According to the Coalition on the Academic Workforce (2012), adjunct faculty comprise approximately 75% of the teaching workforce in higher education settings. These instructors – primarily well-educated industry professionals and postsecondary teachers endeavoring to work in their chosen field – carry a heavy burden in that they must meet the same instructional goals of their tenured and full-time status colleagues without the accompanying salary, benefits, and prestige. And while it seems intuitive, under these circumstances, for institutions to invest more in training this specific sector of their workforce, most colleges and universities actually offer far fewer professional development opportunities to their adjuncts. Additionally, many institutions choose to coddle and micromanage their part-time instructors, stripping away the academic freedom, professional autonomy, and inherent accountability that accompanies the title of “professor” (tenured or otherwise). Despite many ongoing debates about contractual obligations, faculty governance, competing demands, appropriate credentials, and institutional expectations – one consistency surfaces: Adjunct faculty members play a vital role in the implementation and facilitation of postsecondary courses. Empowering adjunct faculty to engage with principles of best practice in the teaching of college students helps to create a culture of autonomy and responsibility among these important professionals.

Common myths about adjunct faculty include a misconception that these professionals possess inadequate credentialing in comparison to their full-time counterparts; an erred assumption that their part-time status reflects an active decision on the part of the professional rather than of the institution; and flawed conception that adjuncts – due to either their other employment responsibilities or their status angst – come into the role uninvested in developing their knowledge of teaching and learning. These misconceptions frequently drive institutional decision-making to clip the wings of part-time faculty in lieu of teaching them to fly. But Goldstene (2015) asserts that imposed administrative restriction “impedes the ability of contingent faculty to teach in a manner that fully embraces the relationship between the acquisition of skills and thought—and, especially, its expression in politics. As a majority of university professors lose autonomy in the classroom and become information delivery systems under greater administrative control, … their influence is diluted, along with the disruptive possibilities of education itself” (p. 370).

While certain other educational sectors – specifically K-12 schools – rely on consistency in content and delivery across a standards-based curriculum, the higher education landscape operates in a different fashion in order to meet its institutionally-mandated and programmatically-directed learning objectives. Further, while all sections of a course may share the same learning objectives, the methods through which those objectives are met may (and should) vary among instructors. This requires training in the art and science of teaching and learning, respectively. Reducing the role of the adjunct to a mere moderator of content surpasses the hazards of producing “canned” or “cookie-cutter” courses and transcends into the overarching issue of a skewed power dynamic. Institutions must do more to create cultures that promote equitable conditions in which our valuable adjunct faculty workforce will not simply survive but thrive in the innovation and facilitation of quality learning experiences for our students.

The five essential elements of faculty work and the academic workplace. Gappa et al., 2007.

References:

Coalition on the Academic Workforce (CAW). (2015). A portrait of part-time faculty members: A summary of findings on part-time faculty respondents to the Coalition on the Academic Workforce Survey of contingent faculty members and instructors.

Goldstene, C. (2015). Designed to fail: Adjunct faculty and the fight for education. Working USA, 18(3), 367-375.

While the idea of instructional scaffolding – especially within hybrid and digital learning environments – may seem innovative to many educators, the concept of building a framework of support into the learning experience is not new. In the 1930’s, Vygotsky (1978) defined the zone of proximal development (ZPD) as the space between the knowledge a learner currently possesses and the knowledge a learner may potentially possess given the proper guidance; expert assistance and appropriate resources offered within this zone – a facilitative window of opportunity – provide the integral support the learner needs to advance to the next level. In exploring the role of the tutor, Wood, Bruner, and Ross (1976) expressed the usefulness of a strategy to guide learning, coining the term “scaffolding” in its instructional context. Scaffolding supports meaningful engagement of the learner by enabling future performance while building on prior knowledge; as students engage in problem-solving, this scaffolding helps support advancement on the learning journey.

Supportive instructional presence, therefore, is a hallmark of scaffolding; this presence should attend to the learner as both overt and seamless. Creating an environment where learners can thrive requires an alignment of pragmatism and purpose, a conscientious effort of elevated cognizance. In her book Mindful Teaching and Teaching Mindfulness: A Guide for Anyone Who Teaches Anything, Schoeberlein (2009) defines mindfulness as “a conscious, purposeful way of tuning in to what’s happening in and around us” (p. 1), and touts this approach of attention-giving and awareness-honing as an essential component to academic, mental, and emotional balance. In referencing the work of Kabat-Zinn (2009), Wells (2013) expounds on how mindful practice can nourish the culture of academia; cultivating trust and adopting a beginner’s mind invoke two particular areas of focus to move educators toward practices steeped in presence, compassion, and empathy.

So what is mindful scaffolding? This meshing of the terms when taken together to define a singular phenomenon denotes the provision of a reflective and integrative framework of support underpinned by a deep, responsive, and steadfast foundation resilient not only to the intrinsic challenges of intellectual growth but simultaneously awake to the extrinsic motivators and adversities present within each individual learners’ unique reality. When educators implement mindful scaffolding, we provide students the instructional support necessary for optimal facilitation of their performance development along with the inherent grace born of purposeful awareness. Mindful scaffolding occurs at the intersection of pedagogy and perspective, and by its example we merge poise with functionality to deploy robust, agile learning experiences.

Given the perpetually evolving landscape of modern education – especially as we continue to navigate timely and effective responses to the ongoing covid-19 pandemic mindful scaffolding emerges as a vital approach to supporting learners across instructional modalities. Whether learning takes place face-to-face, online, or in a hybrid setting; whether participants are traditional, adult, or non-traditional learners; whether the milieu spans crisis, recovery, or normalcy on the broad spectrum of environmental influence – the practice of mindful scaffolding can provide a sense of peace and consistency in the facilitation of the learning journey for all students. Within the field of teaching and learning, if ever a time existed to begin such a practice, that time is now. Let’s start today.

The following tips, founded in best practices, can help you mindfully scaffold the learning experience for your students:

• Accept that learner-centered pedagogy requires more egalitarianism and less ego.
• Weave academic integrity, 21st century skills, and information literacy into the fiber of every course.
• Respect the unique experience of the learner by acknowledging trauma and adversity; exchange growth mindset for toxic positivity, and promote a culture of compassion.
• Allow discussions to be open-ended and learner-driven by eliciting meaningful connections with both content and cohort through non-invasive facilitation; let the community of inquiry develop organically.
• Promote thought organization and knowledge application by providing guides, prompts, and templates that advance the learning; model first, then offer practice opportunities.
• Incorporate choice into as many learning activities as possible; encourage self-discovery and reflection.
• Utilize high-engagement/low-stakes peer-to-peer interactions to build trust and break barriers within the learning environment; promote community.
• Normalize “not yet” – make it ok not to get it right the first time; assure that failing upward counts as progress; embrace learning as an iterative process.
• Connect current knowledge to prior knowledge, and orient the learning content to vocational relevance and future service.
• Show up! Provide the resources, organization, and attitude your students need to flourish not only in your course but in every learning experience.

References:

Kabat-Zinn, J. (2009). Full catastrophe living: Using the wisdom of your body and mind to face stress, pain, and illness (15th Anniversary ed.). New York, NY: Bantam Books.

Schoeberlein, D. (2009). Mindful teaching and teaching mindfulness: A guide for anyone who teaches anything. Boston, MA: Wisdom.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.

Wells, C. M. (2013). Mindfulness in academia: Considerations for administrative preparation. Education Leadership Review, 14(3), 1-12.