Abstract
Academic disciplines with soft paradigmaticdevelopment tend to have an affinity for more readilyenacting practices designed to improve undergraduateeducation than do hard paradigmatic developmentdisciplines. This study extends the affinity disciplinehypothesis to Chickering and Gamson's seven principlesof good practice. The affinity discipline hypothesisgarners empirical support for four of the sevenprinciples of good practice: encouragement offaculty-student contact, encouragement of activelearning, communication of high expectations, andrespect for diverse talents and ways of knowing.Implications for theory and practice are suggested by the findings ofthis study.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
REFERENCES
Association of American Colleges (1985). Integrity in the College Curriculum: A Report to the Academic Community. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges.
Becher, T. (1989). Academic Tribes and Territories: Intellectual Enquiry and the Cultures of Disciplines. Milton Keynes, England: Open University Press.
Bess, J. L. (1977). The motivation to teach. Journal of Higher Education48: 243-258.
Bess, J.L. (1997). Introduction. In J. L. Bess (ed.), Teaching Well and Liking It: Motivating Faculty to Teach Effectively(pp. ix-xv). Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Biglan, A. (1973). The characteristics of subject matter in different academic areas. Journal of Applied Psychology57(3): 195-203.
Blackburn, R. T., and Lawrence, J. H. (1995). Faculty at Work: Motivation, Expectation, Satisfaction. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Blackburn, R. T., Behymer, C. E., and Hall, D. E. (1978). Research note: Correlates of faculty publications. Sociology of Education5: 132-141.
Boice, R. (1992). The New Faculty Member. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Braxton, J. M. (1995). Disciplines with an affinity for the improvement of undergraduate education. In N. Hativa and M. Marincovich (eds.), Disciplinary Differences in Teaching and Learning: Implications for Practice(pp 59-64). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Braxton, J. M., and Hargens, L. L. (1996). Variation among academic disciplines: Analytical frameworks and research. In J. C. Smart (ed.), Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research(pp. 1-46). New York: Agathon Press.
Braxton, J. M., Eimers, M., and Bayer, A. E. (1996). The implications of teaching norms for the improvement of undergraduate education. Journal of Higher Education67: 603-625.
Chickering, A. W. (1991). Institutionalizing the seven principles and the faculty and institutional inventories. In A. W. Chickering and Z. F. Gamson (eds.), Applying the Seven Principles of Good Practice in Undergraduate Education(pp. 51-61). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Chickering, A. W., and Gamson, Z. E. (1987). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. AAHE Bulletin39: 3-7.
Chickering, A. W., and Gamson, Z. E. (1991). Appendix A: Seven principles of good practice in undergraduate education. In A. W. Chickering and Z. F. Gamson (eds.), Applying the Seven Principles of Good Practice in Undergraduate Education(pp. 63-69). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Chickering, A. W., Gamson, Z. E., and Barsi, L. M. (1989). Seven Principles for Good Practice in Undergraduate Education: Faculty Inventory. Milwaukee, WI: The Johnson Foundation.
Eble, K. E., and McKeachie, W. J. (1985). Improving Undergraduate Education Through Faculty Development. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Gaff, J. G. (1991). New Life for the College Curriculum. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Katz, J. (1985). Teaching based on knowledge of students. New Directions for Teaching and Learning21: 3-11.
Kuhn, T. S. (1962, 1970). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lodahl, J. B., and Gordon, G. (1972). The structure of scientific fields and the functioning of university graduate departments. American Sociological Review37: 57-72.
McKeachie, W. J. (1986). Teaching Tips: A Guide for the Beginning College Teacher. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Mohr, L. B. (1990). Understanding Significance Testing. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Murray, H. G., and Renaud, R. D. (1995). Disciplinary differences in classroom teaching behaviors. In N. Hativa and M. Marincovich (eds.), Disciplinary Differences in Teaching and Learning: Implications for Practice(pp. 31-39). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
National Institute of Education (1984). Involvement in Learning: Realizing the Potential of American Higher Education. Washington, DC: National Institute of Education.
Olsen, D., and Simmons, A. (1996). The research versus teaching debate: Untangling the relationship. In J. M. Braxton (ed.), Faculty Teaching and Research: Is There a Conflict. New Directions for Institutional Research, no. 90. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Smart, J. C., and Elton, C. F. (1982). Validation of the Biglan model. Research in Higher Education17: 213-229.
Sorcinelli, M. D. (1991). Research findings on the seven principles. In A. W. Chickering and Z. F. Gamson (eds.), Applying the Seven Principles of Good Practice in Undergraduate Education(pp. 13-25). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Stark, J. S., Lowther, M. A., Bentley, R. J., and Martens, G. G. (1990). Disciplinary differences in course planning. Review of Higher Education13: 141-165.
Weimer, M. (1991). Improving College Teaching. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Braxton, J.M., Olsen, D. & Simmons, A. AFFINITY DISCIPLINES AND THE USE OF PRINCIPLES OF GOOD PRACTICE FOR UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION. Research in Higher Education 39, 299–318 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1018729101473
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1018729101473