. Galbraith, C. S., Merrill, G. B., & Kline, D. M. (2012). Are student evaluations of teaching effectiveness valid for measuring student learning outcomes in business
  20. related classes? A neural network and Bayesian analyses. Research in Higher Education, 53, 353–374. doi:10.1007/s11162-011-9229-0
  21. Nowell, C., Gale, L. R., & Handley, B. (2010). Assessing faculty performance using student
  22. evaluations of teaching in an uncontrolled setting. Assessment & Evaluation Higher Education, 35(4), 463–475. doi:10.1080/02602930902862875
  23. Pepe, J. W., & Wang, M. C. (2012). What instructor qualities do students reward? College
  24. Student Journal, 46(3), 603-614.
  25. Tough, P. (2012). How children succeed: Grit, curiosity and the hidden power of character. New
  26. York, New York: Houghton Mifflin.
  27. Valencia, R.R. (2010). Dismantling contemporary deficit thinking: Educational thought and
  28. practice. London, England: Routledge.
  29. Weiner, L. (2006). Challenging deficit thinking. Educational Leadership, 64(1), 42-45.