Advertisement

Faculty Motivation for Scholarly Teaching and Innovative Classroom Practice—An Empirical Study

  • Zakiya S. Wilson-KennedyEmail author
  • Liuli Huang
  • Eugene Kennedy
  • Guoqing Tang
  • Margaret I. Kanipes
  • Goldie S. Byrd
Chapter

Abstract

The transformation of undergraduate science and math education will require broad-based faculty motivation to integrate innovative evidence-based pedagogies into classroom practice and advance scholarship in teaching and learning. Currently, the traditional lecture approach remains the dominant model in these disciplines. While research suggests that high-impact practices and active learning pedagogies may improve the success of students from historically underrepresented groups (HUGs), faculty must be motivated to invest their time and effort to do this work. Consequently, three strands of motivation theory (motivation, self-determination, and self-efficacy) may provide a framework for exploring faculty adoption and advancement of potentially transformative practices. Herein, motivation theory can support our investigation of the personal and institutional dynamics that promote and/or hinder faculty integration of high-impact and evidence-based pedagogical innovations into classroom practice. The study reported in this chapter uses quantitative methods to explore faculty engagement in scholarly teaching and other innovative educational practices that purport to increase success of HUGs in the STEM fields at a land-grant doctoral research university in the southeastern region of the USA. The university has a historical mission of educating HUGs and a designation of HBCU (Historically Black Colleges and Universities). One primary research question guides this effort: “To what extent do HBCU STEM faculty feel motivated to engage in high-impact, evidence-based pedagogies?” This work is important in the broader STEM education community for understanding how to foster faculty engagement in transforming the paradigm of instruction in the college classroom with a focus on student success.

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the US National Science Foundation (NSF) by Award number HRD-1719498.

References

  1. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (2014). Achieving systemic change: A sourcebook for advancing and funding undergraduate STEM Education. In C. Fry (Ed.),. Association of American Colleges and Universities.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, W. A., Banerjee, U., Drennan, C., Elgin, S., Epstein, I., Handelsman, J., et al. (2011). Science education. Changing the culture of science education at research universities. Science (New York, NY), 331(6014).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Austin, A. E. (2011). Promoting evidence-based change in undergraduate science education. Ann E. Austin.Google Scholar
  4. Baard, P. P., Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2004). Intrinsic need satisfaction: a motivational basis of performance and weil-being in two work settings 1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34(10), 2045–2068.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Babco, E. (2003). Trends in African American and Native American participation in STEM higher education. Commission on Professionals in Science and Technology, 1200.Google Scholar
  6. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. Macmillan.Google Scholar
  7. Borrego, M., Froyd, J. E., & Hall, T. S. (2010). Diffusion of engineering education innovations: A survey of awareness and adoption rates in US engineering departments. Journal of Engineering Education, 99(3), 185–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Colbeck, C. L., Cabrera, A. F., & Marine, R. J. (2002). Faculty motivation to use alternative teaching methods.Google Scholar
  9. Committee on Prospering in the Global Economy of the twenty-first century(U.S.), & Committee on Science Engineering and Public Policy (U.S.). (2007). Rising above the gathering storm: Energizing and employing America for a brighter economic future. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  10. Committee on Prospering in the Global Economy of the twenty-first century(U.S.), & Committee on Science Engineering and Public Policy (U.S.). (2010). Rising above the gathering storm revisited: Rapidly approaching category 5. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  11. Dancy, M., & Henderson, C. (2010). Pedagogical practices and instructional change of physics faculty. American Journal of Physics, 78(10), 1056–1063.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Deci, E. L., & Flaste, R. (1995). Why we do what we do. Putnam Publishing Group.Google Scholar
  13. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1987). The support of autonomy and the control of behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53(6), 1024.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2002a). Handbook of self-determination research. University Rochester Press.Google Scholar
  15. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2002b). The paradox of achievement: The harder you push, the worse it gets.Google Scholar
  16. Diamond, R. M., & Adam, B. E. (1998). Changing Priorities at Research Universities, 1991–1996. Based on: The National Study of Research Universities on the Balance between Research and Undergraduate Teaching (1992), by Peter J. Gray, Robert C. Froh, Robert M. Diammond. ERIC.Google Scholar
  17. Feldman, K. A., & Paulsen, M. B. (1999). Faculty motivation: The role of a supportive teaching culture. New directions for teaching and learning, 1999(78), 69–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gaffney, J. D., Richards, E., Kustusch, M. B., Ding, L., & Beichner, R. J. (2008). Scaling up education reform. Journal of College Science Teaching, 37(5), 48.Google Scholar
  19. Goins, G., White, C., Foushee, D., Smith, M., Whittaker, J., & Byrd, G. (2009). HBCUs Model for Success. Successful Models for Effectively Retaining and Graduating Students at North Carolina A&T State University, New York: Thurgood Marshall College Fund Book.Google Scholar
  20. Handelsman, J., Ebert-May, D., Beichner, R., Bruns, P., Chang, A., DeHaan, R., et al. (2004). Scientific teaching. Science, 304(5670), 521–522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Harackiewicz, J. M. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation: The search for optimal motivation and performance. Academic Press.Google Scholar
  22. Hardré, P., Miller, R., Beasley, A., Pace, T., Maxwell, M., & Xie, K. (2007). What motivates university faculty members to do research?: Tenure-track faculty in research-extensive universities. Journal of the Professoriate, 2(1), 75–99.Google Scholar
  23. Hardré, P. L. (2012). Community college faculty motivation for basic research, teaching research, and professional development. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 36(8), 539–561.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hardré, P. L., Beesley, A. D., Miller, R. L., & Pace, T. M. (2011). Faculty motivation to do research: Across disciplines in research-extensive universities. Journal of the Professoriate, 5(1), 35–69.Google Scholar
  25. Macdonald, R. H., Manduca, C. A., Mogk, D. W., & Tewksbury, B. J. (2005). Teaching methods in undergraduate geoscience courses: Results of the 2004 On the Cutting Edge survey of US faculty. Journal of Geoscience Education, 53(3), 237–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Mack, K. M., Rankins, C. M., & Winston, C. E. (2011). Black women faculty at historically black colleges and universities: Perspectives for a national imperative. Diversity in Higher Education, 11, 149–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mazur, E., & Hilborn, R. C. (1997). Peer instruction: A user’s manual. Physics Today, 50, 68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Moog, R. S., & Spencer, J. N. (2008). Process oriented guided inquiry learning (POGIL). USA: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, & Institute of Medicine. (2011). Expanding Underrepresented Minority Participation: America’s Science and Technology Talent at the Crossroads. Washington DC: National Academies Press. Available at: http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12984.html.
  30. National Research Council. (2012). Discipline-based education research: Understanding and improving learning in undergraduate science and engineering. National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  31. National Science Foundation, N. C. f. S. a. E. S. (2013). Women, Minorities, and Persons with Disabilities in Science and Engineering: 2013. Special Report http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/wmpd/. Accessed 304 NSF 13.
  32. Pintrich, P. R., & Schunk, D. H. (2002). Motivation in education: Theory, research, and applications. Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  33. President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. (2012). Engage to Excel: Producing One Million Additional College Graduates with Degrees in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Executive Office of the President. Available at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/pcast-executive-report-final_2–13-12.pdf.
  34. Reeve, J. (1996). Motivating others: Nurturing inner motivational resources. Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
  35. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Self Determination Theory (SDT). http://selfdeterminationtheory.org/theory. Accessed 21 October, 2018.
  37. Tagg, J. (2012). Why does the faculty resist change? Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 44(1), 6–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Twigg, C. A. (2011). The math emporium: Higher education’s silver bullet. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 43(3), 25–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Wieman, C. (2007). Why not try a scientific approach to science education? Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 39(5), 9–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Wieman, C. (2012). Applying new research to improve science education. Issues in Science and Technology, 1–8.Google Scholar
  41. Wilson, Z. S., Holmes, L., Sylvain, M. R., Batiste, L., Johnson, M., McGuire, S. Y., et al. (2012a). Hierarchical mentoring: A transformative strategy for improving diversity and retention in undergraduate stem disciplines. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 21(1), 148–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Wilson, Z. S., Iyengar, S. S., Pang, S.-S., Warner, I. M., & Luces, C. A. (2012b). Increasing access for economically disadvantaged students: The NSF/CSEM & S-STEM programs at Louisiana State University. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 21(5), 581–587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Wright, M. (2005). Always at odds? Congruence in faculty beliefs about teaching at a research university. The Journal of Higher Education, 76(3), 331–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Zakiya S. Wilson-Kennedy
    • 1
    Email author
  • Liuli Huang
    • 2
  • Eugene Kennedy
    • 2
  • Guoqing Tang
    • 3
  • Margaret I. Kanipes
    • 4
  • Goldie S. Byrd
    • 5
  1. 1.College of ScienceLouisiana State UniversityBaton RougeUSA
  2. 2.School of EducationLouisiana State UniversityBaton RougeUSA
  3. 3.Department of MathematicsNorth Carolina A&T State UniversityGreensboroUSA
  4. 4.University Honors ProgramNorth Carolina A&T State UniversityGreensboroUSA
  5. 5.Wake Forest School of MedicineWinston SalemUSA

Personalised recommendations