Online Professor Salary,
Job Opportunity,
Demographic Study
2014 Calendar Year
Researchers:
Danielle Babb, Ph.D., MBA
Mary Dereshiwsky, Ph.D., M.S.
2014 Online Professor Salary, Job Opportunity, Demographic Study
Study Introduction as presented to participants:
The Babb Group, Inc. and researcher Danielle Babb, PhD, MBA is conducting research on online faculty
salaries, opportunity and satisfaction. The survey will be conducted annually. Reports will be summarized
and provided at www.thebabbgroup.com/blog. Sign up for the newsletter to receive notification of when
the results are available. http://www.thebabbgroup.com/our-newsletter.html
The purpose of this study is to determine faculty job satisfaction and factors contributing to it, mean pay
by job type, information about finding new work and employment opportunities, demographics of online
professors, policy and procedures, training and contract types.
No user identifiable information is collected and all responses are anonymous. The report will be made
available at no cost.
If you have suggestions on additional questions to include in next years survey please contact
dbabb@thebabbgroup.com. By participating in this study you agree to hold its creators, participants and
those aggregating and publishing summary reports harmless for any real or perceived harm. The survey
administrators will publish the results in aggregate summary format, and do not track and will not collect
any other identifying information. For more information please visit www.thebabbgroup.com.
Please follow us on LinkedIn, Twitter or Facebook to be notified when the results are published.
Total number of responses: 172
Number of completed responses varies by question.
Number of questions: 58
Reproduction and right to use: Intellectual Property and Copyright: The Babb Group, Inc. 2015. This
research and study outcomes may be sourced and referenced with the full citation in peer-reviewed
research without permission. All other uses of the study must be granted in writing, including the use of
the data for institutional management and effectiveness. Please email dbabb@thebabbgroup.com with
Name, Title, Organization, Intent to Use, and For Profit or Not for Profit Activity.
Background
The Online Professor Survey, Demographic Study Survey was disseminated via Survey Monkey to online
faculty through Facebook Groups, LinkedIn, and member sharing. Individuals with online teaching
experience were encouraged to participate.
The survey consisted of 58 fixed-response and open-ended questions. The question categories included
demographics (e.g., age; education; region of country, primary source of income, 2014 total income
further subdivided into teaching, course development and mentoring), schools worked for (e.g., full-time
vs. part-time; online vs. brick and mortar; profit vs. non-profit); insurance and benefits status, attitudes
towards non-compete agreements; and intent to secure more teaching opportunities.
Method
A total of 173 subjects responded to the survey. Survey response data were exported from
SurveyMonkey and formatted as a data file in IBM SPSS 21 for data analysis.
Due to the number of missing values/non-responses across various survey questions, the survey data
could not be analyzed inferentially. We searched for patterns, themes and trends of response by
generating contingency tables and analyzing them descriptively.
Preliminary Results
Following are some preliminary conclusions derived from these contingency tables:
--The fewer part-time contracts, the more likely to say that non-compete is unfair to faculty
--Equally likely to violate or not violate non-compete agreements if only 1 or 2 part-time contracts
--34 to 49 age groups twice as likely to believe non-compete agreements are not enforceable. For
youngest group, 20 to 29, almost twice as likely to believe non-compete agreements are enforceable
--Almost twice as many women are likely to believe non-compete agreements are not enforceable, as
compared to 1 ½ times as many men
--34 to 39 year olds are most likely to be waiting for part-time course assignments
--Majority of respondents would not violate non-compete agreement regardless of number of schools they
work for
--Those who hold master’s degrees are most likely to believe non-compete agreements aren’t fair to
faculty
Recommendations and Implications
--Conduct an item analysis on the survey to identify and eliminate those questions with high nonresponse. Eliminate these survey questions in a 2015 replication of the survey study using a shorter,
more streamlined survey.
--Conduct individual or focus group interviews using technology (e.g., online chat room) to probe for
further information behind the preliminary findings and conclusions (e.g., how and why the survey
subjects answered as they did).
--Conduct a follow-up phenomenology with a select purposive sample of online faculty to capture their
lived experience regarding satisfaction levels with online teaching particularly in the areas included in the
survey (e.g., attitudes towards benefits and health insurance; attitudes towards non-compete
agreements)>
--With a larger response rate and a streamlined survey, conduct a factor analysis to uncover the
underlying overall dimensions of faculty attitudes towards, and satisfaction with, online teaching.
--Conduct a case study, including cross-case analysis, to further uncover areas of similarity and
difference by some of the key demographic variables included in the original survey study (e.g., level of
education; age range; gender; level of experience in teaching online).
--With a larger response rate and a streamlined survey, develop and test predictive discriminant analysis
models to identify the demographics that most widely differentiate subjects’ attitudes and satisfaction
levels.
--Locate and administer, with prior permission, a satisfaction survey to correlate to ratings of satisfaction
as noted on the online survey to further discover the dimensions of online teaching satisfaction.
Demographics
The demographic portion of this survey is designed to understand the current demographics of the
respondent and the demographics at the time he or she began teaching. This section also collects
income and earnings from teaching activities. This section collects data to determine military service and
other industry-based sources of employment or income.
Following is a profile of a typical survey respondent. This profile was derived from generating model (most
frequently occurring) response categories from the survey demographic variables. The complete set of
frequency tables for each demographic variable is included in an appendix.
The typical survey respondent is described as follows:
--Between age 40 and 49,
--Started teaching between age 40 and 49,
--Female,
--Currently holding a master’s degree,
--Held a master’s degree prior to starting teaching,
--Not currently enrolled in a degree program,
--Lives in the East North Central region,
--Earned $9,999 or less from teaching during 2014,
--Earned $4,999 or less from course development during 2014,
--Earned $4,999 or less from mentoring during 2014,
--Has never served in the military,
--Primary income source is office and administrative support.
Detailed supportive data follows:
Current Age
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid
Missing
Total
26-33
14
7.3
8.2
8.2
34-39
25
13.0
14.6
22.8
40-49
63
32.6
36.8
59.6
50-59
50
25.9
29.2
88.9
60+
19
9.8
11.1
100.0
Total
171
88.6
100.0
22
11.4
193
100.0
System
Age Start Teaching
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid
Missing
18-25
18
9.3
10.5
10.5
26-33
41
21.2
24.0
34.5
34-39
43
22.3
25.1
59.6
40-49
45
23.3
26.3
86.0
50-59
19
9.8
11.1
97.1
60+
4
2.1
2.3
99.4
Other
1
.5
.6
100.0
Total
171
88.6
100.0
22
11.4
193
100.0
System
Total
Gender
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Male
Valid
Missing
Total
68
35.2
39.8
39.8
Female
103
53.4
60.2
100.0
Total
171
88.6
100.0
22
11.4
193
100.0
System
College Completed
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid
Associate
1
.5
.6
.6
Bachelor's
5
2.6
2.9
3.5
Master's
88
45.6
51.8
55.3
Doctoral Academic
51
26.4
30.0
85.3
Doctoral Professional
25
13.0
14.7
100.0
170
88.1
100.0
1
.5
System
22
11.4
Total
23
11.9
193
100.0
Total
25
Missing
Total
Highest Degree Before Teaching
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Bachelor's
17
8.8
10.1
10.1
120
62.2
71.0
81.1
Doctoral Academic
16
8.3
9.5
90.5
Doctoral Professional
16
8.3
9.5
100.0
169
87.6
100.0
2
1.0
System
22
11.4
Total
24
12.4
193
100.0
Master's
Valid
Total
25
Missing
Total
Country
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
USA
Valid
164
85.0
97.0
97.0
5
2.6
3.0
100.0
169
87.6
100.0
2
1.0
System
22
11.4
Total
24
12.4
193
100.0
3
Total
25
Missing
Total
Currently Enrolled
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid
Yes Full Time Doc Academic
24
12.4
14.3
14.3
Yes Full Time Doc Professional
16
8.3
9.5
23.8
Yes Part Time Master's
9
4.7
5.4
29.2
Yes to Teach Other Discipline
7
3.6
4.2
33.3
Yes Four Year Undergrad Univ
2
1.0
1.2
34.5
Not Currently Enrolled
110
57.0
65.5
100.0
Total
168
87.0
100.0
3
1.6
System
22
11.4
Total
25
13.0
193
100.0
25
Missing
Total
Region
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid
New England
8
4.1
4.9
4.9
Middle Atlantic
27
14.0
16.7
21.6
East North Central
30
15.5
18.5
40.1
West North Central
13
6.7
8.0
48.1
South Atlantic
18
9.3
11.1
59.3
East South Central
15
7.8
9.3
68.5
West South Central
13
6.7
8.0
76.5
Mountain
13
6.7
8.0
84.6
Pacific
25
13.0
15.4
100.0
162
83.9
100.0
9
4.7
System
22
11.4
Total
31
16.1
193
100.0
Total
25
Missing
Total
Earned from Teaching
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid
0-9999
28
14.5
16.5
16.5
10,000-19,999
25
13.0
14.7
31.2
20,000-29,999
17
8.8
10.0
41.2
30,000-39,999
16
8.3
9.4
50.6
40,000-49,999
14
7.3
8.2
58.8
50,000-59,999
13
6.7
7.6
66.5
60,000-79,999
19
9.8
11.2
77.6
80,000-99,999
12
6.2
7.1
84.7
100,000-129,999
11
5.7
6.5
91.2
130,000-159,999
8
4.1
4.7
95.9
160,000-189,999
4
2.1
2.4
98.2
190,000+
3
1.6
1.8
100.0
170
88.1
100.0
1
.5
System
22
11.4
Total
23
11.9
193
100.0
Total
25
Missing
Total
Earned from Course Development
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
0-4999
Valid
138
71.5
81.7
81.7
5,000-9,9999
16
8.3
9.5
91.1
10,000-14,999
4
2.1
2.4
93.5
20,000-39,999
3
1.6
1.8
95.3
40,000+
1
.5
.6
95.9
Other
3
1.6
1.8
97.6
7
4
2.1
2.4
100.0
169
87.6
100.0
2
1.0
System
22
11.4
Total
24
12.4
193
100.0
Total
25
Missing
Total
Earned from Mentoring
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
0-4999
Valid
160
82.9
95.8
95.8
5,000-9,9999
5
2.6
3.0
98.8
Other
2
1.0
1.2
100.0
Total
167
86.5
100.0
4
2.1
System
22
11.4
Total
26
13.5
193
100.0
25
Missing
Total
Served in Military
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Yes
Valid
3
1.6
1.8
1.8
24
12.4
14.4
16.2
No - Never Served
140
72.5
83.8
100.0
Total
167
86.5
100.0
4
2.1
System
22
11.4
Total
26
13.5
193
100.0
No - Veteran
25
Missing
Total
Primary Income Source
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Healthcare Practitioner
Valid
2
1.0
1.2
1.2
Legal Occupation
11
5.7
6.5
7.7
Computer and Mathematical
19
9.8
11.2
18.9
Personal Care and Service
2
1.0
1.2
20.1
Healthcare Support
4
2.1
2.4
22.5
Office and Admin Support
71
36.8
42.0
64.5
Management Occupation
3
1.6
1.8
66.3
Farming, Fishing and Forestry
1
.5
.6
66.9
Business and Financial
1
.5
.6
67.5
Online Education Adjunct
3
1.6
1.8
69.2
Construction and Extraction
3
1.6
1.8
71.0
11
5.7
6.5
77.5
Installation and Maintenance
9
4.7
5.3
82.8
Architecture and Engineering
7
3.6
4.1
87.0
Arts Design and Entertainment
1
.5
.6
87.6
Transportation and Materials
1
.5
.6
88.2
Other
20
10.4
11.8
100.0
Total
169
87.6
100.0
2
1.0
System
22
11.4
Total
24
12.4
193
100.0
Community and Social Service
25
Missing
Total
Summary of Outcomes: Crosstabulation on Non-Compete Agreements
SPSS version 21 was used to analyze the 171 responses to the survey. Missing values were excluded
from the analysis of any specific survey question.
Non-Compete Agreements
Below is the outcome for “Believe Non-Compete Agreements are Enforceable” by gender. 1.5 times as
many women said “no” than men. (45 and 30, respectively). 1.5 times more men said ‘no’ than ‘yes’ (30
and 20, respectively). Chi-square was statistically significant (39.261, 0.0000 p-value).
Gender * Believe non-compete Agreements are Enforceable Crosstabulation
Count
Believe non-compete Agreements are Enforceable
Yes
Gender
No
Total
Other
"Male"
20
30
4
54
Female
28
45
11
84
48
75
15
138
Total
Below are the results for “know of boss working elsewhere.” Vast majority of both genders said ‘no.’ For
this reason, the chi-square was statistically significant (173.511, p = 0.000).
Gender * Know of boss working elsewhere Crosstabulation
Count
Know of boss working elsewhere
Yes but would not
No
Total
Other
report it
Gender
Total
"Male"
5
45
2
52
Female
8
72
3
83
13
117
5
135
Below are the results for “have you ever violated a non-compete agreement.” About 1.5 times as many
women as men (77 and 52, respectively) said no. Chi-square was 345.362, p-value of 0.000.
Gender * Ever violated non-compete agreement Crosstabulation
Count
Ever violated non-compete agreement
Yes
Gender
No, not yet
No, but likely will
Total
Other
"Male"
1
52
0
1
54
Female
4
77
1
2
84
5
129
1
3
138
Total
Below are the results for “Schools should not enforce non-compete agreement due to pay being too low,”
responses are heavily weighted towards the “agree” end. About twice as many women as men “strongly
agree.” Chi-square was 144.368, p-value of 0.000.
Gender * Schools should not enforce non-compete due to full-time pay too low Crosstabulation
Schools should not enforce non-compete due to full-time pay too low
Highly disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Somewhat agree
Total
Highly
agree
Gender
"Male"
1
5
10
11
26
53
Female
3
2
8
15
55
83
4
7
18
26
81
136
Total
Below are the results for “schools should not enforce non-compete agreement due to job stability too
low.” Chi-square of 125.176, p-value of 0.000.
Gender * Schools should not enforce non-compete due to job stability too low Crosstabulation
Count
Schools should not enforce non-compete due to job stability too low
Gender
Total
Total
Highly disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Somewhat agree
Highly agree
"Male"
1
4
12
9
27
53
Female
2
6
9
16
50
83
3
10
21
25
77
136
The Chi-square for ‘I would sign a non-compete agreement to get a full-time job with benefits’ was not
statistically significant by gender. Chi-square of 4.074, p-value of 0.396.
Gender * I would sign non-compete to get a full-time job with benefits Crosstabulation
Count
I would sign non-compete to get a full-time job with benefits
Highly disagree
Gender
Disagree
Neutral
Somewhat agree
Total
Highly agree
"Male"
11
9
12
12
9
53
Female
13
19
19
21
11
83
24
28
31
33
20
136
Total
With response to the question, “I would like a full-time job with benefits but would not sign a non-compete
agreement,” very different results. Almost twice as many men as women highly disagreed (11 and 6,
respectively). Three times as many women as men ‘somewhat agreed.’ (20 and 7, respectively). Almost
twice as many women as men highly agreed (26 and 14, respectively). Chi square of 41.882, p-value of
0.000.
Gender * I would like a full-time job with benefits but would not sign non-compete Crosstabulation
Count
I would like a full-time job with benefits but would not sign non-compete
Highly disagree
"Male"
Gender
Female
Total
Disagree
Neutral
Somewhat agree
Highly agree
9
11
8
12
7
14
1
6
10
21
20
26
0
17
18
33
27
40
1
For “Would like full-time job and would break non-compete,” also statistically significant difference by
gender (chi square of 50.088, p-value of 0.000). More women than men either somewhat agree, or highly
agree (9 is missing values in last column).
Gender * I would like a full-time job with benefits and would break a non-compete Crosstabulation
Count
I would like a full-time job with benefits and would break a non-compete
"Male"
Gender
Female
Highly disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Somewhat agree
Highly agree
9
17
15
13
4
3
1
21
23
19
9
8
3
38
38
32
13
11
4
Total
For “non-compete agreements are not fair to the employee,” also significant difference by gender
(182.794, p-value of 0.000). About twice as many women as men “highly agree” (52 and 27, respectively).
1.5 times as many women as men “somewhat agree” (12 and 8, respectively). 9 is missing values.
Gender * Non-compete agreements are not fair to the employee Crosstabulation
Count
Non-compete agreements are not fair to the employee
Total
Highly disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Somewhat agree
Highly agree
9
"Male"
3
4
10
8
27
1
53
Female
3
4
12
12
52
0
83
6
8
22
20
79
1
136
Gender
Total
For “have I turned down teaching work due to low pay,” men and women equally said yes (9 and 9), but
almost twice as many women as men said no (94 and 59, respectively). Chi-square of 106.579, p-value of
0.000.
Gender * I turned down online teaching work due to low pay
Crosstabulation
Count
I turned down online teaching work
Total
due to low pay
Yes
Gender
No
"Male"
9
59
68
Female
9
94
103
18
153
171
Total
For “turned down job because job not described accurately,” far more women than men (100 vs. 67) Chi
square was 155.374, p-value of 0.000:
Gender * I turned down online teaching because job was not described
accurately Crosstabulation
Count
I turned down online teaching because
Total
job was not described accurately
Yes
Gender
Total
No
"Male"
1
67
68
Female
3
100
103
4
167
171
Also heavily towards “no” end for ‘turned down job because of problems with training” (155.374 chi
square; p-value of 0.000):
Gender * I turned down online teaching because of problems with the
training Crosstabulation
Count
I turned down online teaching because
Total
of problems with the training
Yes
Gender
No
"Male"
2
66
68
Female
2
101
103
4
167
171
Total
For “turned down online teaching because it violated another contract” by gender, also heavy ‘no’ and tied
by gender for ‘yes’, same chi values as above:
Gender * I turned down online teaching because it would have violated
another contract Crosstabulation
Count
I turned down online teaching because
Total
it would have violated another contract
Yes
Gender
Total
No
"Male"
2
66
68
Female
2
101
103
4
167
171
Table 1 below shows the contingency table of “number of for-profit schools work for” crossed with
“schools should not enforce non-compete agreements because full-time pay is too low”
Table 1.
“Number of For-Profit Schools Currently Work For” by “Schools Should Not Enforce Non-compete
Agreement Because Full-time Pay Is Too Low”
Count
Schools should not enforce non-compete due to full-time pay too low
Highly disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Somewhat agree Highly agree
1
2
3
Number of For-Profit Schools
Work For
Total
4
5
6
7
11
or
M
or
e
1
3
5
7
25
0
0
1
3
17
0
0
1
3
6
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
2
1
1
2
4
8
13
57
A total of 84 responses were received to this question (did not contain missing values). Of those who
worked at one school only, 32 (38%) somewhat agreed or highly agreed with this statement. A total of 4
respondents who worked at either 2 or 3 schools somewhat agreed or highly agreed with this statement
(almost 5%).
T
o
t
a
l
4
1
2
1
1
0
6
1
2
2
1
8
4
Table 2 displays the cross-classification of “Number of For-Profit Schools Work For” by “Schools should
not enforce non-compete agreements due to job stability being too low.”
Table 2.
“Number of For-Profit Schools Currently Work For” by “Schools Should Not Enforce Non-compete
Agreement Because Job Stability Is Too Low”
Count
Schools should not enforce non-compete due to job stability too low
Highly
Disagree
Neutral
Somewhat
Highly
disagree
agree
agree
1
2
Number of For-Profit Schools
Work For
Total
3
4
5
6
7
11 or More
0
4
6
6
25
0
0
1
2
18
0
0
1
4
5
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
6
0
0
0
1
0
9
1
0
1
0
0
14
3
0
1
1
1
54
This table shows that of those who worked at 1 for-profit school, 31 out of 84, or almost 37%, somewhat
agreed or highly agreed with this statement. A total of 20 respondents who work at for-profit schools, or
almost 24%, somewhat or highly agreed. Of those who worked at 3 for-profit schools, 3 or just over 3.5%,
somewhat or highly agreed with this statement.
T
o
t
a
l
4
1
2
1
1
0
6
1
2
2
1
8
4
Table 3 displays the results of cross-classifying the number of for-profit schools worked for with “I would
sign a non-compete agreement to get a full-time job with benefits.”
Table 3.
“Number of For-Profit Schools Currently Work For” by “I Would Sign a Non-Compete Agreement to Get a
Full-Time Job with Benefits”
Count
I would sign non-compete to get a full-time job with benefits
Highly
Disagree
Neutral
Somewhat
Highly agree
disagree
agree
1
2
Number of For-Profit Schools
Work For
Total
3
4
5
6
7
11 or More
7
9
7
11
7
5
2
6
6
2
4
3
2
1
0
1
1
1
0
0
19
2
0
1
1
0
18
1
0
0
1
0
17
2
0
0
0
1
21
0
0
0
0
0
9
This question resulted in more of a split decision. A total of 16 respondents who work for one for-profit
school either highly disagreed or disagreed with this statement (19%). Of those who work for one forprofit school, 18 or nearly 21.5% highly agreed or agreed. A similar split was evident for those who work
for two for-profit schools, with 7 out of 84, or 8.3%, who highly disagreed or disagreed. For this same
subsample (work for 2 for-profit schools), 8 or 9.5% highly agreed or agreed.
T
o
t
a
l
4
1
2
1
1
0
6
1
2
2
1
8
4
Table 4 displays the results of cross-classifying “I would like a full-time job with benefits but would not
sign a non-compete agreement” cross-classified with “number of for-profit schools work for.”
Table 4.
“Number of For-Profit Schools Currently Work For” by “I Would Like a Full-time Job with Benefits but
Would Not Sign a Non-compete Agreement”
Count
I would like a full-time job with benefits but would not sign non-compete
Highly
Disagree
Neutral
Somewhat
Highly agree
disagree
agree
1
2
Number of For-Profit Schools
Work For
Total
3
4
5
6
7
11 or More
6
5
8
6
5 1
7
5
3
0
7
3
1
1
2
3
1
1
0
0
0
14
1
0
0
0
0
7
1
0
1
2
0
19
1
0
1
0
0
14
2
0
0
0
1
30
A total of 22, or 26.2% of those who work at one for-profit school, either somewhat or highly agree with this
statement. Of this same subsample (work at one for-profit school), 11 or 13% somewhat or highly disagree. For
those who work at 2 for-profit schools, 12 or 14.3% somewhat or highly agree, and 3 out of 84 (3.6%) highly
disagree.
T
o
t
a
l
4
1
2
1
1
0
6
1
2
2
1
8
4
Table 5 contains the results for the question “Non-compete agreements are not fair to the employee”
cross-classified by “number of for-profit schools currently work for.”
Table 5.
“Number of For-Profit Schools Currently Work For” by “Non-compete Agreements Are Not Fair to the
Employee”
Count
Non-compete agreements are not fair to the employee
Highly
Disagree
Neutral
Somewhat agree
disagree
1
2
Number of For-Profit Schools
Work For
Total
3
4
5
6
7
11 or More
1
2
5
4
29
0
0
3
3
15
1
0
0
4
5
1
0
1
0
0
4
1
1
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
8
1
0
0
0
0
12
3
0
1
2
1
56
Of those who work for only one for-profit school, a total of 33 out of 84, or 39.3%, either somewhat agreed
or highly agreed with this statement. For this same subsample (work for only one for-profit school), 3 out
of 84 or 3.6% somewhat or highly disagreed. For those respondents who work at 2 for-profit schools, 18
out of 84, or 21.4%, either somewhat or highly agreed with this statement. No one in this subsample
(work for two for-profit schools) highly or somewhat disagreed.
Highly
agree
T
o
t
a
l
4
1
2
1
1
0
6
1
2
2
1
8
4
Detailed Data and Graphs
Current Age
Answer Choices–
Responses–
18-25
0.00%
0
26-33
8.19%
14
34-39
14.62%
25
40-49
36.84%
63
50-59
29.24%
50
60 or older
10.53%
18
Responses
Other (please specify)
0.58%
1
Age When Participant Started Teaching
Answer Choices–
Responses–
18-25
10.53%
18
26-33
23.39%
40
34-39
25.15%
43
40-49
26.32%
45
50-59
11.11%
19
60 or older
–
Responses
Other (please specify)
2.34%
4
1.17%
2
Gender
Highest Level of Education Completed (Current)
Highest Level of Education Completed (When First Began Teaching Online or On Ground)
Currently Enrolled as a Student
Yes, full time earning a Doctoral degree (Academic)
14.29%
24
Yes, full time earning a Doctoral degree (Professional)
9.52%
16
Yes, part time earning a Masters degree
5.36%
9
Yes, full time earning a Masters degree
0.00%
0
Yes, to earn an additional number of units to teach another discipline
4.76%
8
Yes, at a four year undergraduate college/university
1.19%
2
No, I am not currently enrolled as a student
65.48%
110
Region of the United States Participant Lives
New England
4.94%
8
Middle Atlantic
16.67%
27
East North Central
18.52%
30
West North Central
8.02%
13
South Atlantic
11.11%
18
East South Central
9.26%
15
West South Central
8.02%
13
Mountain
8.02%
13
Pacific
15.43%
25
Income from Teaching in 2014
$0 - $9,999
16.47%
28
$10,000 - $19,999
14.71%
25
$20,000 - $29,999
10.00%
17
$30,000 - $39,999
9.41%
16
$40,000 - $49,999
8.24%
14
$50,000 - $59,999
7.65%
13
$60,000 - $79,999
11.18%
19
$80,000 - $99,999
7.06%
12
$100,000 to $129,999
6.47%
11
$130,000 to $159,999
4.71%
8
$160,000 to $189,999
2.35%
4
$190,000 or more
1.76%
3
Income from Course Development in 2014
$0 - $4,999
81.66%
138
$5,000 to $9,999
9.47%
16
$10,000 to $14,999
2.37%
4
$15,000 to $19,999
1.78%
3
$20,000 - $39,999
0.59%
1
$40,000 or more
1.78%
3
Responses
Other (please specify)
2.37%
4
Income from Doctoral Mentoring in 2014
Military Service
Sources of Income for 2014
Management Occupations
7.38%
11
Business and Financial Operations Occupations
7.38%
11
Computer and Mathematical Occupations
6.04%
9
Architecture and Engineering Occupations
1.34%
2
Life, Physical, and Social Science Occupations
0.00%
0
Community and Social Service Occupations
2.01%
3
Legal Occupations
2.68%
4
Traditional On-Ground Education
12.75%
19
Online Education (Online Professor, Adjunct)
47.65%
71
Arts, Design, Entertainment, Sports, and Media Occupations
1.34%
2
Healthcare Practitioners and Technical Occupations
0.67%
1
Healthcare Support Occupations
1.34%
2
Protective Service Occupations
2.68%
4
Food Preparation and Serving Related Occupations
0.00%
0
Building and Grounds Cleaning and Maintenance Occupations
0.00%
0
Personal Care and Service Occupations
0.00%
0
Sales and Related Occupations
2.01%
3
Office and Administrative Support Occupations
2.01%
3
Farming, Fishing, and Forestry Occupations
0.67%
1
Construction and Extraction Occupations
0.67%
1
Installation, Maintenance, and Repair Occupations
0.00%
0
Production Occupations
0.67%
1
Workload and Current Opportunities
The workload and current opportunities portion of this survey is designed to identify the types of
opportunities online professors are afforded, the structure of teaching assignments and the types of
universities that professors are contracted or employed by. Respondents also answered a question about
how many courses they teach at each institution type, and a question about their goals for 2015 regarding
the types of institutions the participant hopes to work for. Questions about healthcare and retirement
benefits are included in this section. This section also questioned respondents about schools that require
they disclose who they work for, perception of non-compete agreements and accuracy in disclosure.
Perceptions about the best and worst places to work are identified; characteristics that make schools
good to work for are documented. The topic of unions is addressed.
Type and Number of Schools Employed or Contracted With
(Please note: to read this chart, the row numbered 1-11 is how many of each type of school the respondent works for
simultaneously. For example, 4 marked under For-Profit means the respondent currently works for four for-profit schools).
Number of schools you currently work for in this category
1
For-Profit
University
State College
Community
College
Non-Profit
Private College
Religious
Affiliated
University
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11 or more
Total
49%
43
24.%
21
11%
10
8.%
7
1%
1
2%
2
2%
2
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
1%
1
87
76%
29
13%
5
10%
4
0.%
0
0.%
0
0.%
0
0.%
0
0.%
0
0.%
0
0.%
0
0.%
0
38
76%
23
16%
5
3%
1
3%
1
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
30
58%
40
26%
18
7%
5
4%
3
2%
2
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
68
56%
17
26%
8
16%
5
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
30
Number of Courses Currently Teach for Each School-Type
1
2
3
For-Profit University
25.97%
20
20.78%
16
15.58%
12
State College
50.00%
18
22.22%
8
Community College
21.43%
6
Non-Profit Private College
Religious Affiliated University
4
5
6
7
8
9
6.49%
5
7.79%
6
12.99%
10
1.30%
1
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
8.33%
3
11.11%
4
8.33%
3
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
39.29%
11
10.71%
3
14.29%
4
3.57%
1
0.00%
0
3.57%
1
7.14%
2
0.00%
0
26.98%
17
26.98%
17
14.29%
9
14.29%
9
4.76%
3
4.76%
3
1.59%
1
1.59%
1
0.00%
0
34.48%
10
13.79%
4
24.14%
7
20.69%
6
0.00%
0
6.90%
2
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
Number of Schools by Category Respondent Aims to Work For by the End of 2015
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11 or more
34.52%
29
23.8%
20
17.8%
15
8.3%
7
2.3%
2
5.9%
5
1.1%
1
1.1%
1
0.0%
0
2.3%
2
2.3%
2
49.06%
26
26.4%
14
11.3%
6
9.4%
5
3.7%
2
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
–
Community
College
60.00%
27
22.22%
10
4.44%
2
8.89%
4
0.0%
0
2.2%
1
2.2%
1
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
–
NonProfit Private
College
38.24%
26
26.4%
18
14.7%
10
11.7%
8
5.8%
4
1.4%
1
1.4%
1
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
–
Religious
Affiliated
University
47.50%
19
25.0%
10
15.0%
6
5.00%
2
7.5%
3
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
For-Profit
University
State College
Most Important Contract or School Characteristics When Determining Which Schools to Work For
Ranked from most to least important:
Pay
Job Stability
Supportive Management
Regional Accreditation
No Synchronous Requirements
Reasonable Course Loads
Opportunities to Earn More Income
Reasonable Professional Development Requirements
Fewer Meetings
Healthcare Options
401k or Retirement Options
More Meetings
Current Personal Identification with Title or Role
AdjunctPreneurTM (working at multiple institutions for pay and job stability)
52.94%
72
Full Time Instructor/Professor with Benefits, and Adjunct at Other Institutions
15.44%
21
Part Time Instructor/Professor with Benefits, and Adjunct at Other Institutions
6.62%
9
Part Time Instructor/Professor with Benefits, and No Additional Adjunct Work
5.88%
8
Full Time Instructor/Professor Without Benefits, No Additional Adjunct Work
2.94%
4
Responses
Other (please specify)
Full time non-teaching employment and part-time adjunct with multiple institutions
FT with benefits
Full time instructional designer/part time adjunct
Adjunct without benefits
Full time PK-12 public education administration, and adjunct professor
Full-time employee, part time adjunct, with no benefits as an adjunct, but with full-time job
Adjunct / no benefits
Part-time adjunct without benefits
Additional duty to work as Dean
Adjunct working at one institution, no benefits
Full-time employee, part-time adjunct
The goal is full time online teaching plus adjunct
Academic management/adjunct instructor at different school
Public education at this time
Part-time instructor with no benefits
Part time adjunct No benefits but not entrepreneur
Part-time/adjunct only with no benefits (primary career outside of academia)
Part Time Instructor, no benefits, working at a few institutions out of passion for subject (not for monetary
need)
Adjunct, No Benefits, No Security
PT/No Benefits, Online Adjunct
Full time professor, WITH benefits and NO additional adjunct work
3/4 time adjunct with no benefits
Goal for 2015: Personal Identification with Title or Role
AdjunctPreneurTM (working at multiple institutions for pay and job stability)
46.56%
61
Full Time Instructor/Professor with Benefits, and Adjunct at Other Institutions
29.77%
39
Part Time Instructor/Professor with Benefits, and Adjunct at Other Institutions
6.87%
9
Part Time Instructor/Professor with Benefits, and No Additional Adjunct Work
3.05%
4
Full Time Instructor/Professor Without Benefits, No Additional Adjunct Work
0.76%
1
Responses
Other (please specify)
Full time at one University with benefits
Full time instructional designer/ part time adjunct
Full time PK-12 public education administration, and adjunct professor
Full-time employee, part-time adjunct, no benefits as an adjunct
Administration: Dean, VP, Etc.
Part-time adjunct without benefits
Add'l duty to work as dean
Adjunct working at one institution without benefits
Full-time instructor with benefits, no outside adjunct work
Part time adjunct No benefits but not entrepreneur
Move from full time at a for profit to full time at a state school
Brand new. I have never worked but want to badly as an adjunct for online.
PT instructor, no benefits, working at 1 or 2 institutions out of passion for subject
Part-time Instructor/Professor Without Benefits, No additional adjunct work
PT/No Benefits, Online Adjunct
Full time professor, with benefits and no additional adjunct work
3/4-time adjunct looking to add institutions and courses
12.98%
17
Health Care Status
Teaching Job That Offers Healthcare
Seeking Job(s) That Offers Healthcare
Retirement Benefits
Question: Do you currently have a teaching job that offers retirement benefits in the form of an employercontributed 401k?
Answer Choices
Responses
Yes
51.09%
70
No
48.91%
67
Total
137
Seeking Job(s) That Offers Retirement Benefits
Question: If you do not have a teaching job offering retirement benefits in the form of an employercontributed 401k, will you be seeking one this year? (Full time or part time benefitted position)
Answer Choices
Responses
Yes
39.09%
43
No
60.91%
67
Total
110
Number of Current Contracts
Number of Contracts or Employment Relationships Hired For, But Waiting For Assignment
Question: How many of each type of positions below are you currently officially hired by but waiting for
course assignments?
Teaching Position(s) That Require You Report Who You Work For
Question: Do you currently have a teaching job that requires you to report other teaching jobs you have?
Non-Compete Enforceability
Teaching Job Requiring Non-Compete
Question: Do you currently have a teaching job that requires or required you to sign a non-compete
agreement?
Dismissed Due to Non-Compete Violation
Awareness and Reporting of Boss Working at Another Institution Against Company Policy
Violation of Non-Compete
Non-Compete Perceptions
Question: How closely do you agree with the following statements?
Reasons for Not Accepting Contract or Employment
Most reasons under “Other” indicated “N/A”
New-Hire Training
Other Responses:
If experienced in the LMS and/or industry, none.
Both Self-Paced to have a test out option and asynchronous IF the course management system is new
It depends on many factors...
It depends on the resources and cost. Whatever is cost effective as well as efficient in getting new adjunct training
across and completed.
Depending on the course work needed and the Design of the programs.
I think as true "Edupreneuers" that we should not require any training other than in a new or unique LMS. As
professionals, we should come with this knowledge already.
Must be paid for by the employer!
Reasons for Working in a Full Time Teaching Position
Thinking of your full time teaching job, to what degree do you agree with the following statements?
Reasons for Working in a Part-Time or Adjunct Teaching Position
Thinking of your part-time or adjunct teaching job(s), to what degree do you agree with the
following statements?
Pay Expectations: 6-Week Undergraduate Course, Terminal Degree, Adjunct, Per-Course and
Salary
Pay Expectations: 6-Week Graduate Course, Terminal Degree, Adjunct, Per-Course and Salary
Pay Expectations: Full Time Position, Undergraduate Courses, Terminal Degree Salary
Pay Expectations: Full Time Position, Graduate Courses, Terminal Degree Salary
Favorite Colleges/Universities To Work For
5 most popular in order were:
Baker College
Davenport University
Southern New Hampshire University
Kaplan University
University of Maryland University College
List below is not ranked:
Mohave Community College
Davenport University
DeVry
Ashford University
University of Central Missouri
Midwestern State University
Excelsior College
Southern New Hampshire University
Ashland Community and Technical College
Franklin Universities
Crown College
Northcentral
Indiana University
Drake University
Kaplan University
South University
UMHB
Columbia Southern University
Jacksonville State University
University of the Rockies
Strayer University
Argosy
Old Dominion University
Drexel
UMUC
Lone Star College
American Public University System
La Roche College
Baker College
Dixie State University
Grand Canyon University
Western Carolina University
Herzing University
Ottawa University
Purdue
Bellevue University
Colorado Technical University
Clover Park Technical College
Liberty University
Missouri State University
Kent State University
CSU-Global Campus
Rasmussen College
Embry Riddle Aeronautical University
Marist College (due to pay!)
Northeastern University
University of Western Australia
Devry
Kennesaw State University
Burlington County College
LABOURE COLLEGE
Fortis College
Central Michigan University
University of Phoenix
Least Favorite Colleges/Universities To Work For
5 most popular (least favorite) in order were:
Everest College
Ashford University
Liberty University
Kaplan University
University of Phoenix
List below is not ranked:
Kaplan University
Strayer
Grand Canyon University
Everest University
Ashford University
Charter College
Embry-Riddle University
Axia College
Sage College
Phoenix
Regent University
American Public University
Westwood College
Liberty University
University of Phoenix
Bethel University
Rasmussen
Argosy
Ozarks Technical Community College
Florida Gulf Coast University
Oglala Lakota College
Western Governors University
East West University
CTU (due to live chats)
American Intercontinental University
Northcentral University
Characteristics of Best Places to Work
5 most popular written characteristics in order were:
Pay
Support/Supportive Environment
Job Security
Regular Course Loads
Asynchronous
List below is not ranked:
Online class availability
Not overwhelmed with students
Pay vs class size and work required
Strong pay/Salary
Flexibility
Stable
Support
Respect
Online platform works reliably
Teaching focused (NOT "retention" or "student as customer focused"
Great boss very laid back and easy to teach there
Well known university
Academics
Fair salary
Good training and expectations.
Supportive Environment
Academic Integrity
Academic Rigor
Fair with scheduling / loyalty
Lenient and Laissez Faire supervisors and deans; hands off, let the instructor teach
Autonomy
Investment in Student Success
Manageable class sizes
Community
Mutual respect
Short semesters
Supportive, positive, and communicative Dean
Fairness
Job security
Student-centric
Regular course loads
Asynchronous
Well Organized Program
LMS system support
Pay their bills on time
Innovative
Reliable course assignments
School Reputation
Year-round employment (opposed to traditional fall and spring semesters)
Appreciate our work and knowledge
Plans to Quit/Resign
Reasons to Look for Additional Work
Adjunct Unions
Hiring Practices and Experience
The hiring practices and experience section of this survey is designed to get a better understanding of
what perceptions exist about which types of schools are hiring, how to get positions, and methods to
move to the interview and hiring phase. Data about how many applications and length of time to hiring
decisions is collected. Data on perceptions about the industry in general and the use of social media
networking in hiring is obtained. Perception about the importance of a terminal degree is measured.
Schools Hiring in Discipline Area
Job Offers: Time from Application to Interview
Administration Feedback: Time to Hire
Teaching Job Applications
Teaching Job Goals for 2014
Teaching Job Goals for 2014 – Number of Jobs Acquired
Job Application Preparation
Networking Opportunities
Social Media and Job Opportunities
Confidence in Career Opportunities and Sustaining Work
Uncertainty in Online Education
The following information was collected in response to the question, “If you feel uncertain about online teaching as a
profession, please tell us why:” (unfiltered and in no particular order)
1-2 cancelled classes can mean not paying the bills
The government is on a witch-hunt for the for-profits. If the for-profits get shut down then there will be even instructors looking for work. Supply and
demand are a bear.
No call or emails in 4 months and nearly 100 applications submitted
Employment or course offerings at the discretion of PD and not consistent.
Course loads are decreasing. I am not even actively teaching at some schools because of it
Declining opportunities and schools succumbing to less rigor in programs.
As full time positions become available (cheap too, I might add), adjuncts will lose classes
Classes are not consistent and student behavior
For me it’s a supplemental income. I could never replicate my salary and benefits from my full time job
Attorneys are teaching more. I am a paralegal.
No terminal degree
Budget Issues for all Schools
The one trepidation I have is that I am handed a 'piece of crap' syllabus and curriculum and have to redesign it better to improve upon the class, and
am designing on the fly, which means it's not perfect.
I do not have a PhD nor do I intend to get one (not plausible for personal reasons).
Too many unprepared people think they can teach and fewer positions open because of crack down on for profits. Flooded market
My courses offerings have become sporadic and unpredictable instead of regular. I am now teaching courses with low enrollments, and the financial
aid scam of students dropping in the first week is a concern.
Declining enrollment.
Record student debt; if the government gets out of the loan business, online instructor employment will fall.
I think too many people are willing to work for next to nothing to break in. So many want to break in that there is no need for good pay or benefits.
For profits closing
Schools are changing, especially for profit. They do not care about faculty or longevity of faculty. They want a cheap, warm body to fill a seat, and they
know there is a pile up of warm bodies if an instructor doesn't comply with whims or changes.
Too much demand not enough supply
There seems to be a bit of a saturation of people wanting to teach online
Spouse and I are both about to take some time off from employment. I may or may not return to teaching, but I'm confident I'll still be able to do so
(given the need for instructors in my field).
After online and seated classes for over six years of steady work, including some summers, I quit one school due to ethics issues and was laid off the
second due to lack of enrollment. One online class does not a career make.
The higher ed industry is changing quickly.
Too many things have changed the last three years
Online teaching will always be low pay and a dead end. If you want salary, benefits, retirement, and tenure; brick and mortar are the only way. Online
teaching is great for universities, but comparable to outsourcing for professors. It is possible to make additional money if you have a STEM degree, but
another MBA or Ph.D. in education or English is not needed by the industry. The two places I teach pay a minimum of $4,000 per class (8-12 weeks)
for STEM classes. I only teach one class a semester (2 a year) but that is my choice. I can teach up to 4 and receive the full time adjunct package; but
I chose not. I will simply wait and take the tenure brick and mortar job. Adjuncts simply have to realize they cannot have it all. If they want the freedom
of teaching online they must understand that freedom comes at a price (salary, security, workload and benefits). Stop working for these salaries and
the industry will improve. Complain, but continue to work, you get what you are willing to work for. Unqualified instructors will cause a university to lose
it accreditation, as quickly as unqualified pilots will cause an airline to close.
Lack of institutional stability at certain schools, 'contingent upon enrollments ', base pay
Growing scrutiny of for-profit institutions
I don't see much future in on line teaching as the competition from places like India especially (i.e. Khan's Academy) is going to keep the billing rates
low. Where I do see potential is in BLENDED learning courses designed to build competency in mid-career path professionals.
For profit education is a scam sham. They scam students that would otherwise not be able to get into a legitimate program and most can't write. The
graduate programs are the worst. Most PhDs I know with these don't know what research really is.
I have noticed fewer job postings in my area and I feel like I have gotten fewer interviews.
Instability of management at the schools
They are asking more and more from us
Government involvement and accreditation restrictions
Worried about enrollment at schools.
I can't seem to break in to online teaching
All schools are cutting back on the number of courses adjuncts can teach.
Due to crashing economy and decertification of for-profits – the market for online is crashing along with the economy
Importance of Terminal Degree