Journal of Science Education and Technology

, Volume 21, Issue 5, pp 558–570 | Cite as

Research University STEM Faculty Members’ Motivation to Engage in Teaching Professional Development: Building the Choir Through an Appeal to Extrinsic Motivation and Ego

Article

Abstract

This paper reports on a qualitative, grounded-theory-based study that explored the motivations of science and engineering faculty to engage in teaching professional development at a major research university. Faculty members were motivated to engage in teaching professional development due to extrinsic motivations, mainly a weakened professional ego, and sought to bring their teaching identities in better concordance with their researcher identities. The results pose a challenge to a body of research that has concluded that faculty must be intrinsically motivated to participate in teaching professional development. Results confirmed a pre-espoused theory of motivation, self-determination theory; a discussion of research literature consideration during grounded theory research is offered. A framework for motivating more faculty members at research universities to engage in teaching professional development is provided.

Keywords

Research universities STEM faculty motivation Teaching professional development Self-determination theory 

References

  1. American Association for the Advancement of Science (1989) Science for all Americans: a Project 2061 report on literacy goals in science, mathematics, and technology. Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  2. Astin A (1993) What matters in college: four critical years revisited. Jossey-Bass, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  3. Austin AE, Barnes BJ (2005) Preparing doctoral students for faculty careers that contribute to the public good. In: Kezar AJ, Chambers TC, Burkhardt JC and Associates (eds) Higher education for the public good, emerging voices from a national movement. Jossey-Bass, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  4. Backman K, Kyngas A (1999) Challenges of the grounded theory approach to a novice researcher. Nurs Health Sci 1(3):147–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bess JL (1997) The motivation to teach: perennial conundrums. In: Bess JL (ed) Teaching well and liking it. The Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore, pp 424–439Google Scholar
  6. Charmaz K (2000) Grounded theory: objectivist and constructivist methods. In: Denzin N, Lincoln Y (eds) The handbook of qualitative research, 2nd edn. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, pp 509–535Google Scholar
  7. Committee on Science, Engineering, Public Policy (2006) Rising above the gathering storm: energizing and employing America for a brighter economic future. National Academies Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  8. Cross PK (1990) Classroom research: helping professors learn more about teaching and learning. In: Seldin P (ed) How administrators can improve teaching: moving from talking to action in higher education. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, pp 122–142Google Scholar
  9. deCharms R (1968) Personal causation. Academic Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  10. Deci E, Ryan R (1985) Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. Plenum Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  11. Deci E, Ryan R (1991) A motivational approach to self: integration in personality. In: Dienstbier R (ed) Nebraska symposium on motivation: vol 38. Perspectives on motivation. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, pp 237–298Google Scholar
  12. Deci E, Ryan R (2000) The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inq 11:227–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Eble KE (1988) The craft of teaching: a guide to mastering the professor’s art, 2nd edn. Jossey-Bass, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  14. Fairweather JS, Beach AL (2002) Variations in faculty work at research universities: implications for state and institutional policy. Rev High Educ 26:97–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fontana A, Frey JH (2000) The interview: from structured questions to negotiated text. In: Denzin N, Lincoln Y (eds) The handbook of qualitative research, 2nd edn. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp 645–672Google Scholar
  16. Gaff JG, Lambert LM (1996) Socializing future faculty to the values of undergraduate education. Change 28:38–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Glaser BG (1992) Emergence versus forcing: basics of grounded theory analysis. Sociology Press, Mill ValleyGoogle Scholar
  18. Glaser BG (2001) The grounded theory perspective: conceptualisation contrasted with description. Sociology Press, Mill ValleyGoogle Scholar
  19. Glaser BG, Strauss A (1967) The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative research. Aldine Publishing Company, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  20. Halpern DF (1994) Rethinking college instruction for a changing world. In: Halpern DF and Associates (eds) New teaching and learning strategies for an increasingly complex world. Jossey-Bass, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  21. Hativa N, Marincovich M (eds) (1995) Disciplinary differences in teaching and learning: implications for practice. Jossey-Bass, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  22. Healey M (2005) Linking research and teaching to benefit student learning. J Geogr High Edu 29(2):183–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Holder I (2000) The interpretation of documents and material culture. In: Denzin N, Lincoln Y (eds) The handbook of qualitative research, 2nd edn. Sage Publications, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  24. Huber MT, Hutchings P (2005) The advancement of learning: building the teaching commons, a Carnegie foundation report on the scholarship of teaching and learning in higher education. Jossey Bass, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  25. Hutchison SA (1993) Grounded theory: the method. In: Munhall PL, Boyd CA (eds) Nursing research: a qualitative perspective. National League for Nursing Press, New York, pp 180–212Google Scholar
  26. Kinzie J (2005) Promoting student success: DEEP lessons for teaching and learning. PowerPoint presented at the annual meeting of the Professional Organizational Development Network in Higher Education, Milwaukee, WI, Oct 2005Google Scholar
  27. Kuh GD (2001) Assessing what really matters to student learning. Change 33(3):10–17, 66Google Scholar
  28. LaPointe A (2005) The good and the bad: University professors’ perceptions on what helps and hinders taking teaching seriously. Paper presented at the International Society of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, Vancouver, Canada, Oct 2005Google Scholar
  29. Lee VS (2000) The influence of disciplinary differences on consultations with faculty. To Improv Acad 18:278–290Google Scholar
  30. Marshall MN (1996) Sampling for qualitative research. Fam Pract 13:522–525CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. May K (1994) Abstract knowing: the case for magic in method. In: Morse J (ed) Critical issues in qualitative research methods. Sage, London, pp 407–423Google Scholar
  32. Mcghee G, Marland GR, Atkinson J (2007) Grounded theory research: literature reviewing and reflexivity. J Adv Nurs 60(3):334–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Menges RJ (1994) Preparing new faculty for the future. Thought Action 10(2):81–95Google Scholar
  34. Millis BJ (2001) Faculty development in the 1990’s: what it is and why we can’t wait. J Couns Dev 72:454–464CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Owens RG (2001) Organizational behavior is education. Allyn and Bacon, BostonGoogle Scholar
  36. Pascarella E, Terenzini P (2005) How college affects students: a third decade of research. Jossey-Bass, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  37. Project Kaleidoscope (2006) Transforming America’s scientific and technological infrastructure: recommendation for urgent action (report on reports II). Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  38. Prosser M, Ramsden P, Trigwell K, Martin E (2003) Dissonance in experience of teaching and its relation to the quality of student learning. Stud High Edu 28(1):37–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Russell S, Fairweather J, Cox R, Boismier J (1990) Faculty in higher education institutions. U.S. Department of Education, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  40. Ryan R, Deci E (2000) Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: classic definitions and new directions. Contemp Educ Psychol 25:54–67Google Scholar
  41. Seymour E, Hewitt NM (1997) Talking about leaving: why undergraduates leave the sciences. Westview Press, BoulderGoogle Scholar
  42. Stake RE (1995) The art of case study research. Sage Publications, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  43. Strauss A (1987) Qualitative analysis for social scientists. University of Cambridge Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Strauss A, Corbin J (1990) Basics of qualitative research. Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Sage, Newbury Park, CAGoogle Scholar
  45. Travis JE (1997) Models for improving college teaching: a faculty resource. ASHE-ERIC higher education report: (report no. 6). The George Washington University, Graduate School of Education and Human Development, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  46. Trigwell K (2005) Teaching-research relations, cross-disciplinary collegiality and student learning. High Educ 49:235–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Umbach PD, Wawrzynski MR (2004) Faculty do matter: the role of college faculty in student learning and engagement. Paper presented at the Forum of the Association for Institutional Research, Boston, MA, June 2004Google Scholar
  48. U.S. Department of Education (2006) Meeting the challenge of a changing world: strengthening education for the 21st century. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  49. U.S. Office of Science and Technology Policy (2006) American competitiveness initiative: leading the world in innovation. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  50. Wallin DL (2003) Motivation and faculty development: a three-stage study of presidential perceptions of faculty professional development needs. Commun Coll J Res Pract 27:317–335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Weimer M (1990) Improving college teaching: strategies for developing instructional effectiveness. Jossey-Bass, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  52. Weimer M (2003) Focus on learning to transform teaching. Change 35(5):48–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Zuber-Skerritt O (1992) Professional development in higher education: a theoretical framework for action research. Kogan Page Limited, LondonGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of KentuckyLexingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations