• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
AERA 2010 - Examining Faculty Motivation to Participate in Professional Development
 

AERA 2010 - Examining Faculty Motivation to Participate in Professional Development

on

  • 1,229 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
1,229
Views on SlideShare
1,224
Embed Views
5

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
2
Comments
0

2 Embeds 5

http://patricklowenthal.com 4
http://www.slideshare.net 1

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    AERA 2010 - Examining Faculty Motivation to Participate in Professional Development AERA 2010 - Examining Faculty Motivation to Participate in Professional Development Presentation Transcript

    • Examining Faculty Motivation to Participate in Professional Development AERA National Conference May 3, 2010 Michael Wray: Metropolitan State College Patrick Lowenthal: University of Colorado, Denver Barb Bates, DeVry University Teri Switzer, University of Colorado at Colorado Springs Ellen Stevens, Univ. of Colorado, Denver
    • Survey Participants
      • A teaching college, private university, proprietary university, and research university
      • Employment Status
        • 234 full-time faculty
        • 290 part-time faculty
      • Tenure Status
        • Non-Tenure Track 100
        • Tenure Track 62
        • Tenured 72
        • Adjunct 290
    • R esearch Questions
      • How do faculty differ by employment category (full time or part-time), tenure status, and institution type in their frequency of attending faculty development?
      • Are there differences among faculty employment category, institution type, or tenure status in the preference of faculty development format?
      • What are the differences among faculty employment category, institution type, or tenure status in their motivation to attend faculty development?
      • What are the differences among faculty employment category, institution type, or tenure status in their obstacles to attend faculty development?
    • Findings - Frequency
      • Frequency
        • Significant difference between institution type and rank
          • City College – highest mean
          • Research U – lowest
    • Frequency of Attendance by Tenure Status and Institution
    • Findings - Format
      • Format
        • Books, videotapes, one-hour workshops: All institutions
        • Books/videos; 1 hour workshops: Tenure-track
        • Books/videos; 1 hour workshops: Tenured
    • Format Preference by Tenure Status
    • Format Preference by Institution
    • Findings - Motivation
      • Motivation
        • Stipends: City College; Corporate U; tenure-track; adjuncts
        • Related to technology: tenured and full-time faculty
        • Improve teaching: Research U; tenure-track; tenured
        • Attendance required: City College; non-tenure track; adjuncts
    • Motivation to Attend by Tenure Status
    • Motivation by Tenure Status, Cont.
    • Motivation to Attend by Institution
    • Motivation by Institution, Cont.
    • Findings - Obstacles
      • Obstacles:
        • Time and day: City College, Catholic Western, adjuncts
        • Financial support: Corporate U, non-tenure track and tenured
        • Competing priorities: Research U, tenure track
    • Obstacles by Tenure Status
    • Obstacles by Institution
    • In Their Own Words
      • Nose to the grindstone 24/7 – no time
      • Count towards teaching/research
      • Pay part-time faculty to attend
      • Shorter formats and topics on technology preferred
      • Give credit towards tenure
      • Valued part of reward structure
      • It isn’t the lack of motivation, it’s the lack of time