AERA 2010 - Examining Faculty Motivation to Participate in Professional Development

1,090 views

Published on

Published in: Education
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,090
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
13
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
6
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

AERA 2010 - Examining Faculty Motivation to Participate in Professional Development

  1. 1. 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
  2. 2. Survey Participants <ul><li>A teaching college, private university, proprietary university, and research university </li></ul><ul><li>Employment Status </li></ul><ul><ul><li>234 full-time faculty </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>290 part-time faculty </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Tenure Status </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Non-Tenure Track 100 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Tenure Track 62 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Tenured 72 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Adjunct 290 </li></ul></ul>
  3. 3. R esearch Questions <ul><li>How do faculty differ by employment category (full time or part-time), tenure status, and institution type in their frequency of attending faculty development? </li></ul><ul><li>Are there differences among faculty employment category, institution type, or tenure status in the preference of faculty development format? </li></ul><ul><li>What are the differences among faculty employment category, institution type, or tenure status in their motivation to attend faculty development? </li></ul><ul><li>What are the differences among faculty employment category, institution type, or tenure status in their obstacles to attend faculty development? </li></ul>
  4. 4. Findings - Frequency <ul><li>Frequency </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Significant difference between institution type and rank </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>City College – highest mean </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Research U – lowest </li></ul></ul></ul>
  5. 5. Frequency of Attendance by Tenure Status and Institution
  6. 6. Findings - Format <ul><li>Format </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Books, videotapes, one-hour workshops: All institutions </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Books/videos; 1 hour workshops: Tenure-track </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Books/videos; 1 hour workshops: Tenured </li></ul></ul>
  7. 7. Format Preference by Tenure Status
  8. 8. Format Preference by Institution
  9. 9. Findings - Motivation <ul><li>Motivation </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Stipends: City College; Corporate U; tenure-track; adjuncts </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Related to technology: tenured and full-time faculty </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Improve teaching: Research U; tenure-track; tenured </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Attendance required: City College; non-tenure track; adjuncts </li></ul></ul>
  10. 10. Motivation to Attend by Tenure Status
  11. 11. Motivation by Tenure Status, Cont.
  12. 12. Motivation to Attend by Institution
  13. 13. Motivation by Institution, Cont.
  14. 14. Findings - Obstacles <ul><li>Obstacles: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Time and day: City College, Catholic Western, adjuncts </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Financial support: Corporate U, non-tenure track and tenured </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Competing priorities: Research U, tenure track </li></ul></ul>
  15. 15. Obstacles by Tenure Status
  16. 16. Obstacles by Institution
  17. 17. In Their Own Words <ul><li>Nose to the grindstone 24/7 – no time </li></ul><ul><li>Count towards teaching/research </li></ul><ul><li>Pay part-time faculty to attend </li></ul><ul><li>Shorter formats and topics on technology preferred </li></ul><ul><li>Give credit towards tenure </li></ul><ul><li>Valued part of reward structure </li></ul><ul><li>It isn’t the lack of motivation, it’s the lack of time </li></ul>

×