PLACE IN RETURN Box to remove this checkout from your record.
To AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

 

 

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE
31 ~ '
HAQ‘ 3%3'2ur9aé1? “ p
SEP 1 9 2006 9 K
AUG 2'0 201.0

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6/01 cJCIRC/DatoDuo.p65-p.15

DIFF

STRATEGIES TO IMPROVE COLLEGE TEACHING: THE ROLE OF
DIFFERENT LEVELS OF ORGANIZATIONAL INFLUENCE ON FACULTY
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES
By

Andrea Langell Beach

A DISSERTATION
submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulﬁllment of the requirements for the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY IN HIGHER, ADULT, AND LIFELONG EDUCATION
Department of Educational Administration

2002

STF

DIFFEI

In Ih
active and C‘
undergradua
enriromnfs'lI
is impodam.
multiple 16W
practices in c
organization;
sigiiticant. n
multiple insti
mine the i
approaches, v

A model of Cl

l u. 1:
“CQEImg IIH

pi -
“male iOI iCa

ABSTRACT
STRATEGIES TO IMPROVE COLLEGE TEACHING: THE ROLE OF
DIFFERENT LEVELS OF ORGANIZATIONAL INFLUENCE ON FACULTY
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES
By

Andrea Langell Beach

In the face of mounting evidence of the positive effects on student learning of
active and collaborative learning approaches, and concern about the quality of
undergraduate education, colleges and universities are being urged to change their
environments to encourage and support faculty engagement in such teaching practices. It
is important, therefore, to understand dimensions of higher education organizations at
multiple levels that inﬂuence faculty engagement in active and collaborative teaching
practices in order to create strategies to improve college teaching. The concept of
organizational climate is well suited to such inquiries because it focuses on current,
signiﬁcant, malleable dimensions of organizations, and is conceived and studied at
multiple institutional levels. This study uses a two-stage, mixed methods approach to
examine the impact of climate for teaching at the departmental level on faculty teaching
approaches, with attention to factors at other organizational levels that may inﬂuence it.
A model of climate for teaching was tested using a national data set and hierarchical
modeling. In-depth qualitative case study analysis then explored how departmental

climate for teaching is created and inﬂuenced. The results of the analyses complemented

 

each other 2
approach I"

The
collaboratn

txvlatnec' 4

pfrsonal llli
that depmn
W). and t
faculty. [1 a

teaching. bu

each other and provided a breadth and depth of analysis not possible in a single method
approach (Tashakorri & Teddlie, 1998).

The departmental level represents 17% of the possible variance in active and
collaborative teaching, and the dimensions of departments modeled in this study
explained 45% of that variance. Results conﬁrmed the assertions of researchers that the
department is an important nexus of extra-institutional, institutional, disciplinary, and
personal inﬂuences on faculty (Colbeck et al., 2001; Massey, Wilger & Colbeck, 1995),
that departmental climates are unique (Moran & Volkwein, 1988; Volkwein & Carbone,
1994), and that they inﬂuence the use of active and collaborative teaching by individual
faculty. It also demonstrated that disciplines strongly inﬂuence department climates for
teaching, but do not determine them completely.

The dimensions of departmental climate for teaching that emerged from both
analyses as most important included the extent that departments engaged in faculty
development for teaching improvement, the leadership and support of departmental
chairs, the resources available to departments, and the perceptions of resources available
to the department.

This study is one of the ﬁrst to propose and test dimensions of departmental
climate for teaching (V olkwein & Carbone, 1994) and their inﬂuence on individual
faculty teaching approaches. The results suggest that further deﬁnition of departmental
teaching climate constructs would be fruitful. An instrument focused on climate for
teaching could serve as a useful diagnostic tool for institutions and systems seeking

effective strategies to support and encourage faculty excellence in teaching.

1434

iv

 

 

fllCOlil'ds‘C

multzplep

ICSSI'V‘C Sp
dissertatiu
and many

Th
Kenn}; Ph
WHO-rum}
Cm “CI 1'»;

311"; lift} 01‘

glad “e m

Amherst

“ﬁling 1'

¥

”Wain;

C“Implant

l \l"

L

Mess to th

“lire

mils h

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

A dissertation is never successfully completed in isolation. I received help,
encouragement, critique, consolation, and so much else in the course of this project from
multiple people, felines, and entities. They deserve acknowledgement.

I would like to gratefully acknowledge ﬁrst the help I received from my
committee — Ann Austin, Ph.D., Marilyn J. Amey, Ph.D., and Kevin J. Ford, Ph.D. I
reserve special thanks for James S. Fairweather, Ph.D., my doctoral advisor and
dissertation chair, for his mentorship, guidance, constructive criticism, superb editing,
and many lunches, as well as the high standards he set and modeled for me as a scholar.

The "Dissertation Divas" — Nancy Schmitt, Ph.D., Pamela Eddy, Ph.D., Patricia
Kenny, Ph.D., and Catherine Fleck — made this whole project possible, and more
importantly, fun, collaborative, and collegial. They contributed more to my success than I
can ever repay them for. Nancy especially was with me through the stress of comps, the
anxiety of proposal development, the writing process, and ﬁnally in celebration. I am so
glad we made the journey together! Shari, Smith and I spent countless hours in the
Zumberge Library at Grand Valley State University pushing each other to ﬁnish our
writing. I am blessed to have such friends. Joseph Martineau is largely responsible for
the quality of the HLM analysis and interpretation for this study. He served as my expert
consultant and taught me more than I thought was possible to learn about HLM.

I want to thank the UCLA Higher Education Research Institute for allowing me
access to the 1998 Faculty Survey data set used in this study. Dr. William Korn was

extremely helpful in setting up the data and trouble-shooting shortcuts to data reduction.

Hem his 5:
harmhhta
ungmue
\1}
hhihmher
coheaguee
brothers at
and Bob?
Jessica K.
mdPhdI
Pt
Cphhnnei
SINCE 1m
and led”
had enoi

{‘Omﬁtm

pac€~ah

He and his staff of graduate students were completely gracious about having me work in
their midst and even displace them from their normal routines and work stations. I am
very grateful to them.

My family and friends have supported and encouraged every step of my journey.
My mother got weekly updates, listened to me whine, and bragged about me to her
colleagues and ﬁiends. My father and step-mother were constant supports, and my
brothers and sisters more proud of me than I deserve. Mick and Bon Albrecht and Julie
and Bob Royce helped and encouraged me throughout, as did friends Joseph Brocato,
Jessica Kovan, Liliana Mina, Patricia Farrell, Kim VanderLinden, Karen Bush, Karen
and Phil Lienhart, and so many others along the way. Thank you all!

Pollux and Castor the "Beastie Boys" arrived weighing a pound and a half
combined (ﬂeas included) a couple months before I defended my proposal. They have
since zintupled their weight, shed at least a pound and a half of fur in my ofﬁce alone.
and learned to interrupt me at just the right time and lay on my keyboard when they have
had enough of my working. They are tutoring me well on the priorities of life and the art
of napping.

I must acknowledge the Zumberge Library at Grand Valley State University as a
contributing factor to the successful completion of this dissertation. Its quiet summer
pace, air-conditioning, and liberal food policies made it the ideal “writing cave.” The
bulk of the results of this study were written there.

Finally, I want to acknowledge the most important person in my life. Thank you,
Rick, for knowing what it’s like, for being so much more rational than I, and for, well, for

everything. This dissertation is dedicated to you.

Vi

 

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES .............................................................................................................. x
LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................................................... xii
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................... 1
Organizational Levels of Inﬂuence on Teaching ............................................................ 3
Climate for Teaching ....................................................................................................... 5
The Research Problem ..................................................................................................... 7
Signiﬁcance of the Study ............................................................................................... 10
Summary ........................................................................................................................ 10
CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF LITERATURE AND PROPOSED MODEL ..................... 12
Inﬂuences on Faculty Teaching ..................................................................................... 12
The Levels Perspective .................................................................................................. 15
Organizational Climate .................................................................................................. l 7
Climate Deﬁned ......................................................................................................... 17
Development of Climate Research ............................................................................. 20
Levels of Theory and Measurement in Climate Research ......................................... 21
Climate in Higher Education Research ...................................................................... 22
Organizational Levels in Faculty Research ................................................................... 28
Summary ........................................................................................................................ 30
Cross-Level Model of Departmental Climate for Teaching .......................................... 31
Use of Active and Collaborative Teaching ................................................................ 32
Demographic Variables .............................................................................................. 34
Individual and Departmental Climate Constructs ...................................................... 35
Departmental Characteristics ..................................................................................... 38
Institution Level Variables ......................................................................................... 4O
Constructing Variables at the Group Level ....................................... ' ......................... 40
Predicted Relationships .............................................................................................. 41
CHAPTER 3: STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS ...................................................... 43
Cross-Level Model of Teaching Climate ...................................................................... 44
Outcome Variable ...................................................................................................... 46
Individual Level Variables ......................................................................................... 47
Departmental Level Variables .................................................................................... 47
Data ............................................................................................................................ 49
Analytical Approach .................................................................................................. 52
Case Study Analysis ...................................................................................................... 54
Case Analysis Data ..................................................................................................... 56
Data Collection and Coding ....................................................................................... 57
Case Analysis Strategy ............................................................................................... 61
Limits and Delimits of the Study ................................................................................... 62

Vii

Seaman ..

CHAPTER 4.

Results oil
Outcome
Indtt ltl‘tld
Departrt:

Results nit
Indn idu.
Model 01
IllSllIllllu
Final .\lt
Collthor
Variance

Discussmn
Departnt
Institutit

CHAPTER f

State Cont
nthhe
Deptttrr
COHCgc
Departs:
D3puttn'
SUmtttdn .
lenneggéL
DVD-«it‘ll:
Dii‘lttn
Dell'dttn
“W
Ml Inn
[jnI\CI:
Ell'é‘sh
Bus‘lIILK
Phl'StCs
Umman.

CHAPTER

Summary ........................................................................................................................ 63

CHAPTER 4: RESULTS OF QUANTITATIVE MODEL TESTING ........................... 64
Results of Preliminary Analyses .................................................................................... 64
Outcome: Use of Active and Collaborative Teaching Approaches .......................... 64
Individual Level Predictors ........................................................................................ 66
Departmental Level Predictors ................................................................................... 69
Results of Cross-Level Model Testing .......................................................................... 73
Individual Level Model of Inﬂuences on Active and Collaborative Teaching .......... 74
Model of Departmental Inﬂuence on Active and Collaborative Teaching ................ 76
Institution-Level Model of Inﬂuence on Active and Collaborative Teaching ........... 82
Final Model of Individual, Department, and Institution Inﬂuences on Active and
Collaborative Teaching .............................................................................................. 84
Variance Explained by the Final Model and Effect Sizes of Predictors .................... 88
Discussion ...................................................................................................................... 92
Departmental Effects .................................................................................................. 93
Institutional Effects .................................................................................................... 95
CHAPTER 5: CASE STUDY RESULTS ....................................................................... 98
State Context: Tennessee and Higher Education ........................................................... 99
The University of Tennessee, Knoxville ..................................................................... 101
Department of Physics at UTK ................................................................................ 102
College of Business Administration at UTK ............................................................ 108
Department of Civil Engineering at UTK ................................................................ 116
Department of Romance Languages at UTK ........................................................... 123
Summary ...................................................................................................................... 131
Tennessee Technological University ........................................................................... 132
Department of Physics at TTech .............................................................................. 134
Department of Decision Sciences and Management at TTech ................................ 140
Department of Mechanical Engineering at TTech ................................................... 145
English Department at TTech .................................................................................. 152
Fisk University ............................................................................................................ 156
University Culture and Climate .............................................. . ................................. 158
English Department ................................... ‘ .............................................................. 159
Business Administration .......................................................................................... 163
Physics Department at Fisk ...................................................................................... 166
Summary of Cases ....................................................................................................... 169
CHAPTER 6: CROSS CASE ANALYSIS .................................................................... 173
Dimensions of Departmental Climate ......................................................................... 173
Discipline ................................................................................................................. 174
Leadership ................................................................................................................ 1 75
Resources and Rewards ............................................................................................ 176
Collegiality ............................................................................................................... 179
Teaching Loads, Service Teaching, and Satisfaction with Teaching Loads ............ 180

viii

In"

Encaser

1 Ci 3"“.1‘
n11d\51\&.

CHAPTER
Resuhs.
RC 1311‘
Encn‘
InHae

Inﬁue

Engagement in Teaching Improvement ................................................................... 183

Inﬂuences on Departmental Climate ........................................................................... 184
College Support ........................................................................................................ 184
Institutional Inﬂuences ............................................................................................. 185
Inﬂuences from Outside the Institution .................................................................... 188

Departmental Climates as Mediators of Inﬂuence ...................................................... 190

Summary ...................................................................................................................... 191

CHAPTER 7: DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS .................................................. 192

Results ......................................................................................................................... I92
Relative Inﬂuence of Departmental Climate for Teaching ...................................... 193
External Inﬂuences ................................................................................................... 197
Inﬂuences at Other Organizational Levels ............................................................... 198
Inﬂuences at the Individual Level ............. ' ............................................................... 200
Creating, Fostering, and Inﬂuencing Departmental Teaching Climates .................. 202
Revised Model and Future Research ........................................................................ 203
Issues Involved in Testing the Revised Model ......................................................... 206
Further Research ...................................................................................................... 208

Implications for Policy and Change Strategies ............................................................ 209
Faculty Development ............................................................................................... 209
Leadership ................................................................................................................ 211
Resources ................................................................................................................. 212
Institutions, Not Institutional Types ......................................................................... 212
Active and Collaborative Teaching and Learning Across the C urrieulum .............. 213
Focus on Departments .............................................................................................. 215

Conclusion ............................. . ...................................................................................... 216

REFERENCES ............................................................................................................... 218
APPENDICES ................................................................................................................ 231
Appendix A — 1998 HERI Faculty Survey Code Book ............................................... 232

Appendix B — Institutions Used For Model Testing, and Response Rates For Them. 241
Appendix C — Interview Protocols for "Enhancing Faculty Contributions to Learning

Productivity" ................................................................................................................... 245

Iahie l; I’

Table 3; C
Table 4: (

Table 5: (

Table 1:

Table 2:

Table 3:

Table 4:

Table 5:

Table 6:

Table 7:

Table 8:

Table 9:

Table 10:

Table 1 I:

Table 12:

Table 13:

Table 14:

Table 15:

Table 16:

Table 17:

Table 18:

LIST OF TABLES

Primary Distinctions of Culture and-Climate .................................................... 19

Proposed Variables for Testing Cross-Level Model of Departmental

Teaching Climate ............................................................................................... 44
Comparative Item Correlations for Outcome, 1993 and 1998 Data .................. 46
Categories of Disciplinary Use of Active and Collaborative Teaching ............ 48
Characteristics of Original and Final Data Sets Compared to
NSOPF 1998 Data .............................................................................................. 52
Interviews Completed for “Enhancing Faculty Contributions to Student
Learning Productivity” ....................................................................................... 58
Interview Topic Areas from “Enhancing Faculty Contributions to Student
Learning Productivity” ....................................................................................... 59
Reported Use of Active and Collaborative Teaching ........................................ 65
Means and Standard Deviations of Individual Level Predictors ....................... 67
Correlations for Individual Level Variables .................................................... 68
Results of ANOVA and ICC(1) calculations for Predictors ............................ 70
Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations Among Level-2 Variables ..... 72
Unconditional Model of Active and Collaborative Teaching .......................... 74
Model of Individual Inﬂuences on Active and Collaborative Teaching ......... 75
Model of Department Level Effects on Active and Collaborative Teaching .. 78
Institutional Inﬂuence on Active and Collaborative Teaching ........................ 82
Institutional Inﬂuence on Active and Collaborative Teaching,
Dummy Set I .................................................................................................... 83
Institutional Inﬂuence on Active and Collaborative Teaching,

Dummy Set 11 ................................................................................................... 83

Table j

Table

Table

Table 19:

Table 20:

Table 21:

Table 22:

Table 23:

Table 24:

Institutional Inﬂuences on Active and Collaborative Teaching,

Dummy Set III ................................................................................................. 84
Final Model of Institutional, Departmental, and Individual Effects ................ 86
Unique Variance Explained by the F inal Model ............................................. 90
Effect Sizes and Unique Variance Explained by Model Predictors ................ 9l

Predominant Teaching Approaches and Overall Climate for Teaching ........ 170

Institutions Used for Model Testing, and Response Rates Within Them ...... 242

xi

figure 1 fr

coli‘uhor;
figure: Ir.
Figure}. lr
thuret I;

figure 5, E

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure l. Cross-level Model of departmental climate for teaching on active and

collaborative teaching. ............................................................................................... 33
Figure 2. Interaction Between Disciplines and Departmental Collegiality ..................... 80
Figure 3. Interaction Between Departmental Faculty Development and Gender ............ 81
Figure 4. Interactions Among Institutional Types and Departmental Collegiality .......... 87
Figure 5. Revised Model of Departmental Climate for Teaching ................................. 204

xii

 

\u:
teaching a;
lehnson.l

V
l .

Pascareha
coHuhorat
EDUpois
Johnson,;
thoseirisi
pCiSSlVe It
Siddcm p1
lmprox Q 5
lﬁandan
Kuhck &;
andColja:
DtlnnVan‘

COMRDOIA

g-TOUPS. I
18.1mm” ‘

COHabOra

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

Numerous studies have demonstrated the effectiveness of active and collaborative
teaching approaches on different student learning outcomes (Bruffee, 1993, 1999;
Johnson, Johnson, & Smith, 1991, 1998; Kuh, Pace, & Vesper, 1997; McKeachie, 1990;
Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991; Springer, Stanne, & Donovan, I999). Cooperative and
collaborative learning are both deﬁned by the collective intellectual effort required of a
group of students to accomplish shared learning goals or tasks (Bruffee, 1984, 1993;
Johnson, Johnson, & Smith, 1991, 1998). Active teaching and learning approaches are
those in which students are contributing members of the learning process, rather than
passive receivers of information. Experiences such as group work, group projects,
student presentations, class discussions, and student evaluations of each other's work
improve students’ critical thinking skills and comprehension, as well as their achievement
in and attitudes about what they study (Dunkin & Barnes, 1986; Johnson & et al., 1991;
Kulick & Kulick, 1979; McKeachie, 1990). A meta-analysis of the effects of cooperative
and collaborative small group work on student achievement (Springer, Stanne, &
Donovan, 1999) found that achievement and persistence were higher for students in
collaborative and cooperative small groups than for students not participating in such
groups. Kuh, Pace, and Vesper (1997) found that the greatest gains in student self-rated
learning were associated with participating in cooperative and active learning. Johnson,
Johnson, and Smith (1998) reviewed 75 years of meta-analyses of cooperative and
collaborative learning. They contend that the positive effects of cooperative and

collaborative learning extend to knowledge acquisition, retention, and accuracy,

CI€311\'1I_\' 1
cogmtixet
to engage
Such learr
I996; 813.
1998; Nat
C 0mm155i
Cm'ironnn

Dr

[CaChlngg

creativity in problem solving, and higher level reasoning. They also promote meta-
cognitive thought, transfer of learning from one situation to another, and the willingness
to engage and persist in accomplishing difﬁcult tasks (Johnson, Johnson & Smith, 1998).
Such learning outcomes have been advocated by higher education scholars (Augistine,
1996; Black, 1994; Jones, 1996; Paulsen & Feldman, 1995) and policy-makers (ABET,
1998; National Goals Panel, 1992; National Science Foundation, 1996; Kellogg
Commission, 1997) as critical to preparing students to work in a fast-changing global
environment.

Despite the substantial support for the effectiveness of active and collaborative
teaching and learning on agreed-upon student outcomes, the extent to which faculty
engage in active and collaborative teaching practices remains small. Although some
researchers see an increase in the use of active learning approaches by faculty members .
across institutional type and discipline (Sax, Astin. Arredondo. & Korn. 1996). others
(F inkelstein, Seal & Schuster, 1998) assert that more than three-quarters of new and
senior faculty use lectures as their primary teaching method. Fairweather (1997) found
that only 14% of faculty nationally report using active learning approaches in most of
their classes.

The discrepancies between teaching approaches recommended by scholars,
policymakers, and the literature and those reported by faculty, combined with increasing
public concern over the quality of undergraduate teaching and learning (Fairweather,
1996; Paulsen & Feldman, 1995), have led to a Signiﬁcant amount of discussion
regarding the personal and organizational factors that inﬂuence faculty teaching practices

(Bess, 1987; Blackburn & Lawrence, 1986, 1995; Einarson, 2000, 2001; Fairweather,

199.“; I3:
unit'erszt'
rest urd Sf
commits
Boxer. 1
teaching
or are as
pieteme
Within u

Colbecl

1997; Fairweather & Rhoads, 1995; Massy, Wilger & Colbeck, 1994). Colleges and
universities are being urged to reshape their environments - tenure, promotion, and
reward systems; hiring practices; and climates and cultures — to support faculty
commitment to and engagement in active and collaborative teaching (Barr & Tagg, 1995,
Boyer, 1990; Guskin, 1994). Unfortunately, strategies meant to encourage effective
teaching are often appeals to individual faculty (e.g., “self-help” for improving teaching)
or are rather blunt instruments aimed at increasing faculty accountability. They are
piecemeal in their underlying understanding of how the multiple organizational contexts
within which faculty work inﬂuence their attitudes and practices (Colbeck, 2002;
Colbeck, Fairweather, Brown, Beach, & Fingers, 2001; Fairweather & Beach, 2002). If
colleges and universities wish to support faculty engagement in active and collaborative
teaching practices, they need strategies and policies that reﬂect a more comprehensive

understanding of the organizational inﬂuences on faculty engagement in those practices.

Organizational Levels of Inﬂuence on Teaching

In recent years, higher education researchers have recognized the need to attend to
the systemic and hierarchical nature of colleges and universities, and the level at which
organizational inﬂuences are conceived, operationalized, and analyzed (Moran &
Volkwein, 1987, 1988; Porter & Umbach, 2001, Volkwein & Carbone, 1994). Porter and
Umbach (2001) emphasize that the hierarchical nature of universities calls for multi-Ievel
models to appropriately address the complex organizational effects caused by group
membership (in a discipline, department, or work group) in colleges and universities.
They focus on the analytic approaches to multi-level modeling. Others advocate careful

attention to the “level” (individual, group, organization) at which phenomena are

undersh

Kleut I

represer
Suchre:

Context

”This 11

113-331.

theorized, and how constructs to test those phenomena are assembled, measured, and
analyzed (Kozlowski & Klein, 2000). The levels perspective in organizational theory and
research is concerned with “identifying principles that enable a more integrated
understanding of phenomena that unfold across levels in organizations” (Kozlowski &
Klein, 2000).

For the most part, studies of inﬂuences on faculty teaching using large, nationally
representative data sets have had to measure intra-organizational dimensions by proxy.
Such research may theorize organizational factors as operating within an institutional
context, but explore and measure those elements in an aggregated way across institutions
that can mask important relationships, differences, and directions of inﬂuence (Einarson,
2000, 2001 ). Colbeck (1994) warned that aggregating to institution or discipline levels
masks important consequences of workplace conditions for the conduct of faculty work
(p. 23).

For example, Blackburn and Lawrence (1995) proposed a theory of faculty
motivation for teaching and research in which properties of the person (demographic as
well as motivational and self-knowledge) interact with properties of the environment and
both impact productivity. This interactionist perspective is compelling, in that it takes
into account both individual and organizational influences. Blackbum and Lawrence,
however, did not theorize about aspects of immediate work environment (e. g.,
department factors). Only institution type and discipline as environmental factors were
considered in analysis. The data used to test their models were conceived, gathered, and
analyzed at the individual level only. Blackburn and Lawrence urged that other

environmental dimensions be investigated as influences on faculty work.

0:5

such as in

FIG ITTTIL'

Tami cat

data or d

found Q},
1

(IE? 3731‘

Tand‘flit

l
t‘.1‘_'_\\
‘. I
1‘“

Other studies proposing models of inﬂuence on faculty teaching have included
individual characteristics of faculty, disciplinary inﬂuences, organizational dimensions
such as institutional rewards for teaching, facilities, resources, and managerial practices
and inﬂuences by institutional type (Einarson, 2000, 2001; Fairweather, 1997;

F airweather & Rhoads, 1995). The models were also tested using only individual-level
data or data aggregated across institutions and disciplines. Only one study explored and
found differences in faculty use of active teaching approaches across academic
departments (Antony & Boatsman, 1994). It did not, however, further explore contextual

variables at the department level that might explain the differences found.

Qualitative researchers have been able to analyze organizational levels the
majority of quantitative researchers have not. Qualitative studies of academic cultures
and inﬂuences on faculty teaching (Austin, 1990, 1994, 1996; Massy, Wilger & Colbeck,
1994; Tierney, 1988) have identified elements of intra-organization environments that
bear further speciﬁcation. They indicate that the department level may be the most
important to study in relation to organizational inﬂuences on faculty work, including
teaching attitudes and practices (Austin, 1990, 1996; Massy, Wilger & Colbeck, 1994).
Other studies (Beach, Salerno & Colbeck, 1999; Colbeck, 2001; Fairweather & Beach,
2002) indicate that there may be a number of organizational levels from which faculty

attitudes, motivation, and practices are inﬂuenced.

Climate for Teaching

Organizational inﬂuences in higher education have often been studied through the
conceptual frames of organizational “culture” and “climate.” which have distinct

definitions (Peterson & Spencer, 1990) and potential for informing policy. Culture is a

lPeterson
on many .
Norman
I9‘51. 1t
apt-Linen}
dimongir
J3me. Di
Ciltttaic I:
Ofgamydtt
OngmM]

research I

holistic View of organizations and their deeply held meanings, beliefs, and values
(Austin, 1990, 1994; Tierney, 1988). Dimensions of organizational culture generally
change only through cataclysmic events or slow, long term efforts (Peterson & Spencer,
1990)

Organizational climate consists of perceptions of current and important
organizational elements (e.g., patterns of relationships, atmosphere, organizational
structures), that have the potential to inﬂuence individual attitudes and behaviors
(Peterson & Spencer, 1990; Schneider, 1975; Schneider & Reichers, 1983). It can operate
on many different organizational levels (Kozlowski & Klein, 2000) and is most
informative when focused on speciﬁc outcomes — “climate for something” (Schneider,
1975). It can legitimately be deﬁned as both an individual (psychological) construct and
a property of the organization (Kozlowski & Klein, 2000) when individual perceptions
demonstrate a consensus among those perceiving the climate (Dansereau & Alluto. 1990;
James, Demaree & Wolf, 1993; James & Jones, 1974; Kozlowski & Hults, 1987).
Climate is seen as a more immediately accessible and malleable construct than
organizational culture; it can be changed through policy or other administrative or
organization-member actions. This makes climate a strong conceptual frame to apply in
research that attempts to inform policy and practice.

Conceptions of climate in higher education research have focused on campus
climates for students and faculty (e.g., Baird, 1990) and managerial or administrative
climate inﬂuences on student outcomes (Peterson, Cameron, Jones, Mets, & Ettington,
1986). Moran and Volkwein (1988) found that climate has some relevance at the

institutional level by distinguishing individual campuses from one another, and high

ibund
depar
consn
pcrce;
pnont

Pmpo

relevance at the sub-unit, or departmental, level. They failed, however, to test
department-level climate measures against any outcomes — either at the department level
or the individual level. Volkwein & Carbone (1994) tested departmental teaching and
research climate measures against undergraduate student grth and satisfaction. They
found that departmental teaching and research climates varied substantially among 27
departments within one institution. Their measures of teaching climate, however, did not
consist of collective perceptions of faculty. Climate for teaching, conceived from faculty
perceptions of organizational factors (e.g., workloads, reward systems, resources and
priorities, leadership, collegial quality and relationships, student qualities), has not been

proposed or tested against teaching outcomes.

The Research Problem

Individual faculty teaching is embedded in program, department, discipline,
institutional, and global academic contexts (Colbeck et al., 2001). Researchers in other
organizational ﬁelds have long recognized the critical inﬂuence ofwork-group and
department environments, or climate, on worker attitudes and behaviors (Kozlowski &
Klein, 2000). Qualitative studies of academic cultures (Austin, 1990; Massy, Wilger &
Colbeck, 1994) have established the importance of department-level inﬂuences on
individual faculty attitudes and work, and other researchers have found potentially
important inﬂuences at other levels of higher education organizations (Fairweather &
Beach, 2002).

The levels perspective of organizational research and multi-levcl modeling
approaches (Kozlowski & Klein, 2000; Rousseau, 1985; Snijders & Bosker, 1999)

speciﬁcally take into account the nested and hierarchical nature of individuals within

 

 

thnrutwk
addre‘Sis
andtnsnt:
provides .
lacuhyte.
inﬂuences
aructurcs
IDISIUd}I

at the gm

lllSIllUlltir

533503

So

chcL

gentl’alwi

ISIS: I

(IX

leachin

1

IR”. .3
‘IJTHCC:

I
u

their work groups, departments, and organizations. They are therefore well suited to
address issues of inﬂuence on faculty teaching within programs, departments, colleges,
and institutions. Organizational climate, as a malleable and multi-level construct,
provides a conceptually and practically useful lens through which to View inﬂuences on
faculty teaching. Researchers can take more explicit account of the department-level
inﬂuences on faculty work, or the institutional or discipline inﬂuences on departmental
structures. The levels perspective of research offers conceptual and operational methods
for studying meaningful perceptual constructs such as organizational climate for teaching
at the group level and higher.

Although research on faculty work has been extensive, studies have been limited
by the level at which inﬂuences on faculty work has been conceived and analyzed.
Research has focused on internal psychological processes driving faculty, or on
institution-type and discipline forces (Blackburn & Lawrence, 1995: Fairweather, 1996;
Einarson, 2000, 2001). Administrative, racial, and managerial climates in colleges and
universities have been conceptualized and studied (Peterson & et al.. 1986; Peterson &
Spencer, 1990), and a small amount of research has addressed levels of analysis for
generalized organizational climate in higher education institutions (Moran & Volkwein,
1987, 1988). Few researchers, however, have studied speciﬁc dimensions of climate for
teaching (Volkwein & Carbone, 1994) and the organizational levels at which they are
most relevant. Likewise sparse is research on the extent to which teaching climates
inﬂuence faculty use of active and collaborative teaching approaches (Antony &

Boatsman, 1994; Einarson, 2000, 2001).

 

TIllS
teaching 3”?

teaching. It I

teaching W41

esetrch art

t‘aeul

 

 

3, 11h

instit

pract

OJ)

HO“
01hr
take
The
testing .1 in
potentially
The mnde‘.

it. prior stii

Boatsman.

lQF-I
1741,33 \1

law
[Vbted a; CF

and intluen.

academic d-

 

This study uses a mixed methods approach to explore departmental climate for
teaching and its inﬂuence on individual faculty members’ use of active and collaborative
teaching. It also examines factors at other organizational levels that might inﬂuence
teaching practices as well as departmental teaching climate. Questions addressed by this
research are:

1. What is the relative inﬂuence of departmental climate for teaching on individual
faculty use of active and collaborative teaching practices?

2. What is the relative inﬂuence of factors at other levels (individual, college,
institution) of higher education organizations on a) individual faculty teaching
practices, and b) departmental climate for teaching?

3. How are departmental climates for teaching created, and what actions, policies, or
other factors — at the individual, departmental, and institutional levels — might be
taken to inﬂuence these climates?

The study takes a two phased approach. The ﬁrst two questions are addressed by
testing a multi-level model of departmental climate for teaching that takes into account
potentially important factors at other organizational levels (see Figure l in Chapter 2).
The model includes factors at the individual, department, and institution level identiﬁed
in prior studies as important to faculty use of active teaching methods (Antony &
Boatsman, 1994; Einarson, 2000, 2001; Fairweather, 2002; Massy, Wilger & Colbeck,
1994), as well as departmental climate factors suggested by the literature, but not before
tested as collective constructs. The third question how climate for teaching is created
and inﬂuenced — is explored through in-depth qualitative case studies of multiple

academic departments within different universities.

 

expli.
exten

\' all;

I991

Coll

L...

p»
‘1

This research addresses gaps in the extant literature on inﬂuences on teaching by
explicitly addressing levels of organizational inﬂuence on faculty teaching practices. It
extends prior research on climate within higher education institutions (Moran &
Volkwein, 1987, 1988; Peterson, 1988; Peterson & et al., 1986; Peterson & Spencer,
1990) by focusing Speciﬁcally on climate for teaching. The cross-level model and case
studies address the hierarchical and systemic nature of higher education organizations
(Porter & Umbach, 2001). This study also brings together dimensions of organizational
inﬂuence on teaching suggested by previous studies (Antony & Boatsman, 1994; Austin,
1990, 1994, 1996; Blackburn & Lawrence, 1995; Einarson, 2000, 2001; Massy, Wilger &

Colbeck, 1994) to test on faculty teaching practices.

Signiﬁcance of the Study

This research should be of interest to researchers of faculty work and higher
education organizations, as well as to department chairs, deans, faculty development
professionals, administrators, and policy—makers. The study seeks to clarify issues of
inﬂuences on teaching at different organizational levels that have not yet been addressed
by higher education researchers. Results of this study should identify elements of
faculty members’ work environments — and the organizational level most salient for those
elements -— that can be altered to support and encourage faculty engagement in effective

teaching.

Summary

This dissertation contains seven chapters. In chapter two. I review the literature

pertaining to inﬂuences on faculty teaching, the levels perspective in organizational and

10

 

 

 

higher ed;
organizati
{IISCU55101
the methc
Chapter 1
the qualzt
The final
III? lmpji

collation

higher education research, and the deﬁnition, history, and uses of climate in
organizational and higher education research. I end the chapter with a presentation and
discussion of the model for departmental climate for teaching. Chapter three discusses
the methods I use in the quantitative model testing and in the qualitative case analysis.
Chapter four details the results of the quantitative model testing. Chapter ﬁve presents
the qualitative departmental case proﬁles, and chapter six discusses cross-case themes.
The ﬁnal chapter integrates the ﬁndings from both phases of the study. It also discusses
the implications of this research for strategies to support the use of active and

collaborative teaching, as well as areas of future research recommended by the ﬁndings.

11

 

Th;
I€\ els of a:
stud} orga
been Ullll.’
discussum

practices I

CHAPTER 2

REVIEW OF LITERATURE AND PROPOSED MODEL

This chapter discusses the literature on inﬂuences on faculty teaching, issues of
levels of analysis in organizational research, and climate as a construct with which to
study organizational inﬂuences. It then discusses the ways that climate constructs have
been utilized in higher education research. The chapter ends with a presentation and
discussion of the multi-level model of inﬂuence on active and collaborative teaching

practices tested in this study.

Inﬂuences on Faculty Teaching

Research into the inﬂuences on faculty teaching has largely deﬁned teaching in
terms of the time faculty spend on teaching (“workload”) or outputs of teaching
(“productivity”) as opposed to the approaches faculty use (“practices”) (Blackburn &
Lawrence, 1995; Fairweather, 1997, 2002; F airweather & Rhoads, 1995). These studies
tested models including individual characteristics of faculty, disciplinary inﬂuences,
socialization, organizational factors, and inﬂuences by institutional type. Instrinsic
variables such as personal interest, commitment. efficacy, and morale (Blackbum &
Lawrence, 1995) were not found to be predictive of differences in faculty teaching
workloads. More predictive were salary structures and faculty perceptions of reward
systems, work allocation (the hours assigned to the classroom), and current beliefs about
the importance of scholarship (Fairweather, 1996; Fairweather & Rhoads, 1995).
Fairweather and Rhoads found that early socialization — operationalized as one’s highest

degree, degree institution, and work as a teaching assistant in graduate school — had little

12

 

to do it 22h tr
t‘atult} tetc

productivity

Bic

teaching at

Pmductit
mOIl\ 3th

termed;

to do with time spent on teaching. F airweather (1997) found institutional differences in
faculty teaching productivity and in the factors that inﬂuenced high teaching and research

productivity.

Blackburn and Lawrence (1988, 1996) proposed a theory of faculty motivation for
teaching and research based largely on demographic (age, gender, race) and career stage
(assistant, associate, and full professor) variables. Their “life course” model posited that
properties of the person interact with properties of the environment and that both impact
productivity. All elements were conceived to interact over time in an iterative fashion that
drives career development and change. They later expanded their model with internal
motivational and self-knowledge concepts, but did not theorize about aspects of
immediate work environment (e.g., department factors). Their largely intrinsic model of
faculty motivation was called into question by F airweather (1997) and F airweather &
Rhoads (1995), who found little empirical support for motivational inﬂuences on
teaching productivity. Perhaps recognizing the limitations of their model at intra-
organizational levels, Blackburn and Lawrence (1995) urged that other environmental
dimensions be investigated as inﬂuences on faculty work.

Although scholars argue that measures of instructional productivity should
include the use of teaching methods found effective in promoting student learning
(Fairweather, 2002), only a few studies have examined faculty use of active and
collaborative teaching as an outcome (Antony & Boatsman, 1994; Einarson, 2000. 2001:
F airweather, 2002). Antony and Boatsman (1994) created a construct representing the
broad use of cooperative and active pedagogy, and tested different faculty groups’ use of

it (men/women, minority groups, faculty in different departments and in different types of

13

 

 

 

 

 

 

thanunonsi
ansomen
The} dld n1
contribute
difference
race. Sh:-
EICIOSS in
ofacuxg
iacﬂnies
[I16 data
[EachmE
thoserr

‘HSlttut

institutions). They found strong gender differences in the use of cooperative pedagogies,
and some racial differences. They also found differences among academic departments.
They did not, however, test any factors within departments or institutions that might
contribute to the differences they found. Einarson (2000, 2001) also found gender
differences in use of active and collaborative teaching, but inconclusive differences by
race. She found no practical differences in use of active teaching and learning methods
across institutional types. She found discipline across institutional types to be predictive
of active teaching methods, but not measures of institutional inﬂuence such as teaching
facilities and professional development resources. Her study was limited by the nature of
the data used in analysis. Although she conceived measures of institutional climate for
teaching to pertain to individual institutions as measured by individuals’ perceptions,
those measures were analyzed across institutional types rather than within speciﬁed

institutions.

Recently Fairweather (2001) tested measures of faculty use of different teaching
approaches as well as measures of teaching and research productivity, across disciplines
and types of institutions. He found that few faculty at 4 year institutions were
simultaneously productive researchers and productive teachers who also employed active
and collaborative teaching approaches. The factor that facilitated high productivity in
teaching and research, more hours in the classroom, might also inhibit use of
collaborative teaching approaches. He also found that faculty attitudes and beliefs about
criteria for promotion and tenure inﬂuence teaching and research productivity

(Fairweather, 1997).

14

 

 

 

St
eaahhsh:

mduon

depanr
educat
Constr;
tacuhi

under

Studies of academic settings (Austin, 1990, 1994 1996; Tierney, 1988) have
established the importance of department-level inﬂuences on individual faculty attitudes
and work. Departments are seen as the location from which norms of faculty
productivity and rewards emanate, and the most inﬂuential socialization force for faculty
(Austin, 1990, 1994, 1996; Tierney, 1988). Prevalent norms and values embedded within
departmental cultures are seen to inﬂuence what faculty do and how they do it (Kuh &
Whitt, 1988). Massey, Wilger, & Colbeck (1994) examined the conditions within
departments that support or inhibit faculty members’ working together on undergraduate
education. . They found most departments mired in fragmented communication,
constrained resources, and inappropriate evaluation and reward systems that hindered
faculty members’ abilities to come together and work collaboratively on improving
undergraduate teaching and learning. They identiﬁed only a small number of
departments that they characterized as exemplary in promoting and supporting effective
teaching. Key elements of those departments included frequent interaction among
faculty, balanced incentives, consensus decision-making, and effective department chairs.
Institutional type, discipline, and size of department played no role in the existence of
these supportive departments. The authors thOught that the single most important factor

in determining whether or not a department supported teaching excellence was the chair.

The Levels Perspective

The levels perspective in organizational theory and research is concerned with
“identifying principles that enable a more integrated understanding of phenomena that
unfold across levels in organizations” (Kozlowski & Klein, 2000, p. 7). The perspective

draws on organizational systems theories (Allport, 1954; Katz & Kahn, 1966; Parsons,

15

 

“4*

'II
v——¢

1960), that arose from and are heavily inﬂuenced by general systems theories (GST). A
detailed discussion of organizational systems theory is beyond the scope of this review,
and would be redundant to better efforts by others (Morgan, 1997; Katz & Kahn, 1966).
Most scholars of higher education are already familiar with systems theories and the
powerful metaphors offered by them. The levels perspective is an attempt by
organizational researchers to take systems theory beyond the level of metaphor to that of
testable principles (Kozlowski & Klein, 2000).

Researchers using the levels perspective seek to address issues of conceptual and
operational validity of theoretical constructs used in organizational research through
careful attention to the “level” (individual, dyad, group, organization) at which
phenomena of interest are theorized, and how constructs to test those phenomena are
assembled, measured, and analyzed. For a thorough discussion of the principles guiding
the levels perspective, see Klein & Kozlowski (2000). Most pertinent to the present
study is the work that levels researchers have done to address cross-level, contextual
effects models of organizational phenomena. Researchers have demonstrated (Hofmann
& Stetzer, 1996;Kozlowski & Farr, 1988; Kozlowski & Hults, 1987; Rousseau, 1978)
that “group and organizational factors are contexts for individual perceptions, attitudes,
and behaviors and need to be explicitly incorporated in meaningful models of
organizational behavior” (Kozlowski & Klein, 2000).

Individual faculty work is embedded in program, department, discipline,
institutional, and global academic contexts, as well as in the dynamic of time. These
system contexts cannot all be taken into account in a model of faculty beliefs and

behavior. Researchers can take more explicit account of the group-or department-level

l6

inﬂuences on faculty work, or the institutional or discipline inﬂuences on departmental

SITUCIUI'CS.

Organizational Climate

Organizational climate as a theoretical construct and framework can be useful in
studying higher education environments and inﬂuences on faculty work because it
focuses on the collective perceptions of current, important inﬂuences on work. Elements
of organizational climate such as goal clarity, leadership, supportiveness, reward-
performance dependency, social relations, and autonomy have been explicitly or
implicitly included in much research on faculty work and productivity, organizational
change, and strategic planning (Petersen, et al., 1986). This broad applicability is the
strength as well as the weakness of climate as a conceptual construct and research focus.

This section deﬁnes the conceptual construct of climate in the organizational
literature, and discusses the ways that climate has been adapted and used in higher
education research. Throughout the section, the discussion of climate will take into
account issues of levels within organizations and how levels play an important part in

conceptualizing, analyzing, and interpreting climate constructs.

Climate Deﬁned

Before reviewing the literature on climate, it is helpful to deﬁne the construct as
distinct from, but often discussed in conjunction with, culture. Culture attempts to gain a
holistic View of organizations and to understand deeply held meanings, beliefs, and
values (Hellreigel & Slocum. 1974) that change only through cataclysmic events or slow.

long term efforts (Peterson & Spencer, 1990). Climate, on the other hand, can be deﬁned

17

 

immema

\Vildcrot

concepn
Spencer

That pro

as current common patterns of important elements of organizational life or its members’
perceptions of those elements (Peterson & Spencer, 1990). It is considered more
immediately accessible and malleable construct. Numerous researchers (Ashkanasy,
Wilderom & Peterson, 2000; Denison, 1996; Lindell & Brandt, 2000; Peterson &
Spencer, 1990; Reichers & Schneider, 1990) discuss the long conversations within the
organizational theory literature comparing, contrasting, and clarifying the theoretical,
conceptual, and operational differences between climate and culture. Peterson and
Spencer (1990) created a table (reproduced on Table 1) comparing climate and culture
that provides a clear and concise overview of their differences.

Climate can legitimately be seen as both an individual (psychological) construct,
and a property of the organization (Kozlowski & Klien, 2000), when consensus among
those perceiving the climate can be demonstrated (Kozlowski & Hults, 1987). Individual
level psychological climate has been theorized to have corresponding group-level
constructs (James & Jones, 1974). When elements of climate are aggregated to the group
level or higher, they can be useful in understanding factors that inﬂuence the normative
behavior of group members. As a construct used in organizational research, climate is
“composed of perceptually based sets of descriptions that incorporate people’s
interpretations of the organizational context” (Kozlowski & Hults, 1987, p. 541). It is a
measure of the “shared subjective experiences of organizational members that have
important consequences for organizational functioning and effectiveness” (Ashkanasy,
Wilderom, & Peterson, 2001, p.1). Although many climate scales contain similar
dimensions — autonomy, goal orientation, social relations, level of rewards and reward-

performance dependency, supportiveness, and structure — others vary widely, since they

18

are Speciﬁc to settings and outcomes (Peterson, et al., 1986). Deﬁning the content

dimensions of climate in a generic way is therefore difﬁcult, and in many ways, pointless.

Table 1

Primary Distinctions of Culture and Climate

 

Organizational Concept

Climate

Culture

 

Basis of Concept

Primary conceptual sources

Organizational perspective

Major purposes of concept

Primary elements

Primary values or use

Major characteristics

Nature of change

C ornrnon member perceptions of
or attitudes toward and feelings
about organizational life

Cognitive and social psychology
and organizational behavior

Pervasive, various organizational
patterns, oﬁen focused on

speciﬁc arenas

Extrinsic: member control
Intrinsic: member motivation

Common views of participants

Comparison among organizations
or over time

Current patterns or atmosphere

More malleable, various direct or
indirect means

Deeply shared values,
assumptions, beliefs, or
ideologies of members

Anthropology, sociology,
linguistics, and organizational
behavior

Holistic primary emergent
patterns

Instrumental: social
interpretation, behavior control,
and adaptation

Interpretive: metaphor or
meaning

Super-ordinate meaning

Identiﬁes uniqueness in relation
to other organizations

embedded or enduring

Cataclysrnic or long-term and
intensive efforts

 

From "Understanding Academic Culture and Climate" by M. W. Peterson and M. G. Spencer, 1990, in
Tierney, W. G. (Ed.), Assessing Academic Climates and Cultures, New Directions for Institutional
Research, No. 68. Copyright 1990 by Jossey Bass. Reprinted by permission Of John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Peterson et al. (1986) deﬁne dimensions that bound the construct and

circumscribe the ways it is measured and interpreted. They include: strength (the extent

to which individuals agree strongly that certain descriptive elements are present in the

organizational context); congruence (a prerequisite for the presence of organizational

climate indicated by agreement among individual perceptions); type (a climate must be

for something — such as service. commitment, safety. Type refers to what the climate is

19

 

Dt‘l I

inee

13'.“

for); and clarity (the extent to which the climate is understood or unambiguous to

individuals.

Development of Climate Research

Climate research is grounded in the Gestalt psychology of Kurt Lewin and
incorporates the notion that individual elements of perception fonned into wholes
represent more than the simple sum of those elements. Therefore, organizational climate
is a gestalt based on perceived patterns in the speciﬁc experiences and behaviors of
people in organizations (Schneider, Bowen, Ehrhart, & Holcombe, 2001, p. 21). Climate
as a construct was ﬁrst conceptualized and tested in a 1939 study by Lewin, Lippit, and
White examining the relationship between leadership style and productivity among boys’
groups. Its major introduction, however, came in the late 1960’s (Riechers & Schneider,
1990). Research through the next decade demonstrated the relationship between
organizational climate dimensions and job satisfaction (Lawler, IIall & Oldham, 1974),
and organizational performance at sub-unit (departmental) levels (Lawler, Hall &
Oldham, 1974; Pritchard & Karasick, 1973). Investigators found that multiple climates
exist in organizations (Johnston, 1976; Powell & Butterﬁeld, 1978) and that climate
perceptions vary as a function of organizational level (Payne & Mansﬁeld, 1973) and
group membership (Drexler, 1977; Howe, 1977).

Reichers and Schnieder (1990) traced the evolution of the climate construct
through early empirical work and reconeeptualizations, and arguments about whether
climate was simply work satisfaction with a different name (Guion, 1973). Subsequent
studies clariﬁed the concept and empirically distinguished it from satisfaction (Schneider

& Snyder, 1975). Climate has been related to individual outcomes such as commitment,

20

performance, and satisfaction and organizational outcomes such as effectiveness and
efﬁciency (Lindell & Brandt, 2000).

Schneider (1975) reviewed the literature on climate, and concluded that the
prevailing generic concept of organizational climate was so inclusive and potentially
multifaceted that it was conceptually amorphous. He proposed that climate must have a .
focus -— that climate should be for something. The more the concept is focused and
directly linked to outcomes of interest, the more helpful it is in understanding those
outcomes. Zohar’s (1980) research on the climate for safety and accident prevention in
industrial organizations marked the beginning of the empirical tests of “climate for
something.” It has been followed by a diverse range of climate studies in organizations —
which include climate for sexual harrassment (Fitzgerald, Drasagow, Hulin, Gelfand, &
Magley, 1997), well-being at work (Burke, Borucki & Hurley, 1992), service in
insurance companies and banks (Schneider, 1990; Schneider & Bowen, 1985; Schneider,
Parkington, J. J., Buxton, V. M., 1980), technical updating in industrial settings
(Kozlowski & Farr. 1988; Kozlowski & Hults. 1987), and innovation in Research and
Development subsystems of technology companies (Abbey & Dickson, 1983). Together,
these studies have demonstrated the usefulness of climate measures focused and speciﬁc

to particular issues and settings.

Levels of Theory and Measurement in Climate Research

According to Moran and Volkwein (1988), the eleven major reviews of the
organizational climate literature all raised questions regarding the appropriate level of
analysis to conceptualize the construct. The controversy centers on whether climate is an

attribute that occurs at the individual, group, or organizational level (Woodman & King,

21

1978). Researchers had to distinguish between individual perceptions and the aggregated
perceptions of many individuals. James and Jones (1974; Jones and James, 1979)
theorized both a psychological climate that occurs at the individual level, and an
organizational climate, comprised of averaged meanings people give to particular
features of their work environment. This allows the climate construct to be applied to
multiple levels of analysis within organizations (James & Jones, 1974) without losing its
deﬁnition. Researchers concerned that averaged responses alone do not adequately justify
using climate at levels above individual responses (e.g. Dansereau & Alutto, 1990; LR.
James, Demaree, and Wolf, 1984; Kozlowski & Hults, 1987; Lindell & Brandt, 2000;
Schneider & Reichers, 1983) have proposed analytical approaches such as the use of
variance measures — Intra-class correlations (ICC I and H) and rwc, (variance within
groups) — and grouping statistics such as WABA (Within and Between Analysis) to
address issues of legitimate aggregation (Kozlowski & Klein, 2000). The intense
attention of organizational researchers to conceptual and analytical issues inherent in
climate research has resulted in clearer standards for use of climate and more

sophisticated applications of the construct to organizational problems.

Climate in Higher Education Research

In a review ofthe culture and climate literature in higher education, Peterson. et
al. (1986) noted that the literature in higher education often did not clearly distinguish
between climate and culture, making it difﬁcult to categorize organizational research in
higher education settings into separate “schools” of research. Despite the “fuzzy” nature
of climate deﬁnitions in higher education research, the climate framework has been used

in distinct ways. Campus climate for students was the earliest adaptation of climate for

IQ
IQ

higher education settings, and continues to be a rich area of research. Researchers have
also explored classroom climate for speciﬁc groups of students and for different kinds of
learning. Institutional climates and managerial climates have been measured in a number
of ways. Although many climate elements used in general organizational research — goal
clarity, leadership, supportiveness and warmth, commitment —— have been tested, other
elements unique to the higher education setting have been developed and explored. This
is in keeping with the understanding that dimensions of climate must be speciﬁc to their

setting and outcome in order to be useful.

Campus climate studies

Pace and Stem’s (1958) College Characteristics Index (CCI) is an early example
of the way higher educational researchers adapted the climate construct from
organizational research. It was designed as an individually-oriented measure of climate
for dimensions of student life on campus. Pace simpliﬁed the instrument and developed
the College and University Environment Scales (CUES) (1969). In creating the CUES
instrument, Pace addressed the need to distinguish between individual and collective
perceptions by using the college — or institution level ~ as the unit of analysis. He also
set a minimum percentage of students who must agree on the direction of an item for it to
be scored (Baird, 1990), a rough variance measure of consensus. The CUES instrument
explored dimensions of campus climate such as pragmatism, community, awareness,
campus morale, and faculty—student relationships. The instrument has been used
extensively and related to a wide variety of student and alumni variables, reviewed by

Feldman and Newcomb (1969) and Baird (1988).

23

Other campus climate instruments were created (see Baird, 1990 and Peterson et
al., 1986 for a review) that measure how campuses function and how particular academic
or administrative goals are emphasized on campus. These inventories were designed to
elicit perceptions from students, faculty, administrators and others in the campus
community. They can be seen as parallel to the general organizational climate measures
created early in organizational research. The dimensions of climate explored in these
instruments overlap with those of organizational effectiveness (Cameron, 1978; 1985)
and organizational culture (Tierney, 1988, 1990) in higher education, contributing to the
broad nature of all of the constructs.

As organizational research shifted to more focused “climate for . . .” conceptions,
campus climate shiﬁed to sub-units in colleges and classrooms and to climates for
particular groups of students and faculty. Campus climate for minority students
(Hurtado, 1992; 1994), and the effects of racial climate on minority student adjustment to
college and persistence to graduation (Cabrera, Nora, Terenzini, & Hagadom, 1999), as
well as professional and social climate for women and minority faculty, and for diversity
in general, have become important research areas as universities try to promote diversity
in the curriculum, the student body. and the faculty (Conley & Hyer, 1999; Hurtado.
Milem C layton-Pederson & Allen, 1998). Campus climate surveys have also been
created to assess campus climates for gay, lesbian, and bisexual students (McRee &
COOper, 1998; Rankin, 1999) and for disabled students (Chelberg, Harbour, & Juarez,
1998). A recent theme issue of New Directions for Institutional Research (Bauer, 1998)

addressed climate for multiple college and university sub-groups (E. g., faculty, graduate

24

students, minorities) and described a range of instruments for measuring campus climate

— from general to very speciﬁc.

Classroom and instructional climate

The climate created in classrooms by teachers and students has been studied and
linked to outcomes such as persistence, achievement, and student satisfaction. For
example, low numbers of women and minorities in the sciences and engineering have led
to classroom climate studies focused on their perceptions. Paulsen (1996) studied the
classroom climate for women engineering students and found that, although a “chilly”
classroom climate did not impact their persistence to graduation, it did affect their
satisfaction with their education. This ﬁnding is supported by classroom climate research
using videotapes of interactions among students and faculty. Krupnick (1985) found that
male students in classes with male instructors talked 2.5 times longer than did female
students. Female students talked 3.0 times longer than male students in classes with
female professors. Similarly, the climate in classrooms at a college that had recently
begun to admit male students changed over time (Canada & Pringle, 1995). As the
proportion of male students in classes increased, their initiation of comments and
questions for faculty increased. Those of females in classes with male professors
declined sharply.

Faculty reaction and response to student questions creates a climate for
participation in classrooms. In classes with higher participation, students described their
professors as demonstrating openness to student questions and ideas (Auster & MacRone,
1994). Further, student motivation, and learning activity were positively related to their

perceptions of faculty support for questioning (Karabenick & Sharma, 1994).

Researchers have developed survey instruments to measure dimensions of
classroom climate such as professorial concern, cathectic learning climate, academic
rigor, afﬁliation, and structure (Winston, Vahala, Nichols, Gillis, Wintrow, & Rome,

1994 cited in Austin & Menges, 2001).

University and faculty cultures

While administrative and managerial climates in colleges and universities have
been conceptualized and studied (Peterson et al., 1986; Peterson & Spencer, 1990),
research on faculty work speciﬁcally has taken different directions and predominantly
used culture terminology. Austin (1990, 1992, 1994, 1996) describes four primary
cultures that inﬂuence faculty values and behavior: the academic profession, the
discipline, the academy as an organization within a national higher education system, and
the speciﬁc type of institution. The culture of the academic profession is based on key
notions such as the pursuit of knowledge and truth, service to society, autonomy and
academic freedom, intellectual honesty, and collegiality. The cultures of the disciplines
are manifest in faculty assumptions about what is knowable and how it is knowable,
standards for performance in research and publication as well as teaching, and
expectations for rewards. Variations across disciplines in teaching and research
orientation are well established (Becher, 1987; Bi glan, 1973; Braxton, 1995; Fairweather,
1996; Finkelstein, 1984). The culture of the academy as an organization seems to be
shifting and in conﬂict in recent decades (Austin, 1996). The traditional collegial culture
which emphasizes intrinsic motivation and autonomy of faculty is being replaced by a
more bureaucratic culture emphasi7ing accountability, increased workloads, and

decreased faculty involvement in organizational decision-making. Institutional culture

26

addresses speciﬁc missions of different colleges and universities — research universities,
state universities and colleges that emphasize undergraduate instruction, and liberal arts
colleges are familiar institutional types. The conflicting values of multiple cultures (e.g.,
the disciplinary value of research and frequent publication in conﬂict with institutional
mission for undergraduate instruction) can negatively impact faculty motivation and
performance, as well as institutional performance. by creating competing goals and
rewards (Alpert, 1985).

This intersection of disciplinary and institutional inﬂuences was noted by Clark
(1987), who found so much variation in faculty work, disciplinary inﬂuences, and
institutional contexts among universities that he characterized academic life as “small
worlds, different worlds.” Peterson et al. (1986) characterize the culture of colleges and
universities as “distinctive,” drawing on Clark’s (1970) seminal study of three selective
liberal arts colleges. Each had an organizational saga through which the values of the
institution were conveyed. Those sagas inﬂuenced the institutions’ missions, standards,
choice of faculty and students, governance structures. Peterson et al. also noted the
proliferation over the course of the prior two decades of different and specialized
institutions with different cultures than had been traditionally described by other scholars.

While discussions faculty and institutional cultures lend insight into the major
changes that have taken place in higher education over the course of the past ﬁve decades
and identify areas of potential tension for faculty work, the holistic nature ofculture does
not lend itself to investigations aimed at identifying elements of faculty work
environments that can be altered through policy interventions to support teaching and

learning.

Peterson et al. (1986) focused on the effects of organizational climate in higher
education institutions on student outcomes, rather than on faculty behaviors. Their
review of culture and climate literature encompassed the inﬂuence of institutional
strategies such as mission deﬁnition, faculty characteristics, and resource allocation on
student outcomes, academic management practices and their impact on institutional
culture and climate, as well as student outcomes, and the relationships of organizational
characteristics to institutional culture and climate. Although their synthesis of the
literature was exceptional, they noted gaps in the literature on climate in higher
education, particularly the fact that organizational climate instruments are dated, and little
research has explored organizational patterns that may improve the teaching/teaming
climate of students and faculty. They posed important questions about organizational
climate in higher education: what is organizational climate in an academic setting? How

does one create or change such a climate? Those questions have not yet been answered.

Organizational Levels in Faculty Research

Moran and Volkwein (1988) examined whether organizational climate primarily
characterized higher education organizations as a whole or subunits within organizations
in nine four-year public colleges. They also examined differences in the perceptions of
climate on the part of subgroups, namely, academic departments. They found
departments varied more signiﬁcantly in climate than did institutions. Their tentative
conclusion was that climate appears to operate to a greater degree at the intra-
organizational level than at the organizational level. Their study was limited because
only two of their nine institutions had enough data in the departmental cells to be

analyzed. Further, their climate dimensions were quite generic —- they did not constitute a

28

 

strong “climate for . . something that Schneider (1975) recommends and that has
become standard in organizational research. With these limitations, however, their
results point to a potentially fruitful direction for climate research in higher education,
namely the effect of intra-organizational units on primary faculty.

Recently, Fairweather and Beach (2000, 2002) found that variations in teaching,
research, and grant productivity within research universities are strongly attributable to
department or program area differences. Using case analyses of three research
universities, they found that academic departments’ collective attention to teaching was
affected by departmental or college level factors such as relationships with governmental
or private research laboratories, the need for faculty to recover portions of their salaries in
funded research, the need for a department to provide service courses that all students in
the university are required to take, and the existence of high-visibility graduate programs.
At the same research institutions, Beach. Salerno, and Colbeck (1999) found that faculty
largely see the inﬂuences to change the way they teach coming from within themselves or
from the needs of their students rather than from institutional mandates. Across
departments, the barriers to change faculty perceived were largely structure- and
resource-oriented — lack of sabbatical leave. technology infrastructure and support, and
tenure and promotion expectations.

Taken together, these studies suggest that organizational levels affect faculty
work-- individual, departmental, college, and university. Further, the factors that
emerged as inﬂuential or variable ﬁt within the rubric of climate rather than that of

culture. Climate research can carefully examine the level at which dimensions such as

rewards, resources, support for innovation, and collegial relationships operate to

inﬂuence outcomes such as faculty teaching attitudes and practices.

Summary

Although research on faculty teaching has been extensive, studies have been
limited by the level at which inﬂuence on faculty has been conceived and analyzed.
Many studies have focused on internal psychological processes driving faculty, or on
institution-type and discipline forces. Some qualitative researchers (Austin, 1990, 1994,
1996; Massy, Wilger & Colbeck, 1995) have identiﬁed organizational inﬂuences on
faculty teaching at the departmental level. Other studies have either not conceptualized
intra-institutional inﬂuences (Blackburn & Lawrence, 1995) or conceptualized such
inﬂuences, but measured them in an aggregated manner across institutions and disciplines
rather than within them (Einarson, 2000, 2001).

Recognition of the need to attend to the level at which organizational inﬂuences
are conceived, operationalized, and analyzed in higher education research has grown in
recent years (Moran & Volkwein, 1987, 1988; Porter & Umbach, 2000). Researchers
using a levels perspective advocate careful attention to the “level” (individual, group,
organization) at which phenomena are theorized, and how constructs to test those
phenomena are assembled, measured, and analyzed (Kozlowski & Klein, 2000). This
perspective has been applied to climate research in organizational and business research,
but much less so in higher education research.

Organizational climate consists of perceptions of current and important
organizational elements (e. g., patterns of relationships, atmosphere, organizational

structures) that have the potential to inﬂuence individual attitudes and behaviors

3O

(Ashkanasy, et al., 2001; Peterson & Spencer, 1990; Schneider, 1975; Schneider &
Reichers, 1983). It can operate on many different organizational levels (Kozlowski &
Klein, 2000) and is most effective when focused on speciﬁc outcomes — “climate for
something” (Schneider, 1975). It is generally measured through survey instruments that
collect the perceptions of organization members regarding numerous factors believed to
or previously demonstrated to be important for particular outcomes. Climate is seen as
malleable; it can be changed through policy or other administrative or organization-
member actions. This makes climate a strong construct to apply in research that attempts
to inform policy and practice.

Administrative, racial, and managerial climates in colleges and universities have
been conceptualized and studied (Peterson et al., 1986; Peterson & Spencer, 1990), and a
small amount of research has addressed levels of analysis for generalized organizational
climate in higher education institutions (Moran & Volkwein, 1988). No researcher.
however, has studied speciﬁc dimensions of departmental climate for teaching and their
inﬂuence on faculty use of active teaching approaches (Antony & Boatsman. 1994;

Einarson, 2000, 2001).

Cross-Level Model of Departmental Climate for Teaching

The model of departmental teaching climate inﬂuences proposed and tested in this
study (see Figure 1) encompasses individual and organizational factors studied previously
as well as those constructed according to levels and climate literature that have not been
researched. Its purpose is to validate theory about department—level and other intra-
organizational inﬂuences on faculty teaching practices. The model proposes a

combination of individual and environmental variables impacting individual outcomes in

31

much the same way Blackburn and Lawrence (1995) theorized. The relationships
represented by the model predict that individual, departmental, and institutional factors
have direct effects on individual faculty teaching practice. In addition, it predicts that
departmental teaching climate has unique direct effects on individual faculty teaching
practice when the other factors are accounted for, and mediates the effects of those
individual, departmental, and institutional factors as well. This model by no means
captures all of the elements that inﬂuence faculty work. It is meant to answer key
questions about inﬂuences on teaching at the departmental level. Individual, discipline,
and institutional type elements are contained in the model, to serve as controls to ensure

accurate estimates of departmental effects.

Use of Active and Collaborative Teaching

I used Antony and Boatsman’s (1994) previously tested construct of faculty use of
active and collaborative teaching approaches as the outcome of this model. The construct
is the average of seven variables that measure the extent to which respondents used
particular teaching and evaluation methods or approaches in their courses the prior
semester. Respondents indicated, for each item, whether they used the approach in none,
some, most, or all of their courses. Items that make up that construct are use of
cooperative learning (small groups), group projects. student presentations, class
discussions, student-developed activities, student-selected topics, and student evaluations

of each other’s work.

32

 

 

€052:
9.588 358 we 3.: 93$.
m 209—.30

 

 

 

 

EoEoocmsco mcfumobo

v.53 323i.

2.26930 9:53....

£833..

.5 wcioag :0 £68 .9528.

325583.

.5960 .xcam owes.

mUFwEmPU<¢<IU

J4.DD_>_GZ_

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EoEoocmsco Mcfome E EoEowmwcw o
3:356 do mcocaoocoa .mucoEcmn—oo o
95.533 can bzﬂwozouo
uno— wcfoaﬂ £3» cozoﬁmgm.
$62382 new $332 ho 23,320;-
mP<E=U m>_,—.UmJJOU
am>mg FZHEP¢<mmn

 

i]

 

 

9.238 :0 £58 b32335.
3.2 3on2 3585500.
35:25 28
was; @5332 .mEoEEEoQo
mU_._tm_~_m._.U<¢<—._U
Elm—2.5.5.“:—

 

 

 

 

 

:o_§_.:mma_u 2355.
mUFmEMFU<¢<=U
22.5.2.5;

 

 

33

Figure l. Cross-level Model of departmental climate for teaching on active and

collaborative teaching.

Demographic Variables

Individual demographic variables in the model include age, rank, gender, and
race/ethnicity. They represent variables that have been explored in past research with
mixed results (e.g., Baldwin, 1979, 1990; Blackburn & Lawrence, 1986, 1988; Long,
1990; Long, Allison & McGinnis, 1993; Olsen, Maple & Stage, 1995; Reskin, 1979).
They are included in the model to be controlled for when looking at department level
variables. Cognitive ability and other variables dealing with self-esteem and self-efﬁcacy
are beyond the scope of the present study, but would be of interest in the future studies
incorporating compositional constructs.

Age is a variable that, by itself, appears to predict little about how faculty spend
their time (Blackburn & Lawrence, 1988). It has been found to interact with other
variables to be predictive of productivity. Rank is another variable that has not predicted
productivity well by itself, but seems to interact with other variables.

Studies on gender differences in faculty teaching practices consistently ﬁnd that
women use active and collaborative teaching more than men (Antony & Boatsman, 1994;
Blackburn & Lawrence, 1995; Fairweather, 1997; Einarson, 2000). Men, however, are
more likely to work in research universities and women in other institutions where
teaching loads are higher (Blackburn & Lawrence, 1995). These results and speculative
explanations argue for including gender in any model of faculty work.

Studies that use race as a predictor of faculty teaching have been contradictory
(Einarson, 2000; Fairweather, 1997; Milem & Astin, 1992; Milem & Wakai, 1996 a and
b). Neither Einarson nor Fairweather found racial differences in faculty use of active and

collaborative teaching. Milem and colleagues found that women and faculty from

34

underrepresented minorities and ethnic groups were more likely to report using student-
centered approaches to teaching and “active learning” techniques (Milem, 2001). A

major limitation of the data used on previous studies is that it is so sparse.

Individual and Departmental Climate Constructs

The climate constructs proposed in this model are aggregated from individual
faculty perceptions. They are tested at both the individual level and the departmental
level. In effect the model proposes psychological and organizational climate inﬂuences

on individual teaching practices. The climate constructs are discussed in detail below.

Student preparation for college level work

Faculty have recently voiced concern about the current generation of students’
preparedness for college level work (Colbeck, et al., 2001). Promotion of active and
collaborative teaching and learning approaches has been based, in part, on addressing
differing student learning styles and levels (Johnson, Johnson, & Smith, 1998). This
model proposes that departmental perceptions of student preparedness, as well as

individual faculty perceptions, inﬂuence faculty teaching approaches.

Rewards for teaching and research

Although 99% of faculty in a recent national study named being a good teacher as
an important goal, 75% agreed that publishing was necessary to achieve tenure, and only
12.5% felt that their institutions rewarded good teaching (Sax, et al., 1996). Fairweather
and Rhoads ( 1995) found that faculty who perceive rewards for teaching engage more in
teaching, and Fairweather (1997) found that faculty who perceive higher rewards for
research are more productive researchers. The link between perceived rewards and

performance is not that clear in other studies. Colbeck (1994) found that salary and merit

35

pay - two very visible rewards — were not considered important incentives to faculty.
They indicated that the cultures of their departments inﬂuenced them more than did
institutional reward policies. The model proposes that departmental collective
perceptions of whether faculty research is valued by their department and whether
teaching is rewarded at their institution exist and inﬂuence individual faculty teaching

behavior above and beyond the individual’s perceptions.

Perceptions of resources

Peterson et al. (1986) contend that the nature of resource allocation clearly has an
impact on the climate of higher education institutions. Departments with greater
enrollments and levels of externally-generated funds would likely have greater inﬂuence
and command greater resources in the institution. Other researchers contend that faculty
perceptions of resources are more important than actual resources available to them
(C olbeck, 1994; Einarson, 2001). This model proposes that collective faculty perceptions
of the resources available to them will contribute to the climate for teaching in their

departments and in turn, inﬂuence their teaching.

Prior work

Research on the effects of faculty members’ employment status (Einarson, 2001;
F airweather & Rhoads, 1995) in terms of prestige of doctoral granting institution, full-
and part-time status, and length of time in position, has not identiﬁed relationships with
the amount of time faculty spend teaching or their teaching approaches. Little research
exists that examines potential differences among faculty who have come from industry or
non-academic settings (Fairweather & Paulsen, 1996), from administrative positions in

academic settings, and from academic positions. Considering the strong socializing force

36

of the disciplines (Braxton, 1995), this model includes constructs at the individual and

departmental level for prior work within and outside of academe.

Interest in teaching and research

Research has demonstrated a relationship between individual faculty interest in
teaching and time spent on teaching (Fairweather & Rhoads, 1995) as well as use of
active and collaborative teaching methods (Antony & Boatsman, 1994). This model
proposes that departmental aggregated interest in teaching or research inﬂuences

individual faculty teaching practices as well.

Satisfaction with teaching

Attitudes about teaching such as a faculty member’s satisfaction with his or her
teaching load have been proposed as potentially important inﬂuences on teaching
practices (Blackburn & Lawrence, 1995). The few studies testing this relationship for
individual faculty have not found a signiﬁcant association between satisfaction with
teaching loads or work mix and teaching behaviors (Fairweather & Rhoads, 1995;
Einarson, 2001). It is possible that collective satisfaction has a greater inﬂuence on

individuals, by creating a work environment that supports teaching.

Departmental collegiality and leadership

The level of collegiality among faculty appears to be a factor in departments that
support excellent teaching (Massey, Wilger & Colbeck, 1994), but has not been tested as
a direct effect on individual faculty teaching practice. Leadership by departmental chairs
has likewise been identiﬁed as an important element of departments that are supportive of
good teaching (Massey, Wilger & Colbeck, 1994). Leadership by chairs is proposed as a

department-level construct in the model of departmental climate for teaching.

37

Faculty development for instructional improvement

Finally, individual and departmental engagement in teaching improvement is
examined as an inﬂuence on teaching practice. Although many studies describe faculty
development practices, few have examined relationships between faculty development
and faculty teaching practice (Menges & Austin, 2001). This is an area of inﬂuence on
faculty teaching practice that has received little attention. Menges and Austin (2001)
assert that most of the literature regarding teaching improvement efforts and faculty
development is descriptive in nature and extends only to gauging faculty beliefs and
attitudes (p. 1132). Einarson (2001) tested faculty perceptions of the availability,
adequacy, and use of professional development funds in relation to active and
collaborative teaching practices. These funds, however, could have been used for .

training in either research or teaching. She found no relationship between them.

Departmental Characteristics

Departmental characteristics include the discipline associated with the department
and departmental teaching obligations. Discipline is proposed as a departmental level
factor only. Teaching obligations are proposed as both individual and departmental level

factors.

Discipline use of acti ve and collaborative teaching

Discipline is an important consideration in any study of inﬂuences on faculty
teaching approaches, and has been studied rather extensively (Braxton, 1995; Braxton,
Eimers, & Bayer, 1996; Braxton, Olsen & Simmons, 1998; Einarson, 2001; Murray &
Renaud. 1995). Braxton (1995) and Braxton, Eimers, and Bayer ( 1996) found

disciplinary differences in faculty attitudes and beliefs about teaching. Braxton contends

38

that faculty from “hard” paradigmatic development disciplines such as the sciences may
be less receptive to teaching improvement or innovation than those from “soft”
paradigmatic disciplines such as the humanities and social sciences. Murray and Renaud
(1995) found disciplinary differences in classroom teaching practices, as did Einarson
(2001). Einarson found that faculty in science, math, engineering, and social sciences
made signiﬁcantly less use of active and collaborative teaching practice than faculty in
professional ﬁelds such as education. She found some differences among institutional
types in the direction and magnitude of disciplinary inﬂuences on teaching practices.
This model proposes direct‘disciplinary effects on teaching practices, as well as effects
mediated by departmental climates. It is also important to control for discipline to

accurately assess the unique inﬂuence of departmental climate factors on teaching.

Teaching obligations

The number of courses faculty teach and the time they spend on teaching and
preparation have been used as predictors of research productivity and as measures of
teaching productivity (Menges & Austin, 2001). Those aspects of teaching obligation as
well as the level of instruction can directly inﬂuence faculty teaching practices (Stark &
Lattuca, 1997). Einarson (2001) found that the number of students faculty taught was
negatively associated with use of active and collaborative teaching, but that the number
of hours taught was positively associated. The number of classes a faculty member
taught was positively associated with active and collaborative teaching. Level of
instruction (lower division undergraduate, upper division undergraduate, graduate) was
not signiﬁcantly associated with use of active and collaborative teaching in her study,

except in comprehensive universities. This model proposes that the total number of

39

courses individuals teach, and the total course obligations of departments, have direct
effects on faculty teaching practices. In addition, the number of general education and
remedial education courses individuals and departments are responsible for is proposed to

inﬂuence teaching.

Institution Level Variables

Carnegie classiﬁcation is often used to deﬁne the research and teaching focus of
higher education institutions, despite evidence that institutions are not as homogenous
within types as might have been previously presumed (Fairweather & Beach, 2002).
Einarson (2000) found that active and collaborative teaching practices varied
signiﬁcantly by institutional type, but the practical differences between institution types
was quite small. That is, while the differences were statistically signiﬁcant, their effect
sizes were not large enough to warrant considering the differences meaningful. She did
ﬁnd that institutional type interacted with other organizational variables (2001) to
inﬂuence faculty use of active and collaborative teaching. This model proposed small
direct institutional-type inﬂuences on teaching, as well as interactions between

institutional types and departmental climate.

Constructing Variables at the Group Level

Two related levels issues are attendant with group-level constructed variables:
conceptualization and aggregation. Conceptualization involves the theoretical and
empirical justiﬁcation for studying a phenomenon at a particular level. Aggregation

involves operationalizing that conceptual construct into a measurable variable.

40

Climate studies discussed in the previous sections lend conceptual justiﬁcation for
creating departmental variables to measure shared faculty perceptions of climate. Faculty
as groups create the climate of the departments within which they work. Therefore,
measuring climate must account for that shared construction.

Rousseau (1985) justiﬁes aggregating data to form group level variables because
“meaning . . . can be added by aggregation when each individual’s score on a variable
(X) reﬂects the result of a unit-level phenomenon whose overall effect is of interest (p. 6,
emphasis in the original). In the case of the department-level variables of climate for
teaching, an individual’s perception of the department climate can be argued to be a
result of the department’s climate, created and shared by the aggregate department’s
members, rather than an individual perception alone that resides at the individual level.
Without consensus, climate cannot be considered an organizational attribute (Kozlowski
& Hults, 1987). Therefore, variables that operationalize the concept of departmental
climate must allow measurements of consensus within departments and differences

between departments.

Predicted Relationships

The relationships predicted by this model of departmental climate for teaching are
designated by the narrow and bold arrows between boxes at three different organizational
levels. Individual characteristics and perceptions, departmental characteristics, and
institutional characteristics are proposed to have small direct effects on faculty use of
active and collaborative teaching. I expect these variables to be related to the outcome in
ways consistent with prior research ﬁndings. That is, women, those with a personal

preference for teaching, those who teach more courses, and those in disciplines and

41

institutions that have demonstrated greater use of active and collaborative teaching will
be more likely to use these approaches. I expect that these characteristic Variables will
also contribute to departmental climate for teaching, and that departmental climate will
mediate their effects on the outcome. The primary focus of the model is departmental
climate, designated by the shaded box in the middle of the model. I expect that the
climate constructs will have positive relationships with the outcome variable, supporting
individual use of active and collaborative teaching. I describe the data, speciﬁc variables

I used to operationalize and test this model, and analytical approaches in Chapter 3.

42

CHAPTER 3

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

A two-stage mixed methods approach (Tashakkori & Teddlie, 1998) was used to
address the three research questions proposed in this study. I tested ﬁrst two questions —
the relative inﬂuence of departmental teaching climate and other intra-organizational
factors on faculty teaching practices -— using hierarchical linear modeling and an
extensive data set created from a national survey of faculty beliefs and practices. Data in
that set were collected to permit identiﬁcation of intra-organizational levels. The
hierarchical analysis was designed to determine whether climate for teaching, as
modeled, had unique inﬂuence on individual faculty teaching practices. Equally
important, the analysis explored whether or not inﬂuences at other organizational levels —
particularly the individual and institutional levels — affected both the outcome variables
and departmental climate. I explored the third research question, how departmental
climate for teaching is created and inﬂuenced, through qualitative case studies of multiple
academic departments within different institutions.

This study used quantitative and qualitative methods sequentially (ﬁrst
quantitative and then qualitative in two stages) but equally to examine different facets of
organizational inﬂuence on teaching practice. as well as to add breadth and depth to that
examination (Greene et al., 1989 in Tashakkori & Teddlie, 1998). The case analysis
addressed the ﬁndings of the quantitative model tests, but answered questions of process

the model testing could not.

Cross-Level Model of Teaching Climate

A cross-level mixed determinants model (Kozlowski & Klein, 2000; Raudenbush

& Bryk, 2002; Snijders & Bosker, 1999) was proposed to test direct and mediating

relationships of individual and departmental level variables on faculty use of active

teaching approaches. The model was cross-level in that it hypothesizes relationships

between different organizational levels. The model used mixed determinants; that is, it

contains multiple predictors at each of the levels hypothesized. The departmental climate

variables were constructed from aggregated individual data regarding faculty perceptions

of their department’s teaching focus and priorities for undergraduate education, collegial

relationships, and rewards. Table 2 contains the model constructs and variables used to

operationalize them. The Higher Education Research Institute 1998 Faculty Survey

(HERI 1998) used for this analysis is described in the next section of this chapter. The

survey code book is included in Appendix A.

Table 2

Proposed Variables for Testing C ross-Level Model of Departmental Teaching Climate

 

Model Construct

Operational Deﬁnition

Variables and Scales Used

 

 

Outcome
Faculty Use of Active Variables used by Antony and Active and Collaborative
Teaching Methods Boatsman (l994):cooperative learning Teaching : Continuous variable

(small groups), group projects, student
presentations, class discussions,
student-developed activities, student—
selected topics, and student evaluations
of each other’s work.

created by averaging the 7 items
Original Scale for all: 1 (none) ~-
4 (all)

Rescaled: 0 (none) - 3 (all) for
ease of interpretation

 

Department Level
Constructs
Departmental teaching
obligations and load

Aggregated responses of total courses
taught, number of general education
and remedial education classes taught
by faculty in each department. and
average hours per week spent preparing
for and teaching

44

Total Courses (Combined
Coursesl-4)

General Education (CoursesZ)
Remedial Education (Courses3)
Hours Teaching (combined
hrspkal and hrspwk02))

 

Model Construct

Operational Deﬁnition

Variables and Scales Used

 

Disciplinary Approach to Disciplinary use of active/collaborative Disciplinary Use
Teaching teaching methods. Disciplines were 1=Low
grouped based on prior research and 2=Medium
conﬁnnatory ANOVA. 3=High

 

Rewards and satisfaction

Aggregated responses regarding
whether faculty believe their institution
rewards good teaching, and their
satisfaction with their teaching load

Faculty describe their institution
as rewarding good teaching
(Insdesc9): coded l-not
descriptive to 3-very descriptive

Satisfaction with teaching:
SatisO3; coded l-not applicable to
5-very satisﬁed

 

Teaching improvement

Proportion of respondents in each
department who attended a teaching
improvement activity in the last two
years

tchact09 — coded O-no answer, 1-
no, 2-yes.
Recoded O-no answer or no, l-yes

 

Departmental focus

Aggregated primary interest of
department (teaching vs. research)
Aggregated responses of work prior to
this current position - teaching,
academic non-teaching, or outside
academe

primint - coded lzheavily to
research to 4zheavily to teaching.
Recoded Ozresearch and
lzteaching

prevrwk — 7 category variable
recoded to lzoutside academe,
2:academic non-teaching and
3:teaching

 

Collegial Relations

Aggregated responses of variables
having to do with faculty perceptions
and feelings about their colleagues and
work environment.

Combined variable -- Satisfaction
with the competency of
colleagues (SatisO9), collegial
relationships with colleagues
(SatisO7 ), and social relationships
with colleagues (Sati308). Coded
l:not applicable to 5;very
satisﬁed.

Faculty perception that their
research is valued by department
(lnsOpn l 4): coded lzdisagree
strﬂly to 4:agree strongly

 

Student quality

Aggregated responses: students are
well prepared acadenucall y to engage
in college-level work

lnsopn03 — coded lzdisagree
strongly to 4zagree strongly

 

Institution Level
Variables
Institutional type

Collapsed Carnegie classiﬁcations

Also created dummy variables for each
classiﬁcation
with 1=class and O=others

1=Research Universities
2=Doctoral Universities
3=Comprehensive Universities
4=Baccalaureate Colleges

 

45

 

 

Model Construct Operational Deﬁnition Variables and Scales Used

 

Individual Level

 

Variables
Gender Male = 0, Female = 1
Race/ethnicity White = O, Non-white minority =
1
Faculty rank l=lecturerlinstructor

2 = assistant professor
3 = associate professor
4 = full professor

Prior work prevrwk - 7 category variable
recoded to lzoutside academe,
2:academic non-teaching and

, 3:teaching

Personal Focus primint — coded lzheavily to
research to 4:heavily to teaching.
Recoded Ozresearch and
1:teaching

 

Outcome Variable

I conducted a conﬁrmatory internal consistency analysis to ensure that the
variables in the 1998 data set showed the same inter-correlation as those in the 1993 data
used by Antony and Boatsman (1994). The 1998 variables had a Cronbach's alpha of .78.
very similar to that of the 1993 variables (.77). Table 3 contains comparative statistics on
the 1993 data and the 1998 data subset used for this analysis (n=13,222).

Table 3

Comparative Item ( 'orrelations for Outcome, 1 993 and I 998 Data

 

 

Item Corrected Item-Total Alpha if ltem Removed
Con‘elation

1993* 1998 1993* 1998
Cooperative Learning (small groups) .61 .62 .72 .73
Group Projects .56 .59 .73 .74
Student Presentations .56 .59 .73 .74
Class Discussions .41 .44 .76 .77
Student-Developed Activities .35 .38 .77 .78
Student—Selected Topics .45 , .42 .75 .77
Student Evaluations of Each Other’s .52 .54 .74 .75
Work

 

Note; Alpha 1993 = .77. Alpha 1998 = .78
*1993 statistics from Antony & Boatsman, 1994

46

Overall, item-total correlations and alphas for the 1998 data are slightly stronger than for
the 1993 data. This indicates that the combination of variables remains a relatively

highly reliable construct, even when applied to data collected in a different cycle.

Individual Level Variables

Individual level variables in the model included rank, gender, race/ethnicity,
personal focus on teaching or research, and work prior to the current position. They
represent variables that have been explored in past research. They are included in the
model as controls when looking at department and institution level variables. Rank is
variable that has not predicted teaching and research productivity well by itself, but
seems to interact with other variables. Both its main effects and interaction effects are
tested in this analysis. Antony and Boatsman (1994) found that faculty who “leaned
towar ”teaching, but did not claim to “lean heavily” toward it in preference reported the
highest use of active and collaborative teaching approaches. Those who reported they
“lean heavily” toward teaching reported the second highest use of such approaches.
Those results guided the decision to collapse the variable “primary interest” into a
dummy in which 0 = research and 1 = teaching.

In addition to the variables named above, individual level measures of the
variables used at the departmental level were tested for their effects on active and

collaborative teaching. They are discussed below.

Departmental Level Variables

1 used two types of departmental variables — objective departmental

characteristics and climate constructs. Variables representing the teaching obligations of

47

departments were created from the number and kinds of classes faculty report teaching,
and the amount of time they reported spending in class and on preparation. These
variables are averages of the data reported by respondents in each department.

A score for disciplinary use of active and collaborative teaching (high, medium,
low) was assigned to departments based on Fairweather’s (2002) typology for
disciplinary differences in teaching. Conﬁrmatory ANOVA with post-hoe tests for
homogeneity supported the disciplinary categories Fairweather identiﬁed in general, with
a few alterations to accommodate slightly different discipline assignments and groupings
in the HERI data set. Table 4 contains a breakdown of the disciplines assigned to each
category of the variable.

Table 4

Categories of Disciplinary Use of A ctive and Collaborative Teaching

 

 

Disciplinary Use Frequency Percent of
Sample

Low Use Biological Sciences 846 16.5
Engineering 625 12.2

Math/Statistics 817 15.9

Physical Sciences 1103 21.5

Social Scrences 1501 29.2

Other Technical 240 4.7

Total 5132 100

Medium Use Agriculture / Forestry 207 12.1
Business 737 43.2

Health Sciences 762 44.7

Total 1706 100

High Use Education 1061 16.6
English 1129 17.7

History/Political Science 998 15.6

Humanities 1271 19.9

Fine Arts 1315 20.6

Other 610 9.6

Total 6384 100

 

48

Because this variable was constructed based upon differences in the outcome, it
has an automatic association with approach to teaching, and should be viewed with some
caution. In fact, it makes the test of the inﬂuences of departmental characteristics on
active and collaborative teaching slightly more conservative since it very likely explains
more variation in the outcome than other measures of discipline not based on the outcome
would explain. I found it the most efﬁcient way to address disciplinary inﬂuences in the
model.

Compositional constructs representing departmental level dimensions of climate
for teaching include: rewards and recognition for teaching and research, primary interests
of the department (teaching or research), collegial relations, student preparedness for
college level work, and engagement in teaching improvement. These variables were
created by averaging the responses of department members. The variable “perceptions of
collegial relations” is a composite of three questions on a four-point scale: satisfaction
with the competence of one’s colleagues, satisfaction with professional relationships with
colleagues, and satisfaction with personal relationships with colleagues. Cronbach's
alpha reliability measures on the construct were strong (a = .78; a if item removed from
scale not less than .74).

Two elements proposed in the model—departmental leadership and resources——
do not have good corresponding variables in the HERI data set, and could not be tested in

the quantitative model. 1 address these factors in the qualitative case study analysis.

Data

The data to test this model were derived from the 1998-99 Faculty Survey

conducted by the Higher Education Research Institute (HERI) at the University of

49

California at Los Angeles. This data set is uniquely well suited to testing cross and multi-
level models of organizational inﬂuence on individual faculty outcomes. Faculty surveys
can be nested within departments within speciﬁcally identiﬁed institutions, because
individual surveys are coded for institutions, and respondents are asked to identify the
department (rather than discipline) in which they work. The hierarchical nature of the
relationships of faculty to their departments and institutions is therefore accurately
reﬂected. Respondents can be grouped within departments within institutions, a
conceptual and analytical assumption of this study. Other data sets, primarily the
National Survey of Postsecondary Faculty (N SOPF), are designed to be nationally
representative and contain variables similar to those of the HERI faculty survey. The
NSOPF, however, does not contain the levels of institutional and intra-institutional
speciﬁcity of which the HERI data set is capable. NSOPF respondents can only be
identiﬁed by the type of institution and broad discipline within which they work.

The complete survey data set contains 33,785 responses from ﬁill-time faculty
members at 378 two- and four-year colleges and universities across the United States.
For this analysis, I created a purposeful sample retaining departmental and institutional
structures by following a multi-step process. First, full-time faculty at public and private
four-year colleges and universities who reported teaching undergraduates were identiﬁed.
This eliminated faculty from two-year and specialty colleges, as well as those who have
no undergraduate teaching responsibilities. Second, 1 selected institutions with the
highest average faculty response rates within their Carnegie classiﬁcation. Next I

excluded individual faculty cases based on missing data on key variables and

50

departmental groups of less than three respondents. Finally, 1 excluded institutions with
fewer than two departments to compare.

The ﬁnal sample for this study included 13,222 faculty in 2176 departments at
115 institutions —- 13 Research universities, 14 Doctoral universities, 48 Comprehensive
universities, and 39 Baccalaureate colleges (See Appendix C for details). The overall
institutional response rate of the data set is 40%. Average response rates for each
institutional group were 30% for research institutions, 39% for doctoral, 53% for
comprehensive, and 68% for baccalaureate. Final institution group sizes averaged 115,
with a minimum of 17 and a maximum of 522. Institutions had between 4 and 55
departments, and averaged 19. Department respondent group sizes ranged from 3 to 39,
and averaged 6.08. 75% of department groups had 7 or fewer respondents.

Table 5 contains comparisons of the original and ﬁnal data sets. Examination of
the ﬁnal sample compared to the total data set indicated that proportions of faculty ranks,
gender, and race were representative, and multiple departments from all disciplines were
included. I also examined key variables and found them to vary only slightly between the
original and ﬁnal samples. I also compared the ﬁnal sample with that of the 1999
National Study of Postsecondary Faculty. which is nationally representative. The
original and ﬁnal HERI samples do not differ radically from the national proportions of
faculty. White faculty appear to be over-represented, as are full and associate professors.
There are slightly fewer women in the sample than reported nationally. Overall, the ﬁnal
sample retains the proportions of the original, as well as frequencies, means, standard

deviations on the outcome and key predictors proposed for this study.

51

Table 5

Characteristics of Original and Final Data Sets Compared to NSOPF 1998 Data

 

 

Variable All 4-year Final Data Set NSOPF 1998 Public
Institutions (N=l3,222) and Private 4-year
(N=3 1,477) institutions
Percentage Percentage Percentage
Gender
Male 67.00 65.2 63.7
Female 33.00 34.8 36.3
Rank
Professor 36.9 35.2 30.7
Associate Professor 28.7 29.6 23.6
Assistant Professor 25. 1 25.5 22.3
Instructor/Other 9.3 10 1 5.9
Race
White 91.5 91.8 85.1
Non-White 8.5 8.2 14.9
Engaged in Teaching
Improvement Workshop ‘ 56.5 54.0
Prior Work
Teaching 37.8 37.9
Academic, non- 39.3 39.5
teaching 22.8 22.5
Outside Academe
Primary Interest in Teaching 66.3 68.3
, Mean / SD Mean / SD
Use of Active/ 2.08 / .59 2.09 / .59 (prior to
Collaborative Teaching recoding)
Total Number ofCourses 2.95 / 1.2 2.87 / 1.19
Taught
Faculty Rewarded For Good 1.86 / .65 1.85 / .65
Teaching
Students Well Prepared 2.17/86 2.16 / .87
Academically
Collegial Relations 3.81 :’ .76 3.78 ./ .76
My Research Valued By 2.92 / .90 2.90 / .89
Faculty In My Dept

 

Note: data for All 4-year schools taken from Sax, Astin, Korn & (jilmartrn, 1999. Data for 1999 NSOPF
taken from Zirnbler, 2001. ‘

Analytical Approach
Hierarchical Linear Modeling (HLM) was used to test the research questions
driving this model of departmental climate for teaching and its inﬂuence on faculty

teaching practices (Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002). HLM was designed speciﬁcally for

analyzing cross-level research models, in which relationships of dependent variables at
the individual level and independent variables at the same and higher levels are explored
(Hofmann, Grifﬁn & Gavin, 2000; Snijders & Bosker, 1999). The direct effects of higher
level variables on the individual level outcome, and the moderating effects of those
higher level variables is tested through a series of equations. The ﬁrst equations regress
the teaching practice outcome on the individual level variables of interest, and then use
the lepe and intercept of that equation as dependent variables in regressions on the
department level variables. In turn those slopes and intercepts are used as outcomes for
institution-level variables (Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002).

Prior to testing with HLM, I tested the levels of the constructed departmental
climate variables to ensure that aggregating them to the group level was valid. This test
follows from the requirement of consensus to justify measuring climate as an
organizational attribute. Aggregation of data collected at the individual level to a
different level is considered valid when there is homogeneity within groups and variance
between groups (Bliese, 2000; James. Demaree & Wolf, 1993). Positive F-tests on One-
way ANOVAS indicate that there is signiﬁcantly greater between-group variance than
within-group variance. The percentage of variance in each predictor found at the
individual, department, and institution level can then be calculated using an Intra-class
correlation (ICC(1)) statistic. This procedure also examines the assumption that the
outcome variable is sufﬁciently varied at the individual and higher level to proceed with
HLM.

HLM operates on a number of methodological assumptions that closely parallel

the levels perspective. Lower level units (e.g., individuals) are assumed to be nested

53

within identiﬁable higher-level units and are exposed to and inﬂuenced by those higher—
level units (Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002). The outcome variable is assumed to be
measured at the lowest level of interest, and to vary both within the lower-level units and
between higher-level units. Therefore, it is assumed that faculty teaching practices vary
not only from individual to individual, but from department to department as well. This
assumption can be tested in the process of HLM analysis, but can also be examined prior
to analysis. HLM also requires a large number of groups with ample members. The
recommendation is that 30 groups of 30 be used, but evidence suggests that an increase in
group number can support a decrease in group size. Having 115 institutions and 2176
departments meant not having to eliminate units with smaller numbers of faculty. HLM
5 software offers results with robust standard errors that correct for non-normal
distributions and unequal group sizes (Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002). Given the range of
institution and department sizes, I used these corrected variances rather than results with

standard errors that assume normal distributions and equal group sizes.

Case Study Analysis

The qualitative analysis explores in detail how departmental climates affecting
faculty teaching practices are created and inﬂuenced by or mediate factors from other
organizational levels (individual, college. institution, extra-institution). I used a multiple
case study approach (Merriam, 1998; Yin, 1994) to create and compare in-depth
descriptions of departments within different universities.

Case study methodology is best suited for questions of “how” and “why” about
contemporary events over which the investigator has little or no control (Yin, 1994). Its

particular strength is its “ability to deal with a full variety of evidence — documents,

54

artifacts, interviews, and observations” (p. 8) beyond what might be available with other
methodologies. Cases are used when a researcher wishes to create a partieularistic,
descriptive, and heuristic account of a situation or setting (Merriam, 1998). A case study
is particularistic and descriptive in that it focuses on speciﬁc situations, events, or
processes and describes them in detail. In this study, the case analysis focuses on the
policies, actions, and other factors that create and inﬂuence departmental climate for
teaching. The case “subjects” are different departments, but the cases are built from the
perspectives of faculty and administrators. I constructed proﬁles of departmental
teaching climates through the explanations given by individual faculty and administrators
about learning priorities for students, teaching practices they engage in to meet those
priorities, departmental inﬂuences on their teaching, collegial activity around teaching
and learning, rewards and resources for teaching and research, and leadership by
department chairs. I then analyzed policies and other factors at individual, institutional.
and extra-institutional levels for insight into how departmental climate is inﬂuenced. The
analysis is heuristic in that it attempts to interpret the processes described and give the
reader a framework for understanding them.

The use ofmultiple departmental cases increases the interpretive and heuristic
value ofthe qualitative stage ofthe study (Merriam, 1998; Yin, 1994). Merriam (1998)
notes that the more cases included in a study, and the greater the variation across cases,
the more compelling are interpretations from the study. Yin (1993) refers to the
“replication logic” (p.34) in multiple case studies: choosing cases in the hopes of
replicating certain ﬁndings, rather than in the hopes of representing the universe (as is

often the goal of other methods). If replications are found for several cases, one can have

55

more conﬁdence in the results. The strength of those results, however, refers to the
theory or framework being explored, not to the greater population. Therefore, ﬁndings
from the multiple departmental cases in this analysis refer to the process of inﬂuence on

teaching practice, not to the greater populations of academic departments.

Case Analysis Data

Data for this case study analysis is part of a larger study, “Enhancing Faculty
Contribution to Learning Productivity,” funded by a US Department of Education’s
Ofﬁce of Education Research and Improvement (OERI) Field Initiated Study grant. I
was a graduate research assistant on this project for its entirety. In that role, I conducted
site visits to four of the nine universities participating in the study (including the three
used in this analysis), read and coded transcripts, and undertook analysis of the data.
Although this current analysis can be considered secondary — the issue of the creation and
inﬂuence of departmental climate for teaching was not the focus of the original study —
my familiarity with these data leads me to believe that they are well suited to an
exploration of departmental climate. The individual responses of faculty and
administrators range from personal attitudes, feelings, and actions to perceptions of
colleagues and departmental and institutional leaders, departmental and institutional
structures and resources, and policies and issues at the departmental, institutional, and
state level. Project staff found that careful analysis and comparison of these individual
responses can yield richly detailed descriptions of departments and institutions. The
questions regarding climate proposed in this study, however, were addressed by any of
the researchers involved in data collection. The next section describes the data collection

process used. I then describe my analysis strategy in detail.

56

Data Collection and Coding

For the larger study, three states with distinct policy environments for higher
education were selected. For example, Ohio represented a state with direct legislative
mandates on faculty work, Tennessee represented a state with incentives for speciﬁed
student outcomes, and Texas was chosen as a state without apparent state-level
legislation or policy related to faculty teaching or student leaming. In each state, a public
research university, public masters-level university, and private liberal arts college were
invited to participate for a total of nine institutions in three different states.

Research teams composed of one faculty member and one graduate research
assistant conducted a total of 338 interviews with administrators, faculty, and students at
the nine universities. We interviewed the chief academic ofﬁcer and other central
administrators with responsibilities for undergraduate education. Each team also
interviewed faculty, chairs, and deans from four departments (if such existed) selected for
disciplinary variation according to Biglan’s (1973) classiﬁcation. The departments
included Business Management (soft—applied), English or Romance Languages (soft-
pure), Engineering (hard-applied), and Physics (hard-pure). Department chairs were
asked to nominate at least nine faculty to be interviewed based on variation in rank and
on their assessment of the nominated faculty members as either a high perfomring
teacher, researcher, or both. Table 6 provides details on the institutions visited. the
departments selected, and the number of participants interviewed.

We used semi-structured interview guides to elicit faculty members’ responses to
questions about their priorities for student learning, their teaching practices. and about

how institutional and department management strategies and state policies enhanced or

57

constrained their opportunities to contribute effectively to student learning. Interviewers
asked chairs, deans, and central administrators about their perceptions of faculty teaching
practices, how their own managerial strategies inﬂuenced faculty teaching, and how
institution and state po1icies, actions, and circumstances inﬂuenced the ways they worked
with faculty on issues of teaching and learning.

Table 6

Interviews Completed for “Enhancing Faculty Contributions to Student Learning

Productivity ”

 

 

 

 

State/Institution Ohio Tennessee Texas
OSU YSU WU UTK TT FU UTA UTS AC TOT
ROLE GROUP
Central Administrators 3 2 l 3 2 2 2 2 2 l9
Deans 4 4 O 4 2 O 4 3 3 24
Chairs & Associate 4 4 4 7 4 3 4 8 2 4O
Deans
Faculty
Business 8 9 4 8 9 3 4 9 4 58
Eng / Lang 9 9 2 9 9 4 8 8 5 63
Engineering 8 3 3 9 9 0 9 5 O 46
Physics 8 5 6 8 7 3 7 2 l 47
Lecturers, instructors 0 0 0 3 O 2 5 0 0 10
Student focus grouk 4 4 3 4 4 3 3 3 3 31
Total 48 40 23 55 46 20 46 4O 20 338

 

OSU 2 Ohio State University

YSU = Youngstown State University

WU = Wilberforce University

UTK = University ofTennessee - Knoxville
TT = Tennessee Technological University
FU = Fisk University

UTA = University of Texas - Austin

UTS = Universrty of Texas — San Antonio
AC = Austin College

All interviews were transcribed verbatim, and a coding scheme developed to
categorize responses using NUDIST qualitative software. An initial coding scheme was
developed to follow the interview guide, and codes added as issues and themes emerged.
The result is a database of individual interviews, nested within departments and

institutions, which can be explored for multiple issues and grouped to look for patterns of

58

similarity or difference at multiple levels. Table 7 lists the issues the interview questions
addressed in the interviews, and the initial breakdown of codes. Appendix A contains the
semi-structured interview protocols.

For the present analysis, I proﬁle 10 departments and one college in three
institutions in the state of Tennessee. At the public research university, University of
Tennessee at Knoxville, the departments of Physics, Civil Engineering, and Romance
Languages, and the College of Business participated in the study. The College of
Business did not have enough tenure-stream faculty in any one department teaching
undergraduates at the time of our visit to meet our sampling scheme. We therefore
interviewed faculty from multiple departments within the college. At Tennessee
Technological University, a public comprehensive university, we interviewed faculty,
staff, and students from the departments of Physics, Mechanical Engineering, English,
and the Decision Sciences within the College of Business. At Fisk University, a private
liberal arts college, the departments of English, Physics, and Business Administration
participated. That school has no engineering department. This sample provided parallel
disciplines but different missions and institutional types within the same state higher
education context.

Table 7
Interview Topic Areas from ”Enhancing F aeulty Contributions to Student Learning

Productivity "

 

Demographic Information
Years teaching
Years at this institution
Teaching load and types of courses
taught
Teaching and research awards received

 

59

 

Grads learning (What new graduates should have
learned)

Content Learned

Skills Learned

Integration Learned

Application Learned

Attitudes Learned

Most Effective Teaching (Faculty contributions
to learning)
Courses
Pedagogical styles
General
Lecture
Discussion
Group Work
One—on-one
Other styles
Context/relevance
Assignments
Evaluation/ feedback
Classroom Climate

 

Personal inﬂuences on faculty teaching
Teaching Strengths
Knowledge
Teaching skills
Attributes
Experience
Values

Areas of Teaching That Need Improvement
Knowledge
Teaching skills
Attributes
Experience
External obstacles

 

Teaching balanced with other responsibilities
Ability to balance
Difﬁculty / Ease of balance
Strategies

Changes in teaching practice
Extent of effective teaching
Changes in teaching behaviors
Existence of change

Inﬂuences for change
Personal

Dept. fomral policies
Dept. informal rules
State policies
Technology

Other

 

Institutional & Dept. Inﬂuences (on faculty
teaching)
Formal Policies That Promote Teaching and
Learning

Governance

Administrative structure

Faculty participation

Resources

Budget

Facilities/equipment

Training

Staff

Policies

Workload

Class size

Incentives/rewards

Evaluation

Enrollment/student support

Formal policies don’t promote learning

Formal Policies That Constrain Teaching and
Learning

Governance

Administrative structure

Faculty participation

Resources

Budget

Facilities/equipment

Training

Staff

Policies

Workload

Class size

Incentives/rewards

Evaluation

Enrollment’student support

Fomral policies don’t constrain learning

 

60

 

Informal Rules

 

Informal Rules That Promote Teaching and Informal Rules that Constrain Teaching and
Learning Learning

Norms Nonns

Dept. culture Dept. culture

Recognition Recognition

Values Values

Reward for research = less teaching Reward for research = less teaching

Faculty autonomy Faculty autonomy

Infonrral Rules don’t promote leaming Informal Rules don’t constrain learning
Case Analysis Strategy

I constructed the 11 cases (10 departments and 1 college) through an iterative
analytic process that started with individual interview responses, broadened to
departmental themes, returned to individual responses for insight into inﬂuences on
departments, and ﬁnally expanded to institution and state level inﬂuences. I began by
reviewing, by department, individual responses to interview questions regarding priorities
for undergraduate learning, teaching approaches, and inﬂuences on teaching. I paid
particular attention to the organizational level referenced or implied by interviewees in
discussing inﬂuences on their teaching approaches, changes, and attitudes, as well as to
factors found important in the quantitative model. I used contextual infomiation about
the institutions from faculty and administrator responses to create institutional
descriptions, and to explore institutional level inﬂuences that emerged as important to
departments or individual faculty. Finally, I compared department and institution proﬁles
for similarities and differences (Merriam, 1998; Miles & Huberman, 1994), and for
evidence of how departmental climates are created and sustained, and whether and how
they mediate institutional inﬂuences. I used the results of this cross-departmental and

institutional analysis to speculate on the administrative and policy levers that might

61

inﬂuence departmental climate for teaching to support faculty engagement in active

teaching practices.

Limits and Delimits of the Study

Any study using secondary analysis is necessarily limited by the data available.
The HERI data set did not contain questions that could be used to operationalize some the
constructs the model of departmental teaching climate proposed. Response rates for
some of the institutions chosen for inclusion in this study were lower than would be ideal.
The qualitative data set was collected to answer different questions than those posed in
this study, and therefore did not address some issues and factors that the model proposed.
Both sets of data had limitations in terms of their use in the present study. Fortunately,
each set offered information that was missing from the other.

One of the assumptions inherent in HLM analysis is that individuals are nested in
higher level units that inﬂuence their behavior. Given the heterogeneity of departmental
arrangements within higher education institutions, this assumption might be problematic
for some departmental groups I identiﬁed. Large departments might have programs,
centers, and other sub-groups that inﬂuence individuals more than do their departments.
The data available did not allow differentiation between departments that are subdivided
in meaningful ways and those that are not.

This study does not exhaust the possible dimensions of climate for teaching that
could be operationalized and tested, nor does it exhaust the individual and institutional
factors that could be tested for inﬂuence on active and collaborative teaching. Other
dimensions of effective teaching could have been used as additional outcomes -~ use of

technology for teaching and incorporation of diversity issues into courses are two. The

study focuses on key organizational inﬂuences on a teaching and learning outcome that

has been widely advocated as effective for student learning.

Summary

The mixed methods of this study design — cross-level quantitative model testing
and in-depth multiple case studies — address different research questions arising from the
problem of inﬂuencing faculty teaching practices. The cross-level quantitative analysis
explores the existence and relative inﬂuence of departmental climates for teaching and
other organizational inﬂuences at different institutional levels in colleges and
universities. The multiple case studies delve into how departmental climates for teaching
are created and sustained. The combination of quantitative analysis using a large,
national data set and qualitative case study offer a more balanced portrait of the levels of
inﬂuence on teaching among departments and institutions than either approach alone
could. This study design should result in ﬁndings that can be applied to general theory

about organizational inﬂuences on faculty work and detailed policy recommendations.

63

CHAPTER 4

RESULTS OF QUANTITATIVE MODEL TESTING

This chapter addresses the questions: Is there evidence of a department-level
effect on individual teaching practice, and if so, how important is it relative to individual
and institutional characteristics? The ﬁrst section contains results of preliminary analyses
that explore the variables used in the study and test the assumptions necessary to
aggregate variables to the department level and proceed with HLM. The second section
details the results of tests on the cross-level model of departmental climate for teaching.
The third section discusses those results and their implications for the subsequent case

study.

Results of Preliminary Analyses

Preliminary analyses were run on the outcome variable and predictors prior to
testing the cross level model. These analyses determined the overall “shape” of the data,
the level of correlation among predictors, the amount of variance in each predictor at
individual, department, and institution levels, and the appropriateness of aggregating

individual level variables to the department level.

Outcome: Use of A ctive and Collaborative Teaching Approaches

Overall, faculty used active and collaborative teaching and learning approaches in
some, but not most, of their courses. The mean of the outcome variable, an average of
seven items representing classroom practices such as group work, discussion, and peer
evaluation, was 1.10 on the re-coded scale of 0 to 3 (Or-none, l=some, 2rmost, 3=all).

The distribution of responses was quite positively skewed; 75% of respondents had

64

A /_Is.

scores below 1.5. To explore whether there were particular factors skewing the outcome
scores, I calculated quartiles of responses for the outcome, and compared characteristics
of respondents in the top 25% with those of all respondents. Table 8 contains these
comparisons.

Table 8

Reported Use of Active and Collaborative Teaching

 

 

Characteristics Top Quartile (N=3105) Full Sample LN=I 3,222)
Institutional Type
Research 23.3% 25.5%
Doctoral 15.5% 16.8%
Comprehensive 42.6% 39.5%
Baccalaureate 18.6% 18.2%
Discipline
Agriculture/Forestry 1 .2% 1 .5%
Biology 3.4% 5.9%
Business 8.4% 5.8%
Education 14.0% 8.3%
Engineering 3.3% 4.8%
English 13.5% 7.9%
Health Sciences 7.5% 6.0%
History/Political Sci 4.0% 7.3%
Humanities 9.1% 10.0%
Fine Arts 14.8% 10.0%
Math/ Statistics 1.6% 5.6%
Physical Sciences 2.7% 8. %
Social Sciences 8500 1 1.8%
Other Technical 1.4% 2.0%
Other 6.6% 5.2%
Gender
Male 58.8% 65.2%
Female 41.2% 34.8%
Rank
Instructor 12.9% 9.6%
Assistant Professor 33.1% 25.5%
Associate Professor 28.5% 29.6%
Full Professor 25.5% 35.2%
Race
White 92.2% 91.8%
_ Minority 7.8% 8.2%

 

65

All 115 institutions were represented in the top 25% of active and collaborative
teaching, as were all disciplines. Research and doctoral institutions were slightly less
represented in that group than in the overall sample, comprehensive universities slightly
over-represented, and baccalaureate colleges to an equal degree. English, Education,
Business, and Fine Arts were among disciplines with higher proportions in the top
quartile, and Math/Statistics, Physical Sciences, and Social Sciences were among
disciplines with lower proportions. Women were more highly represented in the top 25%
than in the general sample, as were Assistant Professors. The racial breakdown of those
who reported high use of active and collaborativeteaching remained constant between
the two groups.

These comparisons conﬁrm that there are differences among faculty who use
active and collaborative teaching, but that the top quartile of responses does not differ
dramatically from the overall sample in terms of gender. race. rank. discipline. or
institutional type. To ensure that systematic bias did not exist in active and collaborative
teaching because of inordinately strong effects of outliers in the data. I calculated a log of
the outcome and tested the ﬁnal model with both the original scale and the log of it.
Taking a log ofthe outcome normalizes it. and controls for the effects of outliers.
Comparing the results of the two models (using unlogged and logged outcomes) showed

no signiﬁcant differences in the predictors or magnitude of effects.

Individual Level Predictors

Proportions of the variables gender, race, rank, prior work, primary interest, and

engagement in teaching enhancement were reported in Table 5 (Chapter 3). Means and

66

standard deviations (Table 9), and correlations (Table 10) were also run for individual

level predictors proposed for the study.
Table 9

Means and Standard Deviations of Individual Level Predictors

 

 

Minimum Maximum Mean Std.

Deviation

Students Well Prepared Academically 1 4 2.17 .87
My Research Valued By Faculty In My Dept 1 4 2.90 .89
Satisfaction of Teaching Load 1 5 3.49 .91
Collegial Relations 1 5 3.78 .76
Number of Remedial Ed Courses Taught 0 5 .04 .34
Total Number of Courses Taught 0 14 2.87 1.19
Number of Gen Ed Courses Taught 0 5 .65 1.04
Hours Spent Weekly Teaching And Prep 1 18 8.27 2.03
Faculty Rewarded For Good Teaching 1 3 1.86 .65

 

Faculty across all institutions and departments reported that they spent on average 8.27
hours per week in class and preparing to teach. and taught an average of 2.87 courses.
They were somewhat satisﬁed with their teaching loads, and felt their research was
somewhat valued by their departments. Faculty were not uniformly enthusiastic about
students’ preparedness for academic work; the mean of the variable was 2.17 on a scale
of 1 to 4. 63.9% of faculty disagreed or disagreed strongly to the statement that students
are well prepared. 29.2% agreed somewhat, and only 5.7% agreed strongly.

Faculty were more positive about the rewards they perceived for good teaching.
55% of respondents felt that the statement “faculty are rewarded for good teaching” was
somewhat descriptive of their institution, 15% felt it was very descriptive, and 29% felt it

was not descriptive.

67

623$ .32 3o 2.. a 28%»; a 532.8 ..
825-3 .26. :3 as a 585:»: e 8:228 r.

 

ooo. _

.55. ooo.—

:omo. for ooo.—

:wvo. woo. 2o. ooo..

eeNmo. ammo. eo—o. nem©_. ace.—
..iwmor moo. Mat simmer *awmor 25..
..32 _.i neomct nemmo. enema: simmer 3.3” _ . ooo.—

.omo. Lmo. voor :39 :02. woo.

woo. moo. moo. 2o. voor :moo. _oo.

etc... 30.- 8.95. coma—.neeowo.ueeoo_. scone.

~_o.- moo.

2o. Noor :mZ. «somo.-:mmo.-:o.- ooo.
:omo. moot .58. 1.5:. m5.
2 E 2 N. 2 o. a

«comet

summo. seemo. eccvor caNmm. neomm. cemmo. :ovor

.icwo. comma. moo. nemwﬁ eamwo. 8.5:. 335.0.-

..iooo. aaomor 1.95.. 1.2.9- :36.

ee—o_.-:oo_.i

ooo.—

:ce. ooo.—

..icoo. 3.th coo.—

.NNO. woo... eucwo. ooo.—

.iwvot ee—ON.-eamho. «ammo. ooo.—

:Nmor «Loot :boor ammo. :3... ooo.—

«e-mo. «immorccvoo. m5.
:NS. :25. :53. woo.
m h o n v

some. 2.3—. ooo.—
eeowor summor So. ooo.—
m N _

none—SB EoEooemacm

mean; 822:. .2
szﬂ. 83.80

om 360on o0 39:52 .3
weﬁuaoh @900

8.”— uoEnBom 538m .2
aoi uc< 9.208...

>233 anm 25: .m—

szm... meme—EU .

um :00 ,3 cops—:2 ._ _
owe. .2

xemm .o

5:03... nm=oub>=o<
oo 83 b22335 .w
Ewan... 8.0.500 730% s
3225 ban—tx— .o
8mm .m

use; misuse...

5:5 cosoﬂmcmm .v
ion as. 5 £8:

.8 32"; 5333— 32 .m
>=S_EocS<
ocean—2m :03 3525 .N

3250 ._

 

$35.8; ESQ 3:33.35 aﬁgetﬁmteb

o_ 28$.

68

Several of the correlations between predictors were signiﬁcant, not unexpectedly
given the size of the sample and the sensitivity of correlation statistics to sample size.
The magnitude of the correlations was generally low; only those between total courses
taught, general education courses, and total hours spent on teaching were above .2 (r =

.33 for each).

Departmental Level Predictors

Preliminary analysis on predictors aggregated to the department level indicated
that all proposed departmental level variables were justiﬁed. I completed One-way
ANOVAs on the predictors with individual departments as the grouping factor to
determine if the variance between departments was signiﬁcantly different than zero. All
predictors were signiﬁcant, conﬁrming they varied between departments as well as
between individuals. I then completed unconditional three-level HLM models with each
predictor variable as the outcome. This procedure is equivalent to one-way ANOVA, but
accounts for both department and institution level variance simultaneously. I calculated
Intra-C lass Correlations (ICCs) using the variance values at each level (sigma squared for
individual level, Tau (pi) for department level, and Tau (beta) for institution level) by
dividing the variance at each level by the total variance accounted for in the model.
Table 1 1 lists the results of the one-way ANOVA tests, the variance values derived from
the unconditional HLM models, and the amount of variance in each predictor at each
level.

Percentages of the variance at the individual level ranged from 66 to 96 percent.

Departmental level variances ranged from two to 19 percent, and institutional variances

69

ranged from less than one percent to almost 25. These values conﬁrmed that there is

sufﬁcient group-level variance in the variables to justify aggregation to the department

level. A non—zero ICC( 1) value indicates that group membership affects or is related to

lower-level outcomes (Bleise, 2000). These values also supported the use of HLM to

account for errors dependent within departments and institutions; even a small intraclass

correlation can inﬂate error rates in analyses (Bleise, 2000).

The institution-level variance (24.9%) in the predictor “perceptions of student

preparedness” indicated that important effects for that predictor on individual teaching

practices might exist. I created an institution-level aggregate of perceptions of student

preparedness and tested it with the institutional—level predictors proposed in the model.

Table 1 1

Results ofANO VA and [C C( 1 ) calculations for Predictors

 

 

Item F-test on One- sigma Tau (pi) Tau lndiv Dept. lnst.
way ANOVA squared (Beta) Level Level Level
Variance Variance Variance
Student Preparation for 4.089 /p<.000 0.49521 0.06187 0.18317 66.90% 8.36% 24.74%
College work .
Satisfaction with Teaching 1.939 /p<.000 0.719 0.05225 0.06198 86.29% 6.27% 7.44%
Load
Primary Interest 2.212/p<.000 0.17692 0.01276 0.02228 83.47% 6.02% 10.51%
Total Courses Taught 3.489 /p<.000 0.98982 0.19209 0.24406 69.41% 13.47% 17.12%
Prior Work 1.369 /p<.000 0.54633 0.02347 0.01215 93.88% 4.03% 2.09%
Collegial Relations 1.739/p<.000 0.51615 0.04793 0.01587 89.00% 8.26% 2.74%
General Education Courses 2.955 /p<.000 0.82357 0.20857 0.06167 75.29% 19.07% 5.64%
Tau lit
Totfl Hours SpentTeaching 2.196/p<.000 3.43175 0.29914 0.34533 84.19% 7.34% 8.47%
Perceived Rewards for 1.789 /p<.000 0.37407 0.00885 0.04691 87.03% 2.06% 10.91%
Teaching
Remedial CoursesTaught 1.092 /p<.004 0.10192 0.00391 0.0002 96.12% 3.69% 0.19%
Attended Teaching 1.493 /p<.000 0.22942 0.00968 0.00979 92.18% 3.89% 3.93%
Enhancement

 

70

Means, standard deviations, and correlations for the Level-2 aggregated variables
are listed in Table 12. Several variables that were signiﬁcantly but slightly correlated at
the individual level were also signiﬁcantly but slightly correlated at the department level.
The highest correlation was between departmental collegial relations and departmental
perceptions of research value ( r = .52). Departmental satisfaction with teaching load was
negatively correlated with total courses taught (r = -.32) and positively correlated with
primary interest (teaching vs. research) of the department (r = .37). Average total courses
taught in the department was negatively correlated with disciplinary use of active and
collaborative teaching (r = -.29) and positively correlated with hours spent on teaching (r
= .27). Because many variables are tested in the HLM model, some of these correlations
could be of concern. Standard errors were carefully tracked as variables were added to

the model to ensure that combinations of variables are not collinear.

71

623$ 35. 8... 2: a 285%; a 832.8 ..
625-8 .26. a... 2.. a .582»: g 8:288 :

 

 

wafomo... o>=o< .o

oo.. 3. No. 8: b22385 .m.

3.....on 5.302%.

1.3.- ooo.. m.. mom. .2353. .N.

mum—sou

2&2. NNo. ooo.. no. we. 5.30:3. .8250 .2

.coEoocuncm

2.23.- mmo. .imwo. ooo.. own. new. 9.2.23... .o.

main-«o...

o.o.- mmor .mvo. :Nmo. ooo.. on»: 5.. 5.....39501 .o

....N¢N.-..owo. 2.5m. ...oN.. :wwo.-ooo.. 5... SN .23.. 3500.50... .w

93.. 9.2.03...

.13.- ...m..o.-..on..-.._ooo.-:moo. :Nmm.-ooo.. .Nm. 3...” 5.3 5.83.33...

mmocoeao...

:moo. Cor .owor :wwo. .i.m~. :Noo: .33.. ooo.. can. EN 203% .o

2.3:. :ooo.-:moo. :Eoribwo. :cno.-.vo. ...ooo.-ooo.. own. EN “.83 8.... .n

.3an «emoc. town: eomwf :o. oewwm. oowno.-ocov_. «cow—fog.— nhm. ooo. «mp—0.:— baEtn. .v

:23. :.oo. .33.. ._._m... omo. 2&5. .omm~.-~.o.- .omo... mmm. ooo.. we. so. 9.208... $8: .m

:39- moo. Roe ooo.- .53.. SEN..- 33.. .53.. Inmo. .83..- «Emorooo. on... 3N co=.~> 5333. .N

omor Nmo. :omo. 2&3. .33.. 2o. .58.. :oom. ovor 2.2... omo. .320 ooo.. omv. ohm 80.501.83.30 ..
m. N. .. o. o m b o n v m N .. Om :35.

 

835.5. $3.3 Macs... 28239.30 38 .wzo...o..>oQ 3.3286 .628:

m. 0.8...

72

Results of Cross-Level Model Testing

The research questions driving the quantitative model testing were: a) What is the
relative inﬂuence of departmental climate for teaching on individual faculty teaching
practices? and b) What is the relative inﬂuence of factors at particular levels (individual,
college, institution) of higher education organizations on individual faculty teaching
practices, and departmental climate for teaching? I examined these questions through a
series of hierarchical models in which the variance in the outcome - active and
collaborative teaching — was assessed without predictors, and with predictors at the
individual, departmental, and institutional level.

The ﬁrst HLM model tested, an unconditional three level model of the outcome
without predictors, was used to determine the amount of variance in active and
collaborative teaching that can be attributed to each level of the model. This served as a
benchmark with which to compare the variance explained in subsequent models.

Table 13 contains the results of the model. They show signiﬁcant departmental
variance in individual faculty use of active and collaborative teaching approaches. A X2
test on the residual variance of the model indicates whether the level-2 and level-3
variance is signiﬁcantly different from zero. Both X2 tests were signiﬁcant at p<.OOO.
ICC(l) statistics indicated that 81% of the variance in the outcome is found among
individuals within departments, 17% lay between departments within institutions, and 2%
lay between institutions. In other words, much of the variance in faculty teaching
approaches not attributable to individuals can be found in their departments.

In sum, there is evidence of departmental-level variance on individual active and

collaborative teaching, as well as individual and institution-level variance. Next I tested

73

models of effects on teaching — with predictors at the individual level, at the departmental
level incorporating individual-level predictors, at the institutional level with no lower-
level predictors, and incorporating all levels — to better understand the relative inﬂuence
of factors at each level.

Table 13

Unconditional Model of Active and Collaborative Teaching

 

 

 

 

Fixed Effect Coefﬁcient se t-ratio
Average use of Active and Collaborative 1.110891 0.0119 93.340
Teaching, 7000

Random Effect Variance Component df X2 J) value
Individual Faculty, em 0.2833]

Department, raj-k 0.06074 2010 4214.45 0.000
Institution, um 0.00834 1 14 2656.20 0.000

Variance Decomposition (Percentage by Level)

 

Level I 81%
Level 2 17%
Level 3 2%

 

Individual Level Model of Influences on Active and Collaborative Teaching

Successive three-level models incorporating individual-level variables but no
predictors at the departmental and institutional levels were tested to determine the
individual demographic, experience, and perception variables that inﬂuence a faculty
member’s use of active and collaborative teaching approaches. Individual variables were
added to the model one at a time to test for main and random effects, interactions with
other Level 1 variables, and collinearity. The ﬁnal model for individual inﬂuences is
detailed in table 14. Of the individual level predictors in the hypothetical model, eight
were signiﬁcant and retained in the HLM model. I omitted non-signiﬁcant predictors in

all tables reported in this section, to case presentation and interpretation of results. I

74

present effect sizes and variance explained by each individual predictor for the ﬁnal

model, after testing predictors at all levels for signiﬁcant associations with the outcome

and ﬁtting the full three-level model.

Table 14

Model of Individual Inﬂuences on Active and Collaborative Teaching

 

 

 

 

Fixed Effect Coefﬁcient se t-ratio df p value
Average use of Active and 1.188584 0.03242 36.661 114 0.000
Collaborative Teaching, 7000
Gender 0.057709 0.01307 4.416 1 14 0.000
Rank -0.078593 0.00662 -1 1.875 1 1796 0.000
Total Courses 0.027058 0.00641 4.21 8 l 1796 0.000
General Education Courses -0.013162 0.00634 -2.076 11796 0.038
Perception of Student Preparedness 0.018007 0.00782 2.304 11796 0.021
Primary Interest 0.03 5460 0.01240 2.860 1 1 796 0.005
Perception of Rewards for Teaching 0.018602 0.00881 2.111 11796 0.035
Engagement in Teaching Enhancement 0.180273 0.01390 12.972 1 1796 0.000
Random Effect Variance (if X7 p value

Component
Individual Faculty, €in 0.27008
Department, r011, 0.05409 2010 4121.12 0.000
Institution, uook 0.00676 114 219.97 0.000
Gender 0.00335 1 14 141.85 0.039

 

Race, age, remedial courses taught, total hours spent teaching, perceptions of
research being valued, and perceptions of collegiality were not signiﬁcantly related to
active and collaborative teaching. They entered the model as non-signiﬁcant, and were
not changed when other variables were added. Prior work and satisfaction with teaching
load entered the model as signiﬁcant predictors, but were rendered insigniﬁcant when
rank was entered.

Gender and rank were signiﬁcantly associated with use of active and collaborative
teaching. The positive slope for gender indicates that women are more likely to use active

and collaborative teaching practices than their male colleagues. In addition to these main

75

effects, the effect of gender on the outcome varied randomly at Level 3 of the model.
This random variation indicated that there might be variables at other levels which
moderate the effects of gender and could be modeled. Rank had a negative slope,
indicating that as one’s rank increases from instructor to full professor, one’s use of
active and collaborative teaching decreases. The total number of courses a faculty
member taught in one semester was signiﬁcantly positively associated with that person’s .
use of active and collaborative teaching, but the number of general education courses one
taught was negatively associated with the use of such approaches. These results could be
artifacts of disciplinary inﬂuences and class sizes. Faculty in disciplines categorized as
“high-use” of active and collaborative teaching in this study also tend to have higher
course loads (F airweather, 2002). General education courses tend to be larger than other
undergraduate courses.

Individual engagement in teaching enhancement and a faculty member’s
perceptions of student preparedness for college-level work were both signiﬁcant, positive
predictors of use of active and collaborative teaching. Likewise, faculty members who
indicated that their primary interest is in teaching engage in such practices more than
their colleagues who indicated that their interests are in research. The greater a faculty
member’s belief that good teaching is rewarded, the greater his or her use of active and
collaborative teaching approaches. This variable became signiﬁcant only aﬁer rank was

entered into the model. Its signiﬁcance value (p) went from .09 to .003.

Model of Departmental Inﬂuence on Active and Collaborative Teaching

A three-level hierarchical model was used to test the effects of departmental

inﬂuences on individual use of active and collaborative teaching methods above and

76

beyond individual level measures of these variables. The ﬁrst level contained signiﬁcant
predictors from the prior model. The second level contained the departmental level
aggregated variables. The third level contained no predictors.

Departmental level variables were added to the model one at a time paired with
their group-mean centered individual level corresponding variables. They were also
added to the slope models of level-1 predictors to test for possible interactions. Because
the Level 2 aggregated predictors had signiﬁcant corresponding variables at the
individual level, to avoid collinearity, Level 1 variables were group-mean centered and
Level 2 variables were uncentered, when both were tested. Group-mean centering
compares an individual’s scores with the mean of the group (in this case, department)
rather than with that of the entire sample. Conceptually, this comparison measures the
inﬂuence of a Level 1 variable on an individual’s active and collaborative teaching
relative to others in their department. Level 2 aggregated variables measure general
departmental effects on the outcome. The two effects do not conceptually or statistically
overlap.

Disciplinary variables were added to the model last because their probable high
association with the outcome could mask important behaviors of other variables. This
approach made it possible to assess the effects of other departmental variables, and then
to trace their interaction with discipline. Table 15 contains the ﬁnal model of
departmental inﬂuence.

Several department level variables were not signiﬁcant when added to the model:
departmental average of general education courses taught, group perception of faculty

members’ research being valued in their departments, and group perceptions of the

77

rewards for teaching. These predictors entered the model as insigniﬁcant, did not appear
to interact with other variables at the departmental level, and did not interact with Level 1
variables.

Table 15

Model of Department Level Effects on Active and Collaborative Teaching

 

 

 

 

Fixed Effect Coefﬁcient se t-ratio df p value

Average use of Active and Collaborative 1.32871 1 0.08948 14.849 114 0.000

Teaching, 7000

Level 2 Predictors
Department Collegiality -0.016621 0.01742 -0.954 21 16 0.340
Dept. Student Preparedness 0.030197 0.01678 1.800 21 16 0.071
Satisfaction with Teaching Load -0.032082 0.01483 -2. 164 2116 0.030
Teaching Enhancement 0.349546 0.03576 9.776 2116 0.000
Remedial Education Courses -0.088039 0.03872 -2.274 2116 0.023
Low-use Disciplines -0.1171 15 0.02545 -4.601 2116 0.000
High-use Disciplines 0.150776 0.02613 5.771 2116 0.000
High-use Disciplines" -0.099956 0.03895 -2.566 114 0.011
Department Collegiality

Level 1 Predictors
Gender 0.034662 0.01337 2.592 1 14 0.010
Rank -0.073039 0.00668 -10.932 1 1787 0.000
Total Courses 0.016951 0.00639 2.654 1 1787 0.008
General Education Courses -0.016311 0.00635 -2.571 11787 0.010
Student Preparedness 0.017813 0.00787 2.264 1 1787 0.024
Primary Interest 0.025213 0.01186 2.126 1 1787 0.033
Rewards for Teaching 0.017298 0.00885 1.956 1 1787 0.050
Teaching Enhancement 0.181543 0.01413 12.853 11787 0.000

Interactions Level 2 /Level 1
Dept Teaching Enhancement * -0. 102563 0.05019 -2.043 1 1787 0.041
Gender

Random Effect Variance df X2 p value

Component

Individual Faculty, em. 0.26999

Department, rOjk 0.03076 1888 3233.61 0.000

Institution, um 0.00697 114 147.66 0.000

High-use Disciplines*Dept. 0.19378 1 14 1 19.65 0.018

Collegiality

Gender 0.06259 1 14 146.13 0.023

 

The departmental proportion of faculty who engage in teaching enhancement was

a signiﬁcant predictor of individual use of active and collaborative teaching, as was

78

department membership in disciplines that generally have high usage of such practices.
Departments labeled low in usage of active and collaborative teaching had a signiﬁcant
negative slope, indicating that faculty in those departments used active and collaborative
teaching approaches in fewer of their courses than faculty in medium or high use
discipline departments. A department’s collective perception of students’ preparedness
for college level work was also a signiﬁcant predictor; higher department perception of
student preparedness is associated with higher use of active and collaborative teaching.
Departmental average of remedial courses taught is a signiﬁcant negative predictor; as
the average number of remedial courses goes up, use of active and collaborative teaching
goes down.

When added to the model, disciplinary use of active and collaborative teaching
caused some previously signiﬁcant departmental variables to drop out, and interacted
with others. Departmental average of total courses taught, departmental focus on
teaching or research, and the departmental average of time spent on teaching were
signiﬁcant positive predictors until the discipline dummy variables were added. The
effects of departmental satisfaction with teaching contained signiﬁcant random variation
at the institutional level until discipline was modeled, and departmental average of
remedial education courses was not signiﬁcant. This result indicates that discipline is an
important part of departmental differences, but that other effects on collaborative
teaching exist between departments in the same institutions that are not discipline-based.

Departmental collegiality approached signiﬁcance (p = .069) as a predictor in the
model until the disciplinary variables were added, at which time its signiﬁcance dropped

(p=.340). Interaction terms were created for low-use disciplines and departmental

79

collegiality (DlINT) and high-use disciplines and departmental collegiality (D3INT) to
explore this same-level interaction. When added to the model, the low-use discipline
interaction variable was not signiﬁcant whereas the high-use interaction variable was
signiﬁcant. The main effect of departmental collegiality remained non-signiﬁcant when
these interactions were modeled with the other departmental and disciplinary predictors.
Figure 2 contains the interactions between disciplines and departmental
collegiality. Because Medium- and Low-Use disciplines were the “other” categories in
the disciplinary dummy, their slight positive slope may not be different than zero. Their
distance from High-use disciplines, however, is accurate. The negative slope of High-use
disciplines in interaction with departmental collegiality indicates that as collegiality in

departments belonging to the High-use category goes up, use of active and collaborative

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

g 0.2

>\

:5

6'0 ~

% 0.] ’i —ngh use
8. g: ‘_ discipline
3 o - — —Medium use
E‘o E 0.0 -i discipline
C.- 0.

° ‘3' Low use
I": ‘6' ———————————— discipline
%

v -0.1 ~

2

.9.

'53

a" '0.2 Y I T

 

 

3.25 3.50 3.75 4.00 4.25

Departm ent average collegiality

teaching declines.

Figure 2. Interaction Between Disciplines and Departmental Collegiality

80

 

One department-level variable interacted with Level-1 predictors. Departmental
engagement in teaching enhancement interacted with individual level gender. Males in
departments with high engagement in teaching enhancement were more likely to use
active and collaborative teaching practices than males in departments with low
engagement. The cross-level interaction between departmental faculty development and

gender is graphed in Figure 3.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

g 0.4
o 9:"
“- E
3 03
a E w
é§§ 02‘ - 'Males
§§ a ' Females

“—
E = 0.1 ~
0 =
'U C
8 x
° :2
E 0:0 1 T r 7 T T T I I r

0.0 0.] 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
Group FD

Figure 3. Interaction Between Departmental Faculty Development and Gender

The graph illustrates that men in departments with a high proportion of faculty
reporting recent attendance at teaching workshops used active and collaborative teaching
approaches in more of their courses than men in departments with less engagement in
faculty development. This pattern also holds for women, but men have a lower starting
point and a more dramatic rise in active teaching practices. The main effect of gender on

the outcome is positive; women generally engage in active and collaborative teaching to a

greater extent than men. Department faculty development interacts with gender such that

men’s use of active and collaborative teaching approaches and meets that of women in

departments engaged in teaching improvement.

Institution-Level Model of Inﬂuence on Active and Collaborative Teaching

A model containing only the outcome variable and a level-3 variable for Carnegie
classiﬁcation was run to test the effects of institutional type inﬂuences on faculty use of
active and collaborative teaching methods. Table 16 contains the results of the analysis.
Table 16

Institutional Inﬂuence on Active and Collaborative Teaching

 

 

 

 

Fixed Effect Coefﬁcient se t-ratio df p value
Average use of Active and Collaborative 1.150821 0.01671 68.882 1 13 0.000
Teaching, 7000
Carnegie Classiﬁcation, 700. -0.034932 0.01059 -3.298 1 13 0.001
Random Effect Variance df X2 p value

Component
Individual Faculty, em, 0.28334
Department, raj-k 0.06064 2010 4260.03 0.000
Institution, uoo_k 0.00725 1 13 245.92 0.000

 

Consistent with the ﬁndings of Einarson (2000, 2001) and Fairweather (2002), Carnegie
classiﬁcation was signiﬁcantly associated with active and collaborative teaching use. The
direction of the slope for the variable indicates that as classiﬁcation goes from
Baccalaureate through Comprehensive and Doctoral to Research, use of active and
collaborative methods goes down.

Based on this result, I tested a set of dummy variables for Baccalaureate,
Comprehensive, Doctoral, and Research universities to explore whether there is
systematic signiﬁcant difference in inﬂuence among all institutional types. When each

dummy variable was modeled alone with the outcome, all were signiﬁcant at p<.000.

82

Tables 17, 18, and 19 contain the results of model-testing using sets of dummy variables
of separate institutional types. The analyses partially supported a systematic difference in
the association of institutional type with active and collaborative teaching. Although
research universities were signiﬁcantly different from comprehensives and
baccalaureates, they were not statistically different from doctoral institutions. Likewise,
baccalaureate institutions did not differ signiﬁcantly from comprehensives.

Table 17

Institutional Inﬂuence on Active and Collaborative Teaching, Dummy Set I

 

 

 

 

 

Fixed Effect Coefﬁcient se t-ratio df p value
Average use of Active and Collaborative . 1.138926 0.02023 56.294 11 1 0.000
Teaching, 7000
Research Universities, 700, -0.088489 0.0317] -2.790 1 1 1 0.006
Doctoral Universities, 7002 -0.088480 0.04109 -2.152 1 1 1 0.031
Comprehensive Universities, 7003 -0.006280 0.02692 0233 1 11 0.816
Random Effect Variance df X2 p value

Component
Individual Faculty, egg 0.28333
Department, r011. 0.06056 2010 4264.17 0.000
Institution, 009; 0.00716 1 11 245.07 0.000
Table 18

Institutional Inﬂuence on Active and Collaborative Teaching, Dummy Set 11

 

 

 

 

Fixed Effect Coefﬁcient se t-ratio df J value
Average use of Active and Collaborative 1.050437 0.02442 43.014 111 0.000
Teaching, 7000
Doctoral Universities, 700. 0.000009 0.04333 0.000 1 1 1 1.000
Comprehensive Universities, Yooz 0.082209 0.03019 2.723 1 1 1 0.007
Baccalaureate Institutions, 7003 0.088489 0.03171 2.790 1 1 1 0.006
Random Effect Variance df X2 p value

Component
Individual Faculty, eijk 0.28333
Department, rojk 0.06056 2010 4264.17 0.000
Institution, nook: 0.00716 11] 245.07 0.000

 

83

Table 19

Institutional Inﬂuences on Active and Collaborative Teaching, Dummy Set 111

 

 

 

 

Fixed Effect Coefﬁcient se t-ratio df p value
Average use of Active and Collaborative 1.050446 0.02954 35.558 111 0.000
Teaching, 7000
Research Universities, 700. -0.000009 0.04206 -0.000 1 11 1.000
Comprehensive Universities, 1002 0.082200 0.03431 2.396 111 0.017
Baccalaureate Institutions, 7003 0.088480 0.03667 2.413 111 0.016
Random Effect Variance df X2 p value

Component
Individual Faculty, em, 0.28333
Department, r011, 0.06056 2010 4264.17 0.000
Institution, um 0.00716 1 I 1 245.07 0.000

In sum, faculty in research and doctoral institutions were not engaged in active and
collaborative teaching to the same extent as faculty in comprehensive and baccalaureate
institutions.

When I modeled Research and Baccalaureate dummies with the outcome, only the
Research dummy was a signiﬁcant predictor (p = .036). The Baccalaureate dummy was
insigniﬁcant (p=.296). I tested all Carnegie Classiﬁcation dummy variables in the ﬁnal
model with Level 1 and Level 2 predictors in the event that cross-level interactions

changed their behavior.

Final Model of Individual, Department, and Institution Inﬂuences on Active and
Collaborative Teaching

A three-level model incorporating the predictors from Levels 1 and 2 with Level 3
institutional-type variables was run as the best test of whether or not departmental climate
mediates the inﬂuence of institutional type on active and collaborative teaching. If this

were the case, the signiﬁcance of the Carnegie classiﬁcation variables would diminish or

84

shift when added to the model that contains departmental and individual predictors. I ran
models with combinations of institution-type dummy variables — only the ﬁnal model is
shown here. In testing this model, I also examined interactions between institutional
type, departmental climate variables, and individual variables, by adding Carnegie
classiﬁcation dummies to the slope models of departmental and individual variables at
Level 3. The results of the model testing are contained in Table 20.

When added to the third level of the prior departmental model of teaching climate,
the institution type dummies were signiﬁcant in different combinations than found
previously, and reversed effects. I ran each dummy as the only Level-3 predictor, as I had
done with the prior Level 3 models. None of the dummy variables run by themselves
were signiﬁcant predictors of active and collaborative teaching. When run in
combinations, Comprehensive institutions were not signiﬁcant in any model. When
modeled together, neither Research universities nor Baccalaureate colleges were
signiﬁcantly associated with active and collaborative teaching. These outcome indicate
that, when departmental and individual factors are accounted for, institutional types do
not behave in the same way that the prior Level-3 models illustrated. It also indicates
that interactions between institutional type and departmental factors might exist.

Interactions between Level 3 institutional variables and Level 2 predictors were
tested by adding institution variables to the slope models of Level 2 predictors. The main
effects of both Baccalaureate and Research institutions were grand-mean centered so that
the interaction terms could be uncentered. This process simpliﬁes the interpretation of

interactions between levels.

85

Table 20

Final Model of Institutional, Departmental, and Individual Effects

 

 

 

 

Fixed Effect Coefﬁcient se t-ratio df p
value
Average use of Active and Collaborative 1.1312714 0.09136 14.368 1 12 0.000
Teaching, 7000
Level 3 Predictors
Baccalaureate Colleges 0.436683 0.15431 2.830 1 12 0.005
Research Universities 0.462046 0.16287 2.837 112 0.005
Level 3/Leve12 Interaction
Baccalaureate "' Dept Collegiality -0.111045 0.03906 -2.843 2116 0.005
Research " Dept Collegiality -0.136491 0.04278 -3.190 2116 0.002
Level3/Leve11 Interaction
Baccalaureate " Gender 0.097128 0.03232 3.006 11781 0.003
Research " Gender 0.104107 0.02977 3.497 11781 0.001
Level 2 Predictors
Dept Collegiality -0.015481 0.01690 0916 21 16 0.360
Student Preparedness 0.033820 0.01672 2.023 21 16 0.043
Satisfaction with Teaching -0.029883 0.01505 -1.986 21 16 0.047
Load
Teaching Enhancement 0.352352 0.03520 10.011 2116 0.000
Remedial Education Courses -0.083427 0.09395 -2.118 2116 0.034
Low-use Disciplines -0.1 14791 0.02534 -4.530 2116 0.000
High-use Disciplines 0.146401 0.02568 5.700 1 14 0.000
High-use Disciplines " Dept. -0.077978 0.03803 -2.050 2116 0.040
Collegiality
LevelZ/Level 1 Interaction
Dept. Teaching Enhancement * -0.099828 0.05061 -1 .973 1 1781 0.048
Gender
Level 1 Predictors
Gender 0.041161 0.01325 3.107 11781 0.013
Rank -0.072771 0.00672 -10.830 1 1781 0.000
Total Courses 0.016725 0.00640 2.612 1 1781 0.009
General Education Courses -0.015832 0.00627 -2.525 11781 0.012
Student Preparedness 0.017593 0.00783 2.246 1 1781 0.025
Primary Interest 0.024371 0.01 167 2.088 1 1781 0.037
Rewards for Teaching 0.017043 0.00893 1.909 1 1781 0.056
Teaching Enhancement 0.182066 0.01402 12.985 1 1781 0.000
Random Eﬁ’ect Variance X2 df p value
Component
Individual Faculty, em, 0.27044
Department, rojk 0.03023 3205.99 1888 0.000
Institution, um, 0.00488 180.85 111 0.000
High Use Disciplines 0.00670 138.63 1 13 0.051

 

86

When added to the slope model of Departmental Collegiality, the Research and
Baccalaureate variables were signiﬁcant both as interaction variables, and as main
effects, reversing their prior non-signiﬁcant effects. The slopes for the main effects
Research and Baccalaureate institutions were both positive, reversing the direction of the
slope of Research institutions found in the Level 3 dummy models. The interaction
effects of institutional type and departmental collegiality were both negative. The
interactions between institutional types and departmental collegiality were graphed to get
a better sense of how all of the variables were behaving (Figure 4). The graph illustrates
an interesting and unexpected interaction between institutional type and departmental
collegiality. At both Baccalaureate colleges and Research universities, higher levels of

departmental collegiality translate to lower levels of active and collaborative teaching.

0.15

 

0.10 4

0.05 a

 

000 _. 8008 aumate

Research

 

 

 

 

4.05 i

collaborative methods

-0.10 ‘1

Expected effect of group collegiality
and institution type on use of

 

 

.0.15 I I j I
3.25 3.5 3.75 4 4.25

Group collegiality

 

Figure 4. Interactions Among Institutional Types and Departmental Collegiality

87

Research and Baccalaureate institutions also interacted with gender at Level 1. Their
interactions were nearly identical to and seemed to augment the main effects of gender.
That is, women in these institutions were more likely than men to engage in active and
collaborative teaching. No other interactions were found. The collective institutional
perception of student preparedness for college level work was not signiﬁcant.

The ﬁnal model of inﬂuence on active and collaborative teaching included main
effects at the individual and departmental levels, and moderating effects on individual
level variables from the departmental level. It also contained institution-level main and
moderating effects on departmental and individual level variables, and effects at the
departmental level that mediate the inﬂuence of institution-level variables on the
outcome. In addition, the variable hi gh-use disciplines varied randomly at the institution
level, indicating that this predictor acts in unpredictable ways between institutions above
and beyond its systematic variance between departments within institutions. Attempts to
model systematic variance or interactions in high-use disciplines at the institutional level

yielded no useful results.

Variance Explained by the Final Model and Effect Sizes of Predictors

To better understand the practical signiﬁcance of the results of the ﬁnal model, I
calculated the unique variance explained by each predictor, as well as the amount of
variance in the outcome explained by the model at each level. The formula for assessing
unique variance is the difference in variance explained by the model with each predictor
absent versus present divided by the variance explained by a model containing no

predictors at that level (V ar(without)—(Var(With) / Var(Open). I also calculated effect

sizes of the predictors on the outcome of the ﬁnal model to determine the magnitude of

 

each predictor’s inﬂuence. That formula multiplies the standard deviation of the
predictor by its coefﬁcient in the ﬁnal model, and divides that product by the standard
deviation of the outcome at each level of the model (SDpredictor*Coefﬁent/SDoutcome).
Both sets of calculations measure the importance of predictors within the level of the
model at which they reside, maintaining the hierarchical nature of the ﬁnal model. Table
21 contains a breakdown of the calculations for unique variance explained by each level.

The ﬁnal model explains 43% of the variance in active and collaborative teaching
present at the departmental level. This substantial amount of variance explained by the
aggregated predictors further supports the hypotheses that departmental climate for
teaching inﬂuences individual practice. Of that variance, departmental engagement in
teaching enhancement alone commands the greatest proportion (11%), and in interaction
with gender accounts for another 3%. Low and High-use disciplines accounted for four
and six percent of the variance at the departmental level. Other signiﬁcant departmental
predictors each uniquely explained around 2% of variance.

The model explained 5% of the variance at the individual level. This small
amount of variance explained is to be expected since this study was not designed to
exhaust the possible variables at the individual level that may inﬂuence faculty teaching
practice. Of the signiﬁcant predictors, individual engagement in teaching enhancement
(2.6%) and rank (1.3%) explained the greatest amount of variance.

At the institutional level (which comprised 2% of the variance in the outcome),
Baccalaureate colleges explain approximately 6% of the institutional variance in active

and collaborative teaching practices. The unique variance explained by Research

89

institutions was much smaller. Overall, institution-type variables and their interactions

with lower level predictors explain 30% of the institution-level variance in the outcome.

Table 21

Unique Variance Explained by the Final Model

 

 

Predictor Variance Variance Variance Proportion
(With) (Without) (Open) Unique

Institution Level 0.00488 0.00697 0.2998
Baccalaureate 0.00469 0.005 13 0.00697 0.063 1
Research 0.00469 0.00475 0.00697 0.0086
Baccalaureate / Dept Collegiality 0.00473 0.00502 0.00469 0.0290
Research / Dept Collegiality 0.00473 0.00470 0.00469 -0.0373
Baccalaureate / Gender 0.00483 0.00481 0.00469 00148
Research / Gender 0.00483 0.00476 0.00469 -0.0254
Department Level 0.03076 0.05409 0.43 13
Dept Collegiality 0.03081 0.03196 0.05409 0.0213

Dept Student Preparedness 0.03081 0.03207 0.05409 0.0233

Dept Satisfaction with Teaching Load 0.03081 0.03202 0.05409 0.0224

Dept Remedial Ed Course Load 0.03081 0.03206 0.05409 0.0231

Dept Teaching Enhancement 0.03081 0.03697 0.05409 0.1 139
Low-Use Discipline 0.03081 0.03300 0.05409 0.0405
High-Use Discipline 0.03081 0.03406 0.05409 0.0601
High-Use Discipline*Collegiality 0.03081 0.03223 0.05409 0.0262

Dept Teaching Enhancement / Gender 0.03076 0.03081 0.03081 0.0016
Individual Level 0.27008 0.28331 0.0467
Gender 0.27008 0.27045 0.28831 0.0013

Student Preparedness 0.27008 0.27023 0.28831 0.0005

Primary Interest 0.27008 0.27016 0.28831 0.0003

Total Courses Taught 0.27008 0.27010 0.28831 0.0001

Rank 0.27008 0.27364 0.28831 0.0126

General Education 0.27008 0.27020 0.28831 0.0004
Rewards 0.27008 0.27017 0.28831 0.0003
Teaching Enhancement 0.27008 0.27748 0.28831 0.0261

 

Table 22 contains details of the effect sizes of each predictor. Effect size is the

increase in the outcome accounted for by an increase of one standard deviation in a

predictor. Generally, effect sizes in the social sciences range from .20 to .50. Below a

size of .10, they are not considered important.

90

Table 22

Eﬂect Sizes and Unique Variance Explained by Model Predictors

 

 

Predictor SD Predictor Coefﬁcient SD Outcome Effect Size
Institution Level
Baccalaureate 0.48 0.462046 0.08351 2.5 100
Research 0.32 0.436683 0.08351 1.7705
Baccalaureate / Dept Collegiality 0.48 -0.1 1 1045 0.06953 -0.7666
Research / Dept Collegiality 0.32 -0. 136491 0.06953 -0.6282
Baccalaureate / Gender 0.48 0.097128 0.06876 0.6780
Research / Gender 0.32 0. 104107 0.06876 0.4845
Department Level
Collegiality 0.43 -0.015481 0.23258 -0.0286
Dept Student Preparedness 0.60 0.033820 0.23258 0.0872
Dept Satisfaction with Teaching Load 0.52 -0.029883 0.23258 —0.0668
Dept Remedial Ed Course Load 0.15 -0.083427 0.23258 -0.0538
Dept Teaching Enhancement 0.26 0.352352 0.23258 0.3939
Low-Use Discipline 0.33 -0.1 14791 -0.23258 -0.I629
High-Use Discipline 0.49 0.146401 0.23258 0.3084
High-Use Discipline‘Collegiality 0.21 -0.077978 0.23258 -0.0704
Dept Teaching Enhancement / Gender 0.26 -0.099828 0.23258 0.1210
Individual Level
Gender 0.48 0.041 161 0.59 0.0335
Student Preparedness 0.87 0.017593 0.59 0.0259
Primary Interest 0.46 0.02437] 0.59 0.0190
Total Courses Taught 1.19 0.016725 0.59 0.0337
Rank 0.99 -0.072771 0.59 -0.1221
General Education 1 .05 -0.015832 0.59 -0.0282
Rewards 0.65 0.017043 0.59 0.0188
Teaching Enhancement 0.50 0.182066 0.59 0.1543

 

Although the effect sizes for the predictors in this model are generally small, a

few are important inﬂuences on active and collaborative teaching. Baccalaureate

colleges have an effect size of 2.5 and Research Universities an effect size of 1.77,

indicating that faculty at those institutions have average active and collaborative teaching

scores over a standard deviation above the mean scores of faculty at other institution

types. Their interactions with departmental collegiality and gender are also substantial.

High use disciplines have an effect size of .30, indicating that members of these

91

disciplines have average scores half a standard deviation above their colleagues in
medium or low use disciplines. Low-use disciplines have a negative effect size of .16,
half that of High-use disciplines, but still sizable.

Departmental engagement in teaching enhancement raises individual faculty
teaching scores by almost a half a standard deviation (.39), greater than and separate ﬁom
individual engagement in teaching enhancement, which has an effect size of .15.
Departmental teaching enhancement’s interaction with gender is also important. Its
effect size of .12 indicates that males in departments with high engagement have teaching

scores signiﬁcantly above males in other departments.

Discussion

The models tested in this study conﬁrm important inﬂuences on active and
collaborative teaching at individual, departmental, and institutional levels, which interact
in complex ways (as would be expected).

Individual effects supported prior research that asserts differences between
genders, ranks, and personal focus on teaching (Antony & Boatsman, 1994; Einarson,
2000). The results also indicate that faculty who teach more courses use more active and
collaborative approaches (Einarson, 2001; F airweather, 1997), and that those who teach
more general education courses than other colleagues within their departments may ﬁnd
it challenging to incorporate such approaches into their teaching practice (F airweather,
1997). As noted previously, these results may be indicative of disciplinary differences in
teaching loads and class size issues. Unlike other studies (Einarson, 2001; Fairweather,
1997), this analysis did not ﬁnd an association between the number of hours faculty spent

on teaching and their use of active and collaborative teaching. Faculty concerned enough

92

about their own teaching excellence to attend faculty development workshops recently
also incorporate such practices more than colleagues within their own departments who
have not engaged in teaching enhancement activities. Finally, faculty who perceive that
their efforts toward teaching excellence are rewarded by their institutions are more
frequent users of active and collaborative teaching (F airweather & Rhoads, 1995). The
non-signiﬁcance of race as a predictor of teaching approaches conﬁrms some prior
ﬁndings (Einarson, 2001; Fairweather, 1997) and contradicts others (Milem & Wakai,
1996 a, 1996b).

The individual level results were generally weak when effect sizes and unique
variances are considered. Only rank and individual engagement in faculty development
had effect sizes large enough to be considered important. They also explained the
greatest amount of variance at Level 1. The other individual level variables, while
signiﬁcant, all had small effect sizes and individually explained little of the variance

present at Level 1 of the model.

Departmental Effects

The departmental effects modeled explained a relatively large proportion (45%)
of the variance in the outcome attributable to Level 2. The importance of departmental
climate for teaching as an inﬂuence on individual teaching approaches is supported by
this analysis. Disciplinary effects were strong in departments, as was expected, but did
not comprise all effects on faculty members’ teaching practices. Departmental
engagement in teaching enhancement had the largest effect size and explained the largest
amount of the variance present at the departmental level. Faculty in departments with a

high proportion of members who attend faculty development workshops use active and

93

collaborative teaching in more courses than faculty in departments with low proportions.
This is especially true of male faculty, who overall report lower use of these approaches
than female faculty. In departments with high engagement in faculty development, male
faculty report using such approaches at a rate much closer to that of their female
colleagues.

Low and High use disciplines followed faculty development in magnitude of
effects and unique variance explained by their presence in the model. Although the other
departmental level variables fell below the threshold of practical importance, their
signiﬁcant presence in the model and the direction of some of their effects are of interest.
A department’s collective perception of the preparedness of students for college-level
work positively predicted use of active and collaborative teaching. As the collective
assessment of student preparation increased, individual faculty use of such practices
increased.

Faculty in departments that taught more remedial courses than other departments
used active and collaborative teaching in fewer courses. Taking the individual level
effects of general education into account with this departmental level effect suggests that
class type and size affect the use of active and collaborative teaching. Individual faculty
teaching general education courses and faculty in departments with remedial education
obligations are less likely than colleagues who teach upper-division major courses to
incorporate innovative instructional practices.

Collective departmental satisfaction with teaching loads was a negative predictor
of individual-level teaching practices. The average faculty member’s use of active and

collaborative teaching goes down as their department’s average satisfaction with teaching

94

load goes up. The effect size is not strong, but the direction of the effect is counter to the
direction I proposed. It is possible that this phenomenon is an indirect measure of climate
for teaching associated with discipline. Teaching loads are generally lowest in
departments and disciplines that engage heavily in research and are categorized as “low-
use” for active and collaborative teaching. Satisfaction with teaching load may be higher
in these departments because teaching loads are generally small. This is a phenomenon

on which the qualitative case analysis might shed light.

Institutional Eﬂects

When modeled in isolation, institution-level effects on active and collaborative
teaching took an expected direction. Research and doctoral institutions were negatively
associated with the outcome, and comprehensive and baccalaureate institutions were
positively associated with it. When modeled with department and individual level
predictors, however, the effects of institutional type were more complex. Institutional
types were only signiﬁcant as main effects when their interaction with departmental
collegiality was also modeled. Those main effects were different than the individual
models of institutional type inﬂuence. Baccalaureate colleges remained positively
associated with the outcome, but Research universities reversed from a negative to a
positive predictor. This indicates that much of the signiﬁcance seen in institutional types
modeled with no predictors at lower levels may be attributable to department level
variables in interaction with institutional types or other institutional variables not
modeled.

The interactions between departmental collegiality and high-use disciplines, as

well as that between departmental collegiality and different institutional types, were not

95

in the direction predicted by my model. I proposed that departmental climate dimensions
such as collegiality would predict active and collaborative teaching such that faculty in
departments with higher collegiality would have a greater use of such practices. The
main effects of this predictor were non-signiﬁcant aﬁer disciplinary variables were added
to the model, and the direction of both main and interaction effects was negative.
Combined with disciplines and institution types, higher departmental collegiality was
associated with lower active and collaborative teaching. It is possible that the measures
of collegiality I used (respect for colleagues, professional and social engagement) were
not measures that predict teaching behavior well. More speciﬁc measures of collegiality
focusing on interactions around teaching and learning may yield different results Massey,
Wilger, & Colbeck, 1994). It is also possible that the relationship of departmental
collegiality with the outcome, and in relation to disciplines and institutional types, might
be curvilinear in nature. Collegiality might enhance individuals’ teaching among all
departments to a point, and beyond that point may no longer be predictive of individual
level teaching approaches. I will explore the relationships among departmental
collegiality, discipline, and institutional type in the case analysis.

This hierarchical analysis yielded interesting and important inﬂuences on faculty
teaching practices, some of which were counter to my assumptions when proposing the
model of departmental climate for teaching. Faculty development clearly plays an
important positive role in faculty use of active and collaborative teaching. Departmental
collegiality plays a much more complex role, as do disciplines in interaction with it. The
inclusion of qualitative case analyses in the study was meant to explore such

complexities, as well as to offer a richer contextual portrait of how the inﬂuences found

96

in the hierarchical analysis were created and changed. I gave special attention in the case
analysis to factors in the model that were counterintuitive or complex, as well as factors
that could not be included in the hierarchical model, primarily leadership and resources at
the departmental and institutional level. The next two chapters address the case proﬁles
and cross-case analysis. The ﬁnal chapter discusses the ﬁndings of both quantitative and

qualitative analyses.

97

CHAPTER 5

CASE STUDY RESULTS

The qualitative analysis in this study explores how departmental climates
affecting faculty teaching practices come to be created and inﬂuenced by or mediate
factors from other organizational levels. Organizational climates are the collective
perceptions of organizational members, which can be inﬂuenced and changed by many
factors. The collective perceptions of departmental climate for teaching, the focus of this
study, in particular may be inﬂuenced by department-level factors, disciplinary ideas
about teaching and learning, institution-level policies and practices as well as missions
and history, or extra-institutional factors such as accrediting standards and priorities.

Multiple case studies (Merriam, 1998; Yin, 1994) of academic departments within
three different universities were created and compared for insight into these processes
(See Table 6 in Chapter 3 for an overview of the departments and institutions studied).
The research question driving the analysis was: How are departmental climates for
teaching created, and what actions, policies, or other factors — at the individual,
departmental, and institutional levels — might be taken to inﬂuence these climates?

This chapter sets the state and institutional contexts for the departmental case
studies, proﬁles the departmental climate for teaching within each case, and explores
inﬂuences on climates. Chapter 6 compares and contrasts departmental proﬁles for
themes and insights, discusses the major ﬁndings of the case analysis, and addresses each
element of the research question.

Each proﬁle contains information about departmental size (in terms of faculty and

students), programs offered, teaching loads, service teaching obligations, ﬁnancial health,

98

and predominant teaching approaches. Further, the proﬁles describe departmental
climate for teaching as well as inﬂuences from within the department, the institution, and
outside the institution. When direct quotes are used, the type of respondent (faculty,
administrator, student) is noted, but individual identifying codes and text block numbers
were eliminated to ease readability and protect respondent conﬁdentiality.

It is important to remember that the cases are time-speciﬁc; interviews were
conducted in 1997-1998. If we were to revisit the institutions and departments proﬁled
here, we would likely ﬁnd very different situations. Although institutions and
departments are named, the cases are meant to describe a phenomenon and process, not to

critique speciﬁc institutional circumstances.

State Context: Tennessee and Higher Education

Tennessee historically has invested modestly in higher education. The state
regularly ranks low among the states in the amount of support it provides public colleges
and universities (39th in per capita expenditures, 34th in per personal income
expenditures) (Center for the Study of Educational Policy, Illinois State University,
2000). State revenue is based on a sales tax; the state does not have an individual income
tax. Consequently, the relatively strong national economic climate during the time of our
site visits (1997-1998) was not reﬂected fully in state revenues. According to numerous
knowledgeable respondents, the two public universities in this study experienced
substantial declines in state funding during the years of this economic upturn.

In 1997-98, colleges and universities in Tennessee were funded primarily by an
enrollment formula. This formula differentiates undergraduate and graduate enrollments,

but does not differentiate by discipline. Nor does it include the full range of cost

99

elements, such as equipment, faculty development, student assistantships, and the like.
Performance Funding, purportedly an incremental funding formula for rewarding
teaching and learning and promoting accountability, accounts for a modest percentage of
total state funding for higher education — less than 6 percent. The state had not fully
funded its main formula in years. Central administrators of both the University of
Tennessee-Knoxville and Tennessee Technological University, therefore, considered the
Performance Funding money a means for addressing some of the budget shortfall (for a
fuller discussion of Performance Funding and its impact‘on the Tennessee institutions,
see Colbeck et al, 2001 and Fairweather & Beach, 2002).

The enrollment basis of the funding formula can have unintended consequences
for state public universities and colleges. The university leadership at the University of
Tennessee-Knoxville decided to limit enrollment to 25,000 to preserve student/faculty
ratios and to better ensure a quality education for its students. This decision, however,
resulted in a reduction in state funds to the institution.

The state climate for higher education was uniformly described in negative terms.
The general consensus of the faculty and administrators at institutions we visited was that
the state legislature was hostile to higher education. As evidence of this hostility, they
pointed to budget cuts, consistent under-funding of the funding formula for higher
education institutions, and comments made by the governor and legislators indicating that
they believe higher education institutions to be “fat” and faculty to be over-paid and

unproductive.

100

The University of Tennessee, Knoxville

The University of Tennessee at Knoxville (UTK) is the public land-grant
Research I university for the State of Tennessee. The university system includes
campuses at Martin (in 1927) and Chattanooga (1969), a medical campus (1897) in
Memphis, and a Space Institute in Tullahoma (established 1964). At the time of our site
visit, the main campus at Knoxville had 25,000 students, 19,000 of them undergraduates.
In—state tuition was $1,940 per academic year. The student body, half of which was
female, was predominantly Caucasian (89 percent), with about 5 percent African-
American students, approximately 2 percent Asians, and a small number of Hispanics and
Native Americans. The faculty of 1,304 was also only moderately diverse: primarily male
(76 percent) and Caucasian (91 percent).

During the 1970’s and 80’s, former University President Lamar Alexander greatly
inﬂuenced the mission and focus of UTK. He worked to transform the institution from
its then-regional university proﬁle to one of a nationally respected research university,
the equivalent of the University of North Carolina — Chapel Hill. He focused on
increasing the research productivity and visibility of the faculty. Research is now
increasingly emphasized, particularly among new hires. UTK’s mission, however,
remained committed to teaching and learning, especially in some departments.

The state funding formula was the base of institutional resources. The university
suffered through budget cuts over the previous decade, and its infrastructure at the time
of our visit was not as strong as comparable universities. Buildings and laboratory spaces
were in need of repair and up-dating. Until the university instituted a $100 per-student

' technology fee in 1996, there were no funds to upgrade the technology infrastructure of

101

the university (these are not part of the state’s appropriations). Many academic buildings
were not connected to the ethernet, and technology for teaching and research depended
heavily on the wealth and initiative of individual departments. Departments with large
external research contracts (primarin in the sciences and engineering) had more and
better computing capabilities than the humanities and business. The technology fee was

instituted to bring the entire campus up to a standard for computing and connectivity.

Department of Physics at UT K

The Department of Physics had 34 faculty, some with shared positions at
Oakridge National Laboratories, a national research facility nearby that houses the
research of many faculty. The proximity and lucrative nature of the lab allowed the
department to create a bifurcated faculty — the majority teach very little or exclusively at
the graduate level, and a minority teach a great deal (service and undergraduate courses)
and do not engage heavily in research. The chair asserted that the proximity of Oakridge
has been a key for attracting quality faculty in the hard sciences, and that without
Oakridge, UTK would be “a third ranked university in the sciences.”

Among the departments we studied at UTK, Physics and its faculty most
resembled that of the prototypical “research university.” They had more funded research
monies, lower teaching loads, and greater emphasis on graduate programs and faculty
scholarship than the other departments examined. Research was the primary focus of the
department. Teaching loads for the faculty (even those primarily teaching undergraduate
service courses) were very low by university standards (by which a full time teaching
load is 9 credits as semester). Most faculty teach one course (3 credits) a semester. The

teaching instructor taught two per semester (with a class size of around 200). Many

102

faculty were only hired for partial time at the university and spent the bulk of their time at
Oakridge.

The department provides service courses in physics, astronomy, and engineering
physics for the general university curriculum, but had only ten declared physics majors,
according to the chair of the department. The Director of Undergraduate Laboratories
surveyed the students and thought there were approximately 48 undergraduate majors,
many of whom had not declared themselves.

The faculty, chair, and students were almost unanimous that the physics major
prepares students to go on for graduate work. It was not an applied degree, and students
did not expect to get jobs with their bachelor’s degree. There was discussion in the
department about combining physics with other disciplines such as business or medicine
to create a more “salable” undergraduate degree. There was already an Engineering
Physics major that moved toward that ideal. Faculty indicated that there was
considerable departmental inertia against changing the focus of the major to be more

integrative and applied.

Predominant teaching and learning approaches

Teaching in the department consisted largely of lectures and homework problems.
Although faculty, administrators, and students talked at length about Physics being a
problem-solving area and degree, these problems were addressed primarily through
individually-oriented homework and testing. Little group work was designed or
assigned. Students were not involved in planning or negotiating their work, or in
evaluating each other’s work. Faculty kept students engaged in lectures by using

interactive question and answer, providing interesting analogies and explanations for

103

concepts, delineating the historical progression of concepts, and by relating the concepts
or topics to business or “real world” applications. They considered one-on-one
interaction between faculty and students the most effective learning approach. Students
go to faculty for help individually or in small groups when they are “stuck” on a problem.
Students we interviewed were also of the opinion that this was the way they best learned
physics - by working on problems and seeking help when they could go no further. They
added, however, that many students do not approach faculty outside class, and these
students do not do well in courses or over the course of the degree. Students were not
discouraged from working together. Nor did faculty seem to actively promote
collaboration among students in or outside the classroom.

Students appreciated classes that require group projects and project presentations
for their different learning outcomes, such as research methods, collaboration, and slide
creation. Students also believed that professors who verbally express how much they
dislike teaching undergraduates and how sub-standard they believe the students to be
should not be teaching. Instances were very few but their impact was great — students
dreaded these classes and wondered why the department allowed this kind of teacher to
continue.

Students stressed the importance of out-of-class experiences. In addition to
seeking faculty consultation on class work, they saw their summer research and outside
projects with faculty as a primary means of learning:

You need to be doing some kind of research. You learn so much, this research

project might look small and doesn’t cover much but then you ﬁnd out to do that

you need to learn more about other areas. You learn so much doing these little
research projects. 1 think any serious student really needs to do that.

104

Faculty also stressed out-of-classroom experiences to help students understand their
course content. The chair and lab director were increasing efforts to employ
undergraduates as lab assistants and research assistants. There is a feeling, however, that

only the best and most motivated students were sought out and included.

Departmental climate for teaching

Undergraduates had been what one faculty member termed the “stepchildren” of
the department for quite a long time. Faculty labs were not very accessible, being
primarily at Oakridge, and undergraduates did not have study space in the department.
The chair and lab director were working on ways to focus more on undergraduate majors
and include them in the department. Until they surveyed potential undergraduate majors,
the department did not know how many majors it had.

Since the teaching load in Physics was small — two courses an academic year on
average for those involved in research — faculty did not feel a conﬂict between their
teaching and research priorities. Many expressed satisfaction with their teaching loads.

The distance to the lab, and the hiring of faculty with research interests that took
them there, created a split climate in the department. Some faculty were around quite a
bit, while others spent the bulk of their time at Oakridge. One faculty member summed
the situation up: “Its a big enough department that there are some people who love to
teach and don’t do any research, and some who are almost the opposite, who teach as
little as they can.”

Evidence of rewards for teaching in the department were sparse - the most
recognized and rewarded activities were research and graduate-level teaching and

mentoring. One faculty member summed up the sentiments of all: “you can get

105

teach[ing] awards . . . but that doesn't get you much, very far. . . . that is just the reality of
it.”

Inﬂuences on departmental climate

The department chair was instrumental in beginning to shift the climate of
teaching in the department toward a more undergraduate student-centered focus. His
role was mentioned by faculty and students alike as a strong inﬂuence on what they saw
as a changing climate around undergraduate teaching. He was enthusiastic about the
potential directions in which the major could be taken to integrate it into other areas, and
the faculty were “behind him” in his role as chair.

Within the department, the inequality of salaries between newly hired faculty and
long-term faculty was mentioned as an inﬂuence on teaching and morale. Those who had
been on the faculty longest had relatively lower salary ranges than their colleagues hired
during the push for research and in the current competitive climate. The attitude
expressed was “Why bother trying?” when new faculty were hired in at close to what
long-term faculty were making.

Institutional resources and fee structures affected the climate for teaching. There
was a pervasive sense of not having enough resources to accomplish teaching the way it
could be done. The university’s policy of not charging lab fees had hindered the
department’s ability to maintain and replace lab equipment, and to implement new
experiments that require equipment not already on hand. Lack of a sabbatical leave
program (the state prohibited sabbatical leaves) hurt the department’s ability to help
teachers innovate by giving them scheduled time away to improve their skills. The

number of faculty within the department who would be interested in such an opportunity,

106

however, did not appear to be very great. The lack of computer and network resources
across campus was also noted as a hinderance to teaching and learning. Faculty trying to
adapt their classes to the web were concerned about limited student access to networked
computers across campus. The chair stated that the university did not have the leadership
until recently nor the resources to support faculty and department innovation. “So we
had nowhere to shoot from. Now with the technology fee there is the money. I think
probably the university has seen the light about technology.”

Faculty noted that state-level funding and budgets cuts resulted in larger classes,
fewer part-time faculty, and more teaching for faculty in the department. While the
department’s relationship with Oakridge National Laboratories helped buffer it
ﬁnancially from state funding cuts, some faculty expressed reservations about relying so
heavily on a resource that itself is susceptible to federal cuts. Many expressed the
opinion that the state legislature and the governor were not supportive of higher
education in general, and the university in particular.

Students were aware of this state climate for higher education. They mentioned
that they had seen many staff disappear in the last few years, and that retiring faculty
were not being replaced. Students saw an impact in the kind of courses offered. Elective
courses not part of the core curriculum were offered and then canceled or not offered at
all. “The ones that aren’t required classes, they will be in the catalog but they just won’t
be taught.” Students spoke at length about the courses in the catalog that they would
have liked but were never actually offered. They attributed this to lack of ﬁnances —

“there has been a Philosophy of Science course in the catalog for several years. Our

107

philosopher of science retired 10 years ago and they . . . won’t give the department
money to replace this person.”

The department’s relationship with Oakridge also had an inﬂuence on the climate
for teaching. Because that relationship supported and encouraged research and graduate
education, and so many faculty had primary appointments in these areas, it appeared
difficult for the department to foster collective attention to undergraduate teaching and

learning.

College of Business Administration at UT K

The College of Business Administration was nationally recognized and ranked,
and spent considerable effort in the past decade improving programs. It was divided into
six departments: Accounting, Economics, Finance, Management, Marketing and
Logistics, and Statistics. All departments contributed faculty and curricula to the MBA
program, which was the center of the college and its most lauded achievement. The
MBA program had an innovative, cohort-based block design in which students worked
collaboratively on large cases that encompassed numerous specialty areas.

The college had 105 tenure-line faculty, and several adjuncts. The dean
mentioned that there was a “trend recently to downsize our faculty in terms of the
permanent tenure track faculty and to increase the other people who teach on a pretty
regular basis but are . . . not tenured or they're not on a track to become tenured.” There
were approximately 650 undergraduate students in any semester who wanted to major in
business. Students were “progressed” through a core curriculum prior to formal
application to the college and speciﬁc programs. The college had an 85% admission rate

on formal applications to the school.

108

The undergraduate business degree was described as 60% liberal arts and 40%
business. Faculty and students expressed their belief that a broad-based education was
key to the success of business majors. Advising was required of faculty every term -
students saw their advisor to have courses approved. Faculty believed this policy gave
them an opportunity to engage in one-on-one interactions with students not possible in
the classroom. Faculty advisors did not engage in class choice level advising, but talked
to students about their career goals, internship ideas, interests, and future plans. The
advising center in the college managed course—by-course advising.

The degree was unifome described as applied. Students were expected to be
able to gain entry-level (or above) employment upon completing the degree. Much of the
curriculum was geared toward helping students gain the knowledge and skills necessary
to be attractive job candidates.

Many faculty members were involved almost exclusively in the MBA program.
So many, in fact, that no one department had enough faculty involved in undergraduate
teaching for us to interview the requisite nine. The average course load for faculty
members in the college who engaged in research was two per semester. Those not
engaged in research generally taught three courses per semester, and more often taught
courses with large numbers of students. Many faculty members involved with the
integrated MBA taught in blocks at certain times in a semester. The faculty was
somewhat bifurcated — one chair mentioned they like to make certain there are two or

three faculty in each department who teach exclusively at the undergraduate level.

109

Predominant teaching and learning approaches

Predominant classroom teaching methods used in undergraduate courses in the
college included lecture/discussion, and group projects and presentations. Most faculty
members included at least one major group project in each of their courses to build
communication and collaboration skills. An interesting unintended consequence of the
college faculty’s enthusiasm for team projects was what students and faculty described as
“group project overload.” Students voiced their frustration with spending what they
described as inordinate time and effort trying to coordinate multiple projects outside
class. One faculty member indicated that he and others were trying to bring the group
process into the classroom, making time for groups within class periods, and having
groups work on problems or projects that could be addressed in the course of a class
period.

Faculty and administrators acknowledged that the college and individual
departments did not do a good job of helping students integrate the various classes they
take into a holistic body of knowledge.

We confuse the hell out of students a lot. Because I think each professor has his

or her own three hour block class. Where they go in and teach, and do for the

most part a marvelous job, is teaching these content areas that they want to teach.

But then the student walks out of, you know somebody's marketing 430 class and

walks into my marketing 440 class and I may be using different terminology . . .

who knows what different types of things that we do. And we don't do a very
good job of coordinating that within our department.

Similar concern was voiced about college level collaboration. An administrator
acknowledged:

We do all our principles of marketing management ﬁnance, business law, we do
all that at the junior level, and they are not connected in any way. Those faculties
don’t really work that closely with each other in terms of saying this is our
business core and there is a reason for that . . .

110

The MBA program was built around semester-long cases that required teams of
students to integrate learning from a number of specialty areas. Faculty members from
all departments involved in the MBA coordinated their teaching to present a uniﬁed focus
to students. Many faculty and administrators indicated that they would like to take the
lessons learned in the MBA about integrated case-based learning and apply them to
undergraduate curricula and class work.

Some students mentioned that their internship or work experiences taught them
more than classes did. They gained valuable understanding of class material through their
jobs, however, and were able to use their work as a laboratory for applying principles and
techniques they learned in class. One administrator of the college did not believe that the

college provided adequate internship opportunities to students.

College climate for teaching

Because we interviewed faculty from different departments in the college, the
picture of one department’s climate for teaching was difﬁcult to construct. What was
clearer from this case was the ways that college level climate and policies may inﬂuence
departments and individual faculty.

The loss of full-time faculty over time, increase in part-time and non-tenured
positions, reliance on part-time faculty and graduate students for teaching the business
core, and focus on the MBA program appear to create a relatively weak climate for
undergraduate teaching within the college. Most departmental climates for teaching did
not seem to counter this college level climate — no faculty or administrators we spoke
with indicated that their department differed from others in the college in their focus on,

engagement in, or attention to teaching undergraduates. Faculty in Accounting, however,

lll

spoke more about discussing courses with colleagues and of feeling that their department
takes care of them and values their teaching. The dean of the college indicated that
departments had their own priorities, specializations, even endowments, which inﬂuenced
faculty more than did the college-level initiatives. “And so, I think you inﬂuence faculty
more indirectly through department heads and more by, oh, I don't know what to call it,
persuasion, maybe, than by power.”

For the most part, lecturers, instructors, and graduate students taught the “business
core” — the large, lecture-based courses in the ﬁrst two years of the degree that students
must pass in order to be accepted into the major. Even higher-level business courses
were larger than they had been in the past, and faculty struggled to address diverse
student learning needs within those constraints. The dean of the college acknowledged
that dynamic:

To some extent . . .you still have faculty . . . who are teaching some pretty big

classes so that's a workload issue, I think and it really makes it difﬁcult for those

faculty, in particular, to do some of the things that they might like to do with
undergraduate students but they're almost precluded from doing because of class
size, you know, you call it teaching loads but with us it's more driven by the

numbers of students they might have than it is the number of courses they might
teach.

Faculty saw their departments as open to teaching, allowing faculty to teach in the
manner they desired. The predominant answer to questions of departmental inﬂuence on
their teaching was that faculty had freedom to teach as they chose.

[W]e get together and maybe we we're all doing a similar project and that kind of
thing , but other than that you know it's each to his own in the classroom and no
one tells me I have to do group work. I do some group things in class that some
of the other teachers are not comfortable with at all and don’t do. So I'd say the
department is very open to creativity. [If I] want to try something different they
support it, if I needed something and it didn't cost a whole of money, they'd pay
for it . . .

112

Faculty were concerned about confusing students with different terminology and not
integrating courses. They indicated that a greater degree of collaboration among faculty
could improve student learning. The clean of the college conﬁrmed that informal
engagement among faculty in sharing ideas about teaching varied among departments.

Faculty were generally satisﬁed with their teaching loads — the few that had
concerns about balancing their teaching with other responsibilities were assistant
professors concerned about tenure and promotion expectations for research. When asked
about the importance of and rewards for undergraduate teaching, faculty and
administrators had conﬂicting perceptions. On the one hand, most said that teaching is
important and valued. On the other hand, all said that research and teaching at the MBA
level and above were rewarded most in the college. Administrators and faculty indicated
that the college’s focus was consciously on promoting the MBA program since national
rankings come from quality and recognition at the MBA level. “In the college we make
some choices that our number one priority in resource users should be in the graduate
program.”

Faculty members recognized the rewards associated with teaching in the MBA
program, not least of which was the block time instructional load that left more time free
for research. Faculty respondents also noted that even an excellent teacher would not be
promoted or tenured without having a research record.

The dean felt that, though tenure and reward systems were built largely around
research, the expectations for faculty were more balanced than they had been in the past.

I don't know that there's any of a lesser expectation on research than there ever

was, in fact I think there's not a lesser expectation, but I do think that there [is]

more balanced expectations and I think there were times at this school when an
individual who really was pretty weak on the teaching side could be promoted . . .

113

and I don't think that's true anymore. But, I think the teaching expectations are
higher.

Young faculty in the college expressed their sense that their research competed with their
teaching and that their tenure depended on research, even if they care deeply about
teaching. One thought the loss of full-time faculty increased the service and advising
load (as well as numbers of students in classes), making the departmental expectations for
the amount of research young faculty could or should accomplish unreasonable. Another
in a different department had a more positive view of the process:
As far as promotion to tenure goes, I like to believe that this department and this
college does in fact reward excellence in teaching. Not above all else, but I think
it is taken into account when promotion and tenure decisions are made. I think it
is a compensatory....it is to some degree a compensatory model here. . . . for

someone who is a leader in the teaching side of things I think that the decider may
not be quite as high as it would be for someone who has not been.

College inﬂuences on teaching climate

The college, and each department, had its own endowment, largely funded
through alumni giving, which supported travel, computers for faculty, some faculty
development activities, and some college level teaching and research awards. The dean
noted that formal teaching engagement and enhancement systems at the university level
had been dismantled because of budget cuts. Faculty and administrators believed that
this endowment was crucial to faculty performance.

All respondents agreed that the physical plant of the college was a constraint on
their teaching. The building in which faculty taught was unifonnly despised as outdated
and under-equipped. Numerous faculty indicated that they would engage in more active
and collaborative teaching and teaching with technology if they had teaching space that

Supported rather than hindered those endeavors.

114

Salary inequities were of concern in the college, as they were in the Department
of Physics. Faculty in Business Administration hired more recently were offered
nationally competitive salaries. Senior faculty salaries had compressed due to state
policies restricting merit increases and limiting cost-of-living raises. Those with
compressed salaries looked for other compensation, resulting in less emphasis on
teaching. A recently hired faculty member commented:

There's a real salary inversion process. I'm pretty sure that my salary is higher

than most of my senior colleagues. And so what do they do? They spend their

time in activities that will supplement their income. And undergraduate education
wouldn't do that.

The future directions of the college will be inﬂuenced by the advice of its
foundation. The foundation provided the college with a grant to review and revise its
undergraduate programs. The Dean was instrumental in fashioning the grant to focus on
undergraduate programs, and described the work of the task force it funded. “[T]hat . . .
has been in business for about a year and I think they are going to come out. . . certainly
with some scenarios that is to see if we can ﬁgure out a way to take what we have learned
about integrated learning in the ﬁrst year of the MBA.”

The dean of the college was noted by his administrative colleagues as a leader of
change and vision, one who kept a focus on undergraduate teaching and learning.
However, several of his initiatives, including the task force examining undergraduate
programs, seemed to operate outside of the sphere of faculty. No faculty respondents
mentioned such initiatives or the leadership of the college in discussing their teaching or
their departments.

The college also monitored teaching and workloads of faculty, class sizes, and

majors. “We're looking at the majors we offer and whether it's efﬁcient to offer as many

115

different majors as we do or whether consolidation of some of those majors might make
sense. Now, that's not all driven by state budget but it's certainly part of it, you know.”
The Accounting Department restructured its program in response to a state
legislative move to increase the number of years of education required to take the CPA
exam. The department had to downsize to accommodate the extra year of education

without adding more faculty or increasing class sizes.

Department of Civil Engineering at UT K

The Department of Civil Engineering was among the oldest in the university —
civil engineering has been taught since the mid-1800’s. The department offered
undergraduate emphasis areas in Construction Engineering, Environmental Engineering,
Geotechnical and Materials Engineering, Structural Engineering, Transportation
Engineering, and Water Resources Engineering. There were 29 faculty in the department
and about 330 undergraduate students, 120 masters and 20-25 doctoral students. The
department had little in the way of service teaching, and did not have to cover large
introductory classes with its faculty or graduate students.

The department had more resources than most departments outside the sciences
because of substantial research funds generated by its faculty. This situation of recovery
was unique to the College of Engineering. Most departments on campus did not operate
on recovered monies.

Nine hours a semester was considered a full teaching load by the College of
Engineering, but because faculty were expected to recover salaries through funded
research many faculty “bought out” of teaching. That is, they used the money for salaries

provided by their grants to pay other faculty to teach one or more of their courses, leaving

116

them more time to work on the granted projects. The faculty we spoke with generally
taught three courses a year — a mix of undergraduate and graduate. Some taught two
courses a semester. None that we interviewed actually taught the 6 courses constituting a

full annual load.

Predominant teaching approaches

For the delivery of what faculty saw as “content” — theories and fundamental
principles - lectures and interactive lectures were often used and considered the most
effective and efficient approaches. Laboratory experiences, small classes, and group
projects were named as common and essential approaches to helping students go beyond
the information found in their books or presented in lectures.

A department administrator estimated that approximately 40% of the Civil
Engineering students were involved in a formal co-operative learning and working
arrangement. Other students arranged internships through Career Services or their own
contacts. Respondents saw the senior capstone design course as a means for students to
integrate the content and skills from their other courses. Many projects for that course
were commissioned by local industries and required students to work with students in
other engineering sub-specialties to complete the project. An administrator explained the
capstone course concept:

An industry or a faculty member working with an industry group will identify a

real world problem and then there will be a team of engineers put together student

engineers and go work on that stuff and so that becomes a senior class, a design
problem, so the whole class will be putting in whatever time it is working on that
particular problem posing a real solution, crafting an appropriate report, taking

that report to the site and making an argument in that here is what your problem
really is and here is how we go about solving that.

117

The department was also in the process of instituting a “freshman experience” intended to
prepare students to work in an integrated fashion throughout their undergraduate years by
combining basic engineering subjects with chemistry, math, computers, and skills such as
collaboration, communication, and team-building.

A few faculty respondents expressed concern about potential loss of technical
content if group projects, team work, and interactive approaches were made a priority:
“something would have to give.” They saw internships and Co-op experiences as the
best way to address the need for students to be able to apply their class learning.

There are still some who are opposed to the fact that you know the way they have

been doing this and various faculty are going to do it that way. And in some cases

it is a hard argument because there is evidence that a high degree of learning does

occur in their classes. They are using a mode they are comfortable with and for
them that is a long time.

A few faculty discussed having experimented with collaborative learning
techniques and ﬁnding that they had more disadvantages than advantages. This attitude
may be connected to the dean’s observation that many faculty believed that integrating

collaboration and other skills into classes meant that technical content would be cut.

Perceptions of student preparedness

The chair and a senior faculty member noted that students were working at jobs
outside of their educational commitments while simultaneously taking courses more than
they had in the past. They felt these demands on student time and attention hindered
learning. Students were not available to form continuous cohorts over semesters or
participate in group projects, while working part- or full-time. Many students echoed this
sentiment. They further mentioned they did not choose the formal co-op because of its

schedule: one semester in school, one semester at work. Students preferred to spend an

118

entire academic year in school and then another working, or working at a co-op job while

also being enrolled.

Departmental climate for teaching

The department fostered a strong climate for undergraduate teaching, going
beyond the generally strong college climate for teaching. The faculty uniformly
expressed the belief that teaching was a primary activity in the department.

We are not letting teaching taking second ﬁddle to anything. And there are

departments where I don't believe that's true. That there are faculty members that

are a little jaded, and they don't see or care that much about their students. Civil

engineering here is not like that. Civil engineering here does in fact place a high
priority on the students.

Faculty all related that undergraduate teaching and learning were discussed constantly at
departmental meetings. Faculty and administrators mentioned the departmental
atmosphere of open conversation about teaching and commitment to student learning.
Faculty also took notice of their colleagues’ teaching, and shared ideas with each other.
When you ﬁnd that particular faculty member is doing something that seems to be
integrative, effective... [we] compliment them. . .maybe you ask them, do you

mind if I ﬁnd out a little more detail? I'd like to do that myself. That kind of
intra-college conversation about teaching, can be very supportive.

Comments made by faculty and administrators suggested that this was not the situation in
other departments in the college, some of which were experiencing resistance to the
collaborative and change-oriented climate the college was trying to foster.

The chair of the department was highly regarded by the faculty as fostering and
promoting teaching and learning.

We've been very fortunate here, I think, in the kind of leadership we've had . . . I

think he probably is the ideal of what a department head should be like. He

doesn't minimize the need to do research. But he is very conscious of what is
going on in the classroom. He looks at the student reviews of everybody's

119

courses, each term, and makes comments to us about what he sees. So there's
always in front of us the teaching aspect of what we are doing.

The chair designated a senior faculty member no longer actively engaged in research to
serve as principal undergraduate adviser. The chair made this move because of the
faculty member’s interest and because he could free time for research for other faculty
members. The appointed undergraduate adviser said:

It's tough [balancing teaching and research]. And something suffers usually I

think. One of the things that suffers in the process I think is what you might

generally would call advising a student. The kind of student time that takes place
outside of the classroom. I think that that is one of ﬁrst things to go because if
you're pressed for time you are just not going to make yourself that available to
students to just drop in and talk about what's on their minds. That's one of the
roles I'm trying to play since- I'm not getting into research, I can afford to do this,
and I feel like somebody needs to do it.

The chair put mechanisms in place to recognize good teachers. A departmental
teaching award was given to any faculty member who averaged a four or higher on the
ﬁve-point rating scale used in teaching evaluations for courses. The chair explained the
rationale for the award:

. . . rather than just saying “the top teacher will get a reward this year” it struck

me that we had several very ﬁne instructors who therefore would not get

recognized but once every so many years because of that. So while we still have
an outstanding teacher award that is selected based on student input, I thought it
would also be good for faculty and the students to see that there are several people
who are in a very high category.

Although quality teaching was expected and valued, research was still perceived
as the most important element of a tenure and promotion portfolio. Faculty and
administrators were pragmatic about those priorities. “The last thing I’m going to really
slack off on is my research, because — and this is a typical faculty perception at most

schools — this is the thing that’s going to have the most to do with my advancement.”

Despite the commitment on the part of the department to undergraduate teaching and

120

learning, which was seen as their “bread and butter,” the realities of their ﬁnancial
situation, disciplinary expectations, and positioning in a research university necessitated

that research play a primary part in tenure and promotion.

Inﬂuences on departmental climate for teaching

Administrators and faculty talked at length about the funding of the department
and the college, and the demands it placed on faculty. Undergraduate education was
funded by state dollars, which were not sufﬁcient to run the undergraduate programs at a
quality level the department and college considered necessary. The college and its
departments, therefore, operated in a “soft money” situation that other colleges and
departments in the university did not.

Our college when we get our allocation of state funds, . . . the money that comes
over to our college will not quite cover salaries. . . . State money, will not quite
cover the salaries. Now we haven't talked about paying the phone bill and the
Xerox paper or anything. Will not quite cover salaries. So we are in a situation
where we must have recoveries. That is not a well-understood concept through
most of the University. We are in a situation where we simply must have faculty
recovering a portion of their salary from research contracts. Then we turn around
and take that salary portion and put it back in the operating budget and then we
get to the end of the year, whewl, we have paid the bills. Now, those are
constraints because we have those commitments, we have to pay attention to
those. So I am going to say to you that undergraduate instruction is our bread and
butter but I am also telling you and that is where we put our state money, we
basically say to our faculty that graduate education and research is your
responsibility to pay for that.

The faculty felt the effects of this necessity to recover salaries in their attention to
teaching and in the kinds of research they pursued.

There are substantial demands for us to recover our academic year salary. I'm
sure other people have mentioned that. That means that there are things that you
do that perhaps, you wouldn't take on otherwise that if you weren't concerned
about that issue only you have the support of a graduate student, perhaps you
would let certain things go. That affects teaching. Whenever there's a demand
for ﬁfteen percent of your time it's going to affect other things.

121

The College of Engineering tried to serve as a collaborative anchor for
departments in the areas of curriculum, pedagogy, and resources. The college, through
the technology fee instituted by the university, received a million dollars to upgrade its
undergraduate teaching laboratories in 1997-98. According to one of the deans,

Rather than break up the funds into chunks too small to beneﬁt each department

separately, they went together to design a space that would beneﬁt all and move

forward the college’s integrating goals . . . That money is ear-marked for a

substantial inter-disciplinary industrial laboratory designed by three different
departments in the college.

An industry advisory board inﬂuenced the larger changes in curriculum objectives
and pedagogical approaches by the department and college. Advisory board members
indicated the skills and areas of study they felt students lacked.

That Board of Advisors is predominately industrial people, corporate vice-

presidents and so on and so forth . . . . these people are not at all hesitant to share

with us. We ask them, given the fast paced change in American industry and the

practice of engineering, . . .how ought an engineer be prepared to come to the
work place, to enter the work place of a BS graduate these days.

Further, the college studied the high attrition rate of students within the ﬁrst two years of
the engineering program (up to 45%) and found that its curricular focus on fundamental
concepts and prerequisites precluded students from becoming familiar with what
engineers actually do until well into their second or third years. The attrition rate was
interpreted as a reﬂection of student frustration. A committee consisting of college
faculty, industry representatives, and educational specialists was asked to work on
curricular changes that would engage students in engineering problems and practices
early in their programs. The result was the freshman experience being piloted at the time
of our visit.

The Civil Engineering program is accredited by the Accrediting Board for

Engineering and Technology (ABET). Many of the initiatives to improve collaborative

122

learning in the department were undertaken as a result of ABET’s recommendations and
requirements. The department used the “ABET 2000” deadline for new standards for
undergraduate engineering education as a reason to start re-evaluating and revising their
curriculum.

1 [the chair] decided that we didn't want to wait until the last minute so I got the

process started about two years ago (in 1995) before many people in this college
were even saying much about ABET 2000.

The College set the stage for strong departmental climates, and sought to inﬂuence them.
College leaders did not see equal commitment on the part of all departments to attend to
undergraduate teaching and learning issues. The Department of Civil Engineering was

seen as exemplary in this respect.

Department of Romance Languages at UT K

The department of Romance Languages consisted of 4 programs: French,
Spanish, Portuguese, and Italian. Twenty-ﬁve tenure-track faculty were assisted by
approximately 35 teaching assistants/instructors, who taught the ﬁrst and second year
students.

UTK required all students to either take two years of a foreign language or pass a
test demonstrating that level of competence. As a consequence, the department had a
major service role in the College of Arts and Sciences, which provided 95% of the
general education courses in the university. This service role dominated the department’s
total enrollments. It was also at odds with the preferences of many faculty, who would

rather teach literature courses to advanced undergraduates and graduate students.

123

Approximately 1800 students were enrolled in the ﬁrst and second year programs
as part of their general education requirement. In contrast, the French program had about
25 majors and 25-40 undergraduate minors or concentrations.

The Department of Romance Languages fared worst of all of the departments we
visited at UTK as a result of state and institutional budget cuts. Several faculty positions
had not been reﬁlled as people left or retired, and workloads had increased as a result.
Courses had been cut, and departmental course offerings scaled back. With few
opportunities for large external grants and no alumni foundation, the department could
not supplement its funding from the state the way that the other three departments did. It
operated strictly on student-number generated funds. The lower-division service
language courses required of all students were the mainstay of the department. Little
money existed for travel or professional development. The department was close to crisis
due to the loss of tenure-line positions.

The department faculty were split in their perceptions of the purpose of an
undergraduate language degree. Many saw it as preparation for graduate school. Some
expressed concern over the ethics of encouraging students to go to graduate school in a
depressed academic job market. Others saw the degree as part of a liberal education that
qualiﬁed students to engage in a variety of careers that required a broad-based education
and language skills. The department also had a joint language and business program
(World Business), which was practically oriented. It was meant to help students use a
foreign language as a business tool or skill, and was seen as a degree that could be used
immediately upon graduation. The majority of language majors did not go on to graduate

school, instead taking jobs in business, government or secondary teaching. For majors in

124

the \Vc

than th

imerac
gl'OUp .
VOCabL
IOUma?
COHVer
laﬁgua
lesson:
in ”161:
These

SlUden

integre
Ih€lr C

40% O

Of‘Clas
memlc

and“

the World Business program, language preparation was considered a basic skill rather

than the focus of their degree.

Predominant teaching approaches

Faculty in the department used a wide variety of teaching approaches - e. g.,
interactive and immersion techniques for language acquisition, discussion and small
group work for literature-based courses, and computer-assisted drills for grammar,
vocabulary, and composition. Video and audio material were heavily used, as was
journal writing in target languages. Students were asked to work with each other in
conversation and presentations. Some courses (especially conversation and business
language courses) were applied in nature, and incorporated real life situations into
lessons. Faculty also had students work on intemet research or the creation of web-sites
in their languages. Class sizes at the upper levels were small, averaging 12 students.
These class sizes were considered crucial in supporting the interaction of faculty and
students.

Study abroad was mentioned often as the most effective way to teach students to
integrate their language and cultural knowledge, and to learn how to apply language in
their careers and lives. World Business majors were required to take an internship, either
abroad or in the US, which involved the use of their language. The faculty estimated that
40% of students in other majors had experiences abroad. There were also several of out-
of-class offerings through which faculty tried to help students apply their learning. They
mentioned poetry readings, language tables in the cafeteria and at local restaurants, plays,

and a failed attempt at creating language-oriented dormitories.

125

facul‘
comp
intera
target
in the
towar

other

the m:
Unpre;
Penna
Ofﬁce
SUPPOI
ethem,

hampe

gTEaIS

 

 

When asked how they had changed their teaching in the last ﬁve years and why,
faculty stressed the increased use of technology. Video, CD-ROM, and interactive
computer modules were all being used to help students learn. Many more faculty were
interacting with students by e-mail, and having students e-mail each other letters in their
target languages as practice. Faculty also mentioned using more interactive pedagogies
in the classroom; moving away from language “drills” and student-to-teacher interactions
toward student group interactions. Reasons cited for changes included the inﬂuence of
other faculty, workshops on innovative techniques, student needs, and experience.

Faculty identiﬁed external obstacles to teaching the way they wanted. Some felt
the make-up of the courses and demands for large classes at the lower levels leﬁ students
unprepared for higher-level work in literature and conversation. Classrooms lacked
permanent audio-visual equipment — faculty had to check it out for use from a central
ofﬁce and wrestle it up stairs. The department lacked the technological infrastructure to
support computer-based or intemet-based teaching and learning. Faculty did not have
ethernet connections in their ofﬁces. Those interested in using technology were

hampered by their inability to access university servers and the computer lab.

Departmental climate for teaching

The prevailing attitude of faculty and the chair was one of perseverance under
great strain. In relating the number of faculty in the department, the chair quipped, “Let's
see, let's see we used to have a space problem with ofﬁces here (laughing), we don't have
that problem anymore. It is scary, it really is.” Staff losses and budget concerns affected
the climate of the department, giving it a siege mentality. One faculty member’s

statement sums up the climate for teaching in the department:

126

1
l
1
1

Despite

teachin

deparm

The C

COIIEE

 

I would just like to say that I feel . . . we do a really good job given all of our
shortages and limitations and I honestly don't know how we do it. I don't even
know how we staff our classes because we are so short. I guess other people have
told you that we lost all these positions. . . . and it creates, I think, a real
pessimism at times because we have a lot of good ideas and a lot of people who
are creative and could be doing so many interesting things and we're just
constantly trying to plug all the little holes.

Despite this ﬁscal environment, the faculty all agreed that the department supported
teaching, that they had complete control over how they taught, and that the priority in the
department was undergraduate education.

The primary reason we are here, and the reason we are getting our paychecks is

not because they have a book to write on the university press or whatever. And

that is a nice thing they get to do on the side, but students come ﬁrst. And we talk
about that in department meetings.

The chair and faculty felt that the message about the importance of teaching was
quite clear. Some faculty respondents felt that the department’s and college’s
expectations about research were not as clear. Some felt that publishing was more
important than teaching, while others felt that they were not getting direction about how
much and what kind of research they should carry out.

The department is supportive of good teaching, like they do value good teaching,

however, they make it real clear that teaching should not take the place of

research and they're unclear about how you're supposed to balance that. There's

no real guidelines for what you're supposed to do.

The chair also believed that the higher teaching load for faculty should be offset by
different college expectations for faculty productivity. He acknowledged that the
college’s tenure and reward system was geared toward scholarship rather than teaching.

No one here objects to teaching at all, but I think that we. . . want to know what it
is that we need to do and how we are going to evaluate it. And we know in the
end that the promotions, the pay increases, and all of that are going to be based on
what is on your CV. Not how many students you have advised, not how many
classes you have taught and all that other stuff. And we will continue to be like
that, because it is more quantiﬁable.

127

The ore
teaching
could 11C

Working

institute
01‘ seme
had }’81
UP their
being 56

Scholars

The overwhelming consensus among faculty and administrators was that balancing
teaching and research demands was extremely difﬁcult. Many indicated that they simply
could not do it all well, and had to choose where to put their effort, or be resigned to not

Working to their highest potential.

The department had various low or no-cost approaches to supporting faculty. It
instituted a course “banking” system by which faculty taught a third course in a number
of semesters, and then were given a semester completely off from teaching. Faculty who
had yet to achieve tenure were protected somewhat from undue committee work to free
11p their time away from teaching for research. The chair of the department was noted as

being sensitive and responsive to the need for faculty to protect some of their time for

scholarship, and to recharge.

Well, I think the departmental administration is particularly conscious of the need
for the non-tenured faculty to not get overwhelmed with, particularly with service
activities which, often times, are the kinds of things that are assigned to younger
faculty so number one, they do, they are, you might say, taken care of in terms of
getting them an occasional semester of time off for doing their research so that
they can meet the university expectation for that.

When hiring faculty, the department required both the traditional “job talk” about
a candidate’s research and a demonstration of teaching, usually in a mid-level course.
This approach gave the hiring committee a chance to evaluate a candidate’s teaching
skills and sent a “very clear signal from the beginning that we value teaching as much as
we do research.” The chair’s impression was that this practice was not common among
other departments in the college. The chair of the department encouraged faculty to
attend workshops on teaching techniques and strategies both within and outside the

department. Many faculty respondents mentioned gaining ideas for their teaching from

128

such ex

diﬁicul‘

WElsa:

depart:

C011<
aCQrc
grad:

A11h.

such experiences. Some mentioned, however, that implementing those ideas was
difﬁcult. The image of “plugging holes” came up again.

I think we could do a better job in teaching if we could improve certain things

right now that we can't improve and a lot of that is related to money but some of it

too is probably related just to having a little bit of time, I think, to brainstorm and
come up with better ideas. Right now most of us, I think, feel like we're just
trying to plug holes.

The department’s view of how the university perceived it was powerful. There
was a common perception that although things might be bad for the whole university, the
department was more overlooked than others.

I [do] think that there's a prejudice at the university that the humanities don't need

technology or we don't use it or something because I think that we'll probably be

the last building to get wired. . . . [O]ther colleges, other departments where
they're perceived as people plugged into technology, they get the stuff they need

and we're always regarded, I think, as part of like these mediaeval people who sit
around with quills and ink or something . . .

Overall, the department climate for teaching was focused and strong. Unlike the climate
for teaching in Civil Engineering, however, where the department was working within a
positive and proactive college climate for teaching, Romance Languages was “circling
the wagons” and “plugging holes.” In many other ways the department was attempting
to make the best of or counteract what it saw as unsupportive climates at the college and

institution level.

Inﬂuence on departmental climate

Most inﬂuences on the climate for teaching of the department came from the
College of Arts and Science or the institution level. The department did not have an
accrediting body or advisory board overseeing or advising it. National reputation for
graduate work was the strongest extra-institutional inﬂuence on the department.

Although faculty believed they graduated well-prepared doctoral students, the programs

129

\VCTE

depar

most

dechn
depar
Depar
and R
aHOca
thems
ﬁonil
lechnc
Thech
enr0111

depart
Clima]

Bod}

 

”VUOI
lthn

f30111

 

were not nationally ranked. Achieving national ranking was not a priority of the
department at the time of our visit.

Of all the departments we visited, the department of Romance Languages was
most dependent on the college in which it was situated, and on the institution’s central
decision-making process, for its survival. The College of Arts and Sciences housed 26
departments, 14 interdisciplinary programs, and around 15 centers and institutes.
Departments were as disparate as Computer Science, Physics, History, Religious Studies,
and Romance Languages. According to the Dean, the sustained reductions in state
allocations had cut into the university’s, and in turn, the college’s ability to sustain
themselves at the caliber of Research I institutions. All money for equipment coming
from the college to departments was removed in 1992, and until the new university-wide
technology fee was instituted departments had to budget for equipment on their own.

The dean indicated that the college had bumped up class sizes to deal with rising
enrollment pressures and the loss of faculty resulting from a university-wide hiring
freeze.

It was within this college and institutional context, with little to no buffer, that the
department of Romance Languages was situated. The contrast in the department’s
climate to that of the Physics department, which was also within the college, was stark.
Both Romance Languages and Physics had a heavy service course load and relatively few
majors compared to non-majors. Both identiﬁed a lack of university resources and
technology infrastructure as a hinderance to teaching. Romance Languages, without
lucrative research contracts, could not hire faculty and had to spread the work of lost

faculty over those remaining, had no funds for professional development, and had to

130

work arc
rewards
reductnn
provide:

needed.

either a

or CUllL

agig

work around the college and university systems to provide faculty any compensating
rewards: a semester off after teaching overload, no pressure to teach summer, and a
reduction in committee work. In contrast, the connections Physics had with Oakridge
provided the department with the ability to pursue its own agenda, hire the faculty it
needed, and operate somewhat at a distance from the college.

The Associate Dean of Arts and Sciences saw variation among departments as
either a natural outgrth of their different disciplines or as a function of their climates
or cultures.

We have recognized up here that that is appropriate and reward them I think

accordingly. You have other departments, so that those are the extremes, I guess,

when I mentioned Computer Sciences, Religious Studies and Classics. In
between you have the departments where the culture varies for less obvious

reasons. . . .So it varies a lot from department to department and a lot with as I say
the cultural of the department.

The Vice Chancellor of the university “came to the conclusion that I am too far away”
from teaching as it goes on in the classroom to inﬂuence and impact it the way he wanted
to upon taking the position.
It has to be the department head, because that is where the reward structure is.
Now, the upper administration has to take a lead and provide the impetus and

keep the pressure on. But if [departments] don’t bother to reward instruction, it
won’t get rewarded. It is the department.

Both college and university level administrators saw departments as having the greatest
inﬂuence on faculty teaching. The cases of Physics and Romance Languages support this

perspective.

Summary

Institutional mission — both historical and current — and institutional ﬁnances had

a signiﬁcant role in shaping the climates for teaching at college and departmental levels

131

mUTK
would i
did so.

somew
method
of actix
Slandpt

Within

 

Part3
Stud.

\

fll‘sr

 

sideC

at UTK. Departments also were heavily inﬂuenced by their disciplinary norms. Physics
would fall into a category of “low use of active and collaborative teaching” and plainly
did so. Romance languages was most interactive and collaborative. Business was
somewhat engaged in active and collaborative teaching, but employed a limited range of
methods. Civil Engineering as a department was more engaged and proactive in its use
of active and collaborative teaching than one would expect from a disciplinary
standpoint. All departmental climates were inﬂuenced by the institution and by factors

within their own departments and from outside the institution.

Tennessee Technological University

Tennessee Technological University (TTech) is the only technological university
in the state. It is located in Cookeville, 82 miles east of Nashville, 109 miles west of
Knoxville, and 96 miles north of Chattanooga. Cookeville has a population of 25,000
and is considered the center of the “Upper Cumberland” region of middle Tennessee. The
student body is around 8200; 7200 undergraduate and 1000 graduate. The university had
368 full time faculty at the time of our visit, and offered over 70 undergraduate degree
programs and 30 graduate programs. The university offered one Ph.D. degree — in
Engineering. Engineering specialties made up 25% of the majors in the university. In-
state tuition for 1996-97 (the year we visited) was $1,890 for the academic year.

The university had a dual mission because of its location in the state, and the two
parts of this mission can come into conﬂict. It attracted highly qualiﬁed and prepared
students to its technological programs. It also served regional, rural students, often the
ﬁrst members of their families to attend college. Some of these students were not

adequately prepared for college-level work, which required TTech to provide signiﬁcant

132

rcsour
differi
and th

prima

provi.
Perfo
stand
but tl

saw a

resources for remedial courses. An administrator explained, “We have almost two
different groups. We have the strong students coming to TTech because of engineering
and those kinds of programs. Then we have the [regional] students that we are the
primary university site for.”

Providing these services disadvantaged TTech in two ways: (1) the state did not
provide additional resources for college-level remedial courses and (2) the state’s
Performance Funding formula rewarded institutions whose students scored high on
standardized examinations. The institution could have raised its admissions standards,
but this approach would have meant turning away many of the students that the university
saw as its primary responsibility.

The university’s state board, The Tennessee Board of Regents, set salary levels
for faculty in public colleges and universities in Tennessee in part by comparing each
institution with a set of peers. The selection of peer institutions by the board was based
on degree level — masters-level institutions — rather than on the focus of the degree
programs. Unfortunately for TTech, few of its selected peers offered the same high cost
technical programs in engineering and the sciences. This state policy led to budget
benchmarks underestimating the salaries and infrastructure required for TTech to
maintain operations and remain competitive.

TTech experienced an operating budget decrease of 32% between 1990 and 1997.
This decrease necessitated that additional funds made available through Performance
Funding go into general expenditures rather than into targeted enhancements. The
limited state investment, even during a time of economic expansion, affected most

university operations.

133

per sem
adx’isin'
researc
wnhth
C16VOI€
annual
ln\xh§
maor
SChOh

keepi

D {7p (4

Soho

‘ishl

The state board mandated that TTech faculty members teach a 15 credit hour load
per semester “or equivalent.” In practice, this load was adjusted to take into account
advising and service responsibilities. In general, faculty members not actively engaged in
research taught 12 credit hours a semester. Faculty members negotiated their assignments
with their chairs and deans each academic year - designating the percentage of time
devoted to teaching, research, and service. This contract served as the basis for the
annual faculty review. A senior administrator described the faculty work context as one
in which each department might have a highly productive researcher or two, but the
majority of faculty were oriented toward teaching undergraduates and engaged in
scholarship and research “as a form of intellectual enrichment, as a way of kind of

keeping alive intellectually so that they can teach well.”

Department of Physics at TTech

Physics was the elite department in the College of Arts and Sciences. The
department had nine faculty members: six full professors, two associate professors, and
one assistant professor. All were Nuclear Physics specialists, and received their doctoral
degrees from prestigious research universities. The department did not have a graduate
program. Faculty and students pointed to this factor as important to the quality of
undergraduate education offered. There were approximately 22 majors at the time of our
visit, predominantly male. All were among the highest performing students on campus.
The department had among the highest percentage of its students going to graduate
school.

The department emphasized research to a degree beyond other departments we

visited at the university. All of its faculty members were involved in externally funded

134

research. ‘

Oakridge

 

the deparl,
semester

seen at R

10 gradu
students
nuclear
Primari

10\\'ard

major
laUgh1
”ledlt
exChe
leach
“as 1

SCIEr

the d

Sele

research, which included adjunct arrangements with other universities, contracts with
Oakridge National Laboratories, or arrangements with other research centers. That said,
the department chair mentioned that with teaching loads averaging 9 credit hours a
semester in the department, faculty members were not expected to have a research output
seen at Research I universities.

Faculty respondents estimated that roughly half of their majors planned to go on
to graduate school, and half to get jobs in industry. Some faculty members encouraged
students not interested in teaching to obtain masters degrees in a specialty, such as
nuclear medicine, that would allow them to work in industry. Others saw the degree
primarily as preparation for graduate work, and focused their teaching and advising
toward that outcome.

Faculty members generally taught three courses a semester — a mix of service and
major courses. With relatively few majors at any one time, the Physics faculty primarily
taught non-majors and service courses for engineering, teacher education, and pre-
medicine. Some took on an extra course or number of labs for three semesters in
exchange for taking a subsequent semester off from teaching. The most innovative
teaching within the department was connected with introductory Physics for teachers — it
was part of a national project to improve educators’ competency and comfort with the

sciences.

Predominant teaching approaches

The department had no graduate teaching assistants; the faculty taught all courses
the department offers. Faculty members and students believed that students were

selected, either by themselves or by the faculty, for degrees in Physics. They felt that this

135

sekcut

taught

Facuh
Ofcor
instm
OPPO
ﬁnal

Were

TBS;
Sufi
5X13
3V3
“to

P€C

Un

re-

selection process resulted in students being attuned to the standard way physics was
taught, which then required little pedagogical adjustment by the faculty:
We kind of selected out the pe0ple who learn the way we teach already. So, the

people who are there right now, I think the technique that we use are pretty much
okay with standard lecture, homework, all that.

Faculty members believed that learning physics involves reading and listening to explanations
of concepts, working problems, getting stuck, getting help, and moving on. The primary
instructional method was lecture, although both laboratories and out-of—class research
opportunities were used. Faculty encouraged students to come to them for one-on-one or
small group consultation. Most believed that laboratories and separate research experiences
were as, if not more, important learning experiences than classroom instruction.

One of the things we try very hard to do, especially those who are

experimentalists, is to include our undergraduates in the research in the research.

Then it is all part of the teaching. They learn things there that you never teach in
a classroom. We really emphasize that as part of our program.

Few faculty members used group projects or computer-aided instruction. Most faculty
respondents were not trained to use instructional technology. Nor did the department have
sufﬁcient funds to computerize the laboratories. Many faculty and administrator respondents
expressed ideas for integrating technology into their teaching should the resources become
available. Some faculty respondents were considering learning new teaching techniques, but
most faculty members were not preoccupied with integrating collaborative or innovative

pedagogy into their teaching.

Departmental climate for teaching

Because the department did not have a graduate program, the faculty focus on
undergraduate teaching and learning was strong. Faculty included undergraduates in their

research, had a universal open-door policy, created space in the department where majors

136

couk
then

depa

The

51111

1h;
.\'t

dc

W

1h

could gather and study, and saw undergraduate teaching as their top priority and the reason
their department existed. The faculty as a group were very aware of the strengths of the
department and what they could offer students:
We offer the students attention. . .At a large school, (laugh) at a large school . . . .
the professors do not have time to give, you know, they have ofﬁce hours. We
don't have office hours. I keep my door open here. They can come in anytime

they want. . .The only advantage we offer is that the standards are as good as
nearly any one at a State university but the teachers are accessible.

The focus on undergraduates was seen by faculty as an attraction for both faculty and
students:
In terms of lack of graduate program, there has been discussion among us
internally, and at least, one person who was here some time ago, that he would
rather deal with very good undergraduates, which we have, rather than the

mediocre graduate students. Which is more or less what is realistically we would
be likely to [attract]...

That said, faculty did not indicate that they discussed teaching and learning issues often or
that they were working on teaching and learning issues as a group. “[W]e communicate . .
.very well in the sense we will trust each other to do a good job. But on the other hand, I
don’t think we look very closely at each other to see whether we are doing a good job.” The
few faculty involved in the collaborative course for teaching majors were known and their
work noted and admired, but few other faculty were eager to translate the work going on in
that course into their own teaching.

The department had a clear and strong sense of collegiality among faculty and the
chair. All noted this element of the departmental environment, and saw it as a strength. Two
faculty members summed up the expressions of all:

There is plenty [of collegiality] in this department. We are sort of known on

campus for that. That we actually talk together and have lunch together. In some

ways, that is the way I like it. I like making department policy out in the hall.
That is just the way I am. That is just sort of an unwritten rule.

137

I feel fortunate to be in a department where we all are relatively compatible. We
don't have the factions or the department politics that I see going on in other
departments on campus. And I am thankful for that.

The homogenous nature of the department (all nuclear physics) contributed to this strong
collegiality. Faculty indicated that the chair also contributed to collegiality through his
leadership and support of their needs. The Chair considered his primary job to be protecting
faculty by taking care of the administrative details and by making decisions as informally as
possible so as not to bog them down with committee meetings.

The department had higher expectations for faculty research productivity than did
other departments in the university. Although teaching remained the primary consideration in
promotion and tenure,

I don’t think we will give tenure to someone who shows no inclination towards

research and hasn’t done anything at all. But we haven’t had to face that

particular question either. We make it clear when we hire that we are expecting to
see some research components.

The chair and faculty saw few ways that the department, college, and university could
offer incentives or rewards for outstanding performance — either in teaching or research —
because there had been no discretionary money for merit increases in years. The university
did have teaching awards, but those recognized only a few people yearly. Excellence in and
attention to teaching was seen as a point of pride, and a function of the type of institution and
students, rather than a performance for rewards. The chair believed that the predominance of
lecture as a teaching approach was at least somewhat tied to resources.

Obviously, it varies widely from faculty to faculty. To a signiﬁcant extent, our

standard mode of teaching is still lecture. . . . I think that is largely driven by

available resources. I think we all have some things that we like to do, but haven't
been able to obtain funding to do them. I have a grand scheme to improve our lab

by computerizing it. I think it will improve it signiﬁcantly. But so far, I haven't
been able to get funding to do it.

138

Overall, the department faculty were satisﬁed with their teaching loads, with their
students, with each other as colleagues, and with the way they taught. The only constraints
they complained of were the lack of resources available to them from the university for

technology upgrades and equipment maintenance.

Inﬂuences on departmental climate

Most Physics faculty believed the senior administration made a strong and visible
commitment to undergraduate teaching that set the tone and expectations for the university:
I feel like within the university that there is a strong commitment to effective

teaching from the President down, the Vice President, the Dean of Academic
Affairs, the Dean of the College, and the department. It feels like there is.

Beyond this institutional commitment, the dominant perceived inﬂuence from
institutional and especially state levels on teaching and learning concerned resource
constraints. The departmental budget had no travel or equipment funds, and those
available at the university level were sparse. The department was expected to provide
those resources through research grants, release time money that may come with
university level grants, or end-of-year surplus funds, if any existed.
And, now, here is the problem. And that is money. Space we are not doing too
badly on. Although, things are getting a little tight now with our lab space. But,
money to upgrade is very difficult to get right now. This goes all the way to the
State legislature and the State Governor. This is not that the university doesn't
want to see us develop our [program]. I think money is just tight. The university

is just having to make do on a rather limited budget that we have been forced to
cut in a lot of areas.

The department’s research contracts, which were substantial compared with other
departments in the university, helped it provide faculty with professional development

funds. Equipment resources were still hard for the department to put together.

139

Department of Decision Sciences and Management at TTech

The Department of Decision Sciences and Management (DSM), in the College of
Business Administration, had four undergraduate degree programs: Management
Information Systems, Management, Personnel/Labor Relations, and Production and
Operations Management. DSM had 14 faculty members— 6 ﬁrll professors (one
endowed), four associate professors, and four assistant professors. Faculty were
predominantly male (12 of 14).

The department had more than 250 majors. The majority of them (58%) were in
the Management Information Systems program. Another 25% were in the General
Management program. Business students were tracked through a lower division
curriculum before being allowed to apply for admission into a specialty program.
Admission to a specialty program was competitive; standards exceeded those for the
university as a whole.

The department is part of The College of Business Administration, which is made
up of the Departments of Accounting and Business Law, Decision Sciences and
Management, Economics, Finance, and Marketing, the Division of MBA Studies, and the
Division of Basic Business. The latter coordinates the curriculum of, and serves as an
advising center for, lower division business students. There were approximately 800
students enrolled in the Basic Business curriculum in 1996-97. The College of Business
Administration actively pursued national accreditation as part of its effort to enhance its
prestige and attract top faculty and students. The American Assembly of Collegiate
Schools of Business (AACSB) ﬁrst granted accreditation to TTech’s undergraduate

programs in 1978, followed by accreditation of the Division of MBA Studies three years

140

later. The College achieved special elective accreditation in Accounting in 1985. The
Division received special commendation from the AACSB in 1997 for exceptional
service to students.

The college and its departments beneﬁted greatly from a foundation developed by
the dean to solicit money and support from alumni and area industries. No other college
at TTech had a foundation of such scope and magnitude. College and department
members indicated that the additional resources available through the foundation made it
possible to attract faculty, achieve and maintain accreditation, and provide assistance to
regional industries. Funds from the foundation provided travel and professional
development money for faculty as well as internal research grants. Respondents strongly
indicated the importance of the foundation in creating a quality work environment for the
college.

The normal teaching load in the department was three courses (nine credits) per
semester. Although a few faculty members bought out of courses with external funds,
most taught the full load. The Division of Basic Business advised all non-declared and
lower-division business majors; DSM faculty members advised only their own majors.
Departmental faculty members viewed teaching as their primary duty. Although
respondents acknowledged that research was necessary for tenure and promotion, many
admitted that they came to this teaching-oriented institution to teach, not to conduct

research or consult.

Predominant teaching approaches

Faculty employed a wide range of teaching approaches, but emphasized the use of

cases, role-play, and group projects taken from real business settings. Faculty members

141

increasingly adopted technology into their classroom teaching; many used presentation
software in their classes regularly, and encouraged students to use it in projects. Some
respondents talked about having students participate in teaching courses. Most made use of
student feedback to change their teaching approaches. Students appreciated the seminars with
past graduates and local business people held each semester to talk about jobs available and

the kinds of work students could expect to do when they graduated.

Departmental climate for teaching

Interest, high energy, enthusiasm, access, and respect for students marked the
climate for teaching in the department. The general attitude of faculty toward teaching
was best described by the following two faculty respondents:

I asked for extra courses, and if one comes up, I'll take it every time. I love being
in the classroom. Love working with my students... And one of things I think
you'll ﬁnd that the faculty as a whole here is that there is a very, very good
rapport between the faculty and the students. This time of year, and I'm not the
only one, but since you're interviewing me I can speak for myself here, most
evenings there'll be from one to three student groups at my home ofﬁce working
on projects.

We've managed to create an environment, and I say we, because it's the
university, it's the college, it's the department, and inside the classroom, have
created an environment where the students will do much more than I ever
expected them to every semester. They start doing it for pride. I've had a lot of
them say “You know after about three weeks, I quit doing it for a grade. It's for
pride.

The faculty agreed that the atmosphere in the department was positive and
encouraging. Many self-selected this teaching-oriented situation. They reported getting along
well with each other, and feeling well supported by the college. They also pointed to the
positive contributions of teaching schedules that permitted faculty members to block time for

research (grouping classes into two or three days a week), reasonably-sized classes, and

142

faculty development money. Decision Sciences received the university departmental-level
teaching award shortly before our site visit.
The primary responsibility of faculty was teaching, and the reward system in the
department and college supported that priority.
We don't expect the faculty to have the same type of funded research that the
engineering school would have. We got NSF grants in the college, but a faculty
member could get through ﬁve years here in a tenure track and never bring in a

grant. . . . But, there is not a lot of incompatibility between what we expect and
what the university uses in promotions they do.

Faculty members were closely evaluated, especially during the pre-tenure years. Students
were given the chance to evaluate the program as they left. The chair held exit interviews
with students to identify problems and seek solutions.

The college and the department had better resources — in terms of computers for
students and faculty, travel and professional development money, and internal research grants
— than the other departments we studied. Faculty respondents saw these resources as a key
factor in their teaching, and acknowledged that the Foundation had everything to do with the
quality of their professional lives.

Okay. We could not afford this at TTech University if we relied on state funding .

. . . We'd be what's analogous to teaching water safety instruction without a pool. .

. . . And that's not the only thing that the foundation does. They help us with the

technology, they help us with scholarships, they help us with networking to get

students jobs. And not just jobs. And when I say jobs around here, we're talking

about jobs that lead you to a career. And there's, to me there's a tremendous
difference.

Leadership in the college and department helped keep resources and faculty attention
on teaching and learning. Faculty all described the chair and the dean as strong leaders who
inﬂuenced and supported their work. One administrator talked about protecting the quality

they all worked to achieve:

143

One of the things we have tried not to do is go beyond our reach in the sense of,
we are a fairly small faculty with the goal of maintaining the highest accreditation
we can and maintaining a strong faculty. So, that means we have steadfastly
refused to offer education at branch campuses, which a lot of the rest of the
university does. We don't travel our faculty on credit courses at all. So, we have
tried to say, let's stay focused and stay reasonably good at what the core processes
are and not get out there and play.

Inﬂuences on departmental climate

The foundation created by the Dean of the College was instrumental in supporting
the college’s, and department’s teaching and learning needs. The Dean described the
way the foundation operated:

There are 153 members of that foundation and they are all active. They come in
here every Tuesday. . .we keep them very active with us and they do a lot more
than fund raising for us. They are in the classroom every week . . . .They are just
a key partner to everything that we do. But, they also raise, I have a 4.5 million-
dollar endowment in the business school, which is the largest, for this university
for any of the units . . . . Business schools at technological universities are usually
fairly far down on the food chain when it comes to new technology. So, but
again, business schools are supposed to be entrepreneurial. And, before we can
even teach it, we better be able to do it . . .

The foundation protected the department from many of the resource constraints felt by
other departments around the university, even those in the College of Engineering. The
foundation could not, however, support salary increases or merit pay — rewards that the
chair of the department would have liked to use to promote faculty excellence:
We have not had, in recent years, merit pay money. So it has been very difﬁcult
ﬁ'om the point of view of rewarding faculty and discriminating between those that
had done an outstanding job versus those that have done an acceptable job. So, I
see that as one of the negatives. I don't think that has affected the faculty’

commitment to do an outstanding job, but it has affected our ability to reward
people for it.

The state and university funding shortages also negatively impacted hiring. The

department was at the time not able to hire new faculty, which in turn impacted students.

144

So that hurts. The way that's showing up, like I said, we can't hire people now.
You have to have a really good case to just replace what you lose, who you lose.
How it's affecting our students is in the manner of offering electives.

For the most part, the department’s strong positive teaching climate was fostered,
supported, and inﬂuenced by the strong climate and better ﬁnancial situation of the
college. Few larger institutional or state level factors negatively impacted the
department, except in the case of funding issues such as hiring and merit raises that could

not be addressed with foundation money.

Department of Mechanical Engineering at TTech

The department of Mechanical Engineering had 17 full-time tenure-line faculty
members with one position vacant (a search was pending when we visited). Nine were
full professors, three were associate professors, and ﬁve were assistant professors. Most
faculty members were male (15 of 17), with several nationalities represented. Prior to
our visit, the department had slipped 14% in enrollments to approximately 396
undergraduate majors.

Faculty teaching loads were variable. The average instructional load was ﬁve
courses per academic year. Faculty members could buy out of a course with monies from
research grants. Departmental faculty divided the advising load of undergraduates, each
taking responsibility for between 25-45 students at any one time.

The department was situated in the largest and most prominent college in the
university. At the time of our visit, the College of Engineering had 62 full-time and 17
part-time tenure-line faculty, and 33 teaching assistants. The college also housed three
state-funded research Centers of Excellence: Center for Electrical Power, Center for

Manufacturing Research and Technology Utilization, and Center for the Management,

145

Utilization, and Protection of Water Resources. The centers and the graduate programs
made possible by their ﬁrnding set the college on different ﬁnancial standing from other
colleges in the university. Faculty assignments were correspondingly different, ranging
from 60 or 70% research to 60 or 70% teaching, a much greater variation than in other
colleges. The college dean believed strongly in undergraduate education but emphasized

the importance of research funding in achieving high quality undergraduate programs.

Predominant teaching approaches

Faculty respondents varied in their instructional approaches. The most innovative
faculty members used peer teaching, student engagement in debate and mock-trials, and
brainstorming. A larger group of faculty members relied on more traditional methods,
primarily lecture, quiz, and examination.

So our modes for operation vary quite a bit, but in terms of methods, we are still

pretty much the in blackboard lecture mode at this point . . . . I guess I am open-

minded enough to wonder if there is a better way of delivery in today's

environment. We still deliver to a large extent the way it was delivered to us . . . .

I think half of us are open to try new things if we really knew what it was
supposed to be.

Some faculty respondents used presentations and group projects to enhance students’
communication and teaming skills. ME faculty also viewed laboratories as important
learning experiences. Students mentioned the usefulness of their internships and Co-op
jobs. Some faculty members assigned open-ended problems that required students to
incorporate elements they would ﬁnd in projects in industry

Most discussion of instructional “change” focused on changes in content or process,
not teaching approaches. For example, a faculty member who taught computers used to spend
time teaching students how to create their own programs. Now this faculty member used

software for the same purpose. Others discussed efforts to meet students outside of class, or

146

to make their lecture materials more accessible. Although most faculty members continued to
use “traditional” chalk talk and lecture formats in class, the most common pedagogical change
in the past decade was increased use of student teams and incorporation of technology into
labs.

Most teaching innovations in ME resulted from external pressure to integrate design
and technology into the curriculum and classroom. This pressure was brought to bear by
ABET, local industry, and the College of Engineering Advisory Board. Faculty respondents
also found the new generation of students and their level of preparedness required adjusting
class content and pedagogy. For example, several faculty respondents added mathematics to
their courses because students were not well prepared in this area. In general, faculty
respondents were aware of “new” teaching approaches and the external pressure to
incorporate them. Some had already done so, but overall this effort was limited in comparison

with many other colleges and universities.

Departmental climate for teaching

All agreed that the department was supportive, and that teaching was considered an
important function in the department. Faculty disagreed, however, on some of the
recommendations coming from ABET and other accreditation organizations regarding active
and collaborative teaching and learning. As noted earlier, the department was described as
having basically a “blackboard teaching” approach. Some faculty seemed reluctant to
consider new ways of teaching. The department was moving forward in considering ABET
recommendations to incorporate design throughout the curriculum (it was incorporated

predominantly at the senior level). There was a sense that faculty had been accustomed to

147

working independently on their teaching, and that these new criteria were forcing them to
consider changes they would not have made on their own.

Some faculty in the department saw the chair as supportive of teaching in terms of
time allocation, resources for teaching, and ﬁrnds for conferences and professional
development. Others thought that he had a rather thankless job:

And that's a lot of responsibility and virtually no authority. Times when money is
short, there is no money to pass around for anything, let alone raises and so forth.
. . . . It is not a pleasant position. And I don't know how other [chairs] have dealt
with this. But it is hard . . . . It is hard to be a strong voice and give a lot of
direction for the program from that position.

The chair echoed this opinion, for many of the same reasons:
But, I think in terms of modifying behavior patterns, probably my only avenue of
success would be persuasion. So, if you are not a persuasive person, and can take
a jolt to the arm and say, “Joe don't you think it would be better if you did this and
that?” Then, I don't think that with some faculty 1 probably I have that inﬂuence.

1 think with maybe some of the older senior people, I may not have much
inﬂuence.

The Dean conﬁrmed the difﬁculty in changing faculty attitudes and practices, and saw it
as an evolution:
Change is hard to come by in faculty. “I've done it this way forever, why do I
have to change?” . . . . But I think as we bring in younger faculty members, if we

get the message across to them at the very beginning, then we won't have that
problem ten years from now.

Despite the reluctance on the part of the faculty as a whole to change its teaching
approaches, the department had an open door, student-oriented climate. Many faculty
respondents mentioned that, when in their ofﬁces, they expected to be approached by and
respond to students. There was signiﬁcant informal activity in support of teaching and
student learning. For example, one senior faculty member took on more courses to help

new faculty get established in their research programs. Faculty and administrators were

148

help. an
lehsnro:

learning.

PFCpara
Of math
tEaChin‘
thelevE
SludEm
Work 11

faCUIIy

involved in extra-curricular activities with students, such as design competitions, ﬁeld
trips, etc., and felt there was strong informal support for them.
[W]e’re a small school, the fact is there is more time to pay attention to these
students. We spend lots of time with them and we take that very seriously and I
think you can probably talk to the students and they would probably tell you that.
That there is this kind of engagement between students and faculty and we can

afford to do that because of the size of our school, the nature of our mission, if
you will, and not too many distractions here.

Students were impressed with the availability of the faculty, their willingness to
help, and the faculty members’ obvious commitment to student learning. A few students
felt strongly that faculty members cared personally about whether or not students were
learning. One student expressed these beliefs and experiences as follows:

I spent three years at another school. And the biggest thing, the biggest advantage

that this school has, that the professors here have, is their attitude towards

teaching and the students. I can honestly say, in every class that I've had, that my

professor honestly cares whether or not I pass. He. . .or she takes a genuine
interest in my personal success. They make me feel like they want me to succeed.

Mechanical Engineering was the department most concerned about speciﬁc
preparation of students for college-level work. Faculty respondents mentioned the lack
of mathematics preparation of even their brighter students as a constraint to their
teaching. One noted that they “have to spend . . . . almost two years to bring them up to
the level so we can really teach the materials.” University ofﬁcials echoed this concern.
Students arrived at TTech with limited math skills, and many, despite remedial course
work, never achieved a level of proﬁciency sufﬁcient for studying engineering. Many
faculty respondents attributed this lack of preparation to the quality of high school
education in the Upper Cumberland region.

When I look at some of the records of our freshmen coming in and the result that

they get in the math, because . . . they, in many cases they're not prepared very

well. And you can lay the blame on high school, and I think there is a lot of truth
in that, but... So in the past, we've, I think tried to come up with some remedial

149

teac
pror

toﬁ

Tha

suﬁ

hos.
fun:
Drot
facL
thei

Thor

Pre\

\l’hi

courses to help some of these students get over that, but the Tennessee Board of
Regents frowns on four year universities taking on that responsibility. So, you
know, I don't know. I don't have a solution to that.

Tenure and promotion policies at TTech formally emphasized a balance in
teaching, research, and service. Most ME respondents believed that good teaching was
prominent in achieving tenure, whereas scholarship was more important in the promotion
to full professor:

I think the tenure promotion policies still are oriented towards the fact that you

need all elements - you need teaching, you need research, and you need service. I

think to get promoted that last step to a full professor, you really have to show all

of those elements. And I guess the emphasis would be to get promoted to full
professor you need technical publications, all of these kinds of things. That

would be associated with not only good research but transferring that information

back to the undergraduates or the graduates for that matter. So as far as going

from say, assistant to associate professor, I don't see that there's a major push

from the upper administration saying you've got to have this many publications,

this many papers.

That said, most faculty respondents in ME did not believe that excellent teaching was
sufﬁcient to gain tenure.

The chair noted that faculty sought research opportunities through summer programs
hosted by different agencies (e.g., NASA) and universities. He felt that the level of externally
funded research across the department could be higher. The chair’s inability to reward
productive faculty with merit increases was a constraint in his own eyes — a disincentive for
faculty to be productive in funded research. To assist junior faculty in getting a proper start on
their careers, the department provided them with course reductions, some start-up research
monies and mentoring, and annual feedback on their teaching and research.

As with other departments in the university, lack of resources was the most

prevalent complaint among faculty and administrators regarding inﬂuences on teaching.

While some faculty mentioned that they were able to put together the teaching labs they

150

needed
only be

and m:

New

115 O\‘

C05

01

needed, and especially computer-based labs, others noted that those labs continued to run

only because of faculty willingness to improvise equipment acquisition, and to care for

and maintain the equipment they had.

[W]e sink or swim together and we have chosen to swim which means there are a
lot of people on the faculty who will come in and will do a lot of things that
normally would be done by others. For such things as equipment repairs on
equipment that ought to be replaced and things of that nature. There's a lot of
work done around here that keeps things [going].

Nevertheless, the College of Engineering, with its substantial state research monies and

its own foundation, was in better shape ﬁnancially than most colleges at TTech.

Inﬂuences on departmental climate

Most faculty respondents were acutely aware of the state budget cuts and the

under-funding of the university. Many mentioned the lack of funds for merit salary

increases. According to respondents, faculty members had not received a real increase

(beyond cost-of-living) in salary for several years. The state’s ﬁrnding formula, and the

way the university used the money, were also topics of discussion in terms of the kind of

funding the Engineering College received to keep up equipment and improve teaching

resources. Faculty mentioned that it falls on them to bring in the money to cover those

COSIS.

I think the resource thing is the most prevailing concern that we are all frustrated
with in the sense. But, it is not just Engineering. . . . When I talk to colleagues in
Math, Physics, English, you know, good ﬁiends of mine, people I go to church
with, they have the same problems. Chemistry people say they don't have enough
money to buy glass beakers. They say, "how do you run a chemistry lab"? Well,
chemistry is important to image too. So, the resources. . . [are] a problem.”

The university’s three Centers of Excellence, all housed in Engineering, focused

and supported faculty work in research and graduate study, and helped boost the prestige

of the undergraduate programs. Given the signiﬁcant budget cuts from the state over the

151

cour
insti‘
and l

{6583

the d.
thefe
stude
enghi
a\\'a}'
OUICO
Cmnc

Slmilz

@Cuh
mal0r

gradu

Eng“:

0n 10c

fOr ge

degree

course of 10 years, the Centers were an important element in the viability of TTech as an
institution. The state matched grant funds generated by the Centers, allowing the college
and university to encourage and support faculty grant-writing and extemally-funded
research.

Inﬂuences on the way Mechanical Engineering faculty taught that lay outside of
the department, institution, and college level included the accreditation criteria of ABET,
the feedback faculty and administrators receive from industry, and the preparation of
students. ABET 2000 criteria specify areas of skills and knowledge graduating
engineering students should have, but differed from previous criteria in that they did
away with the minimum requirements for certain courses or materials in favor of
outcome measures. Administrators and faculty stated that ABET inﬂuenced past
curricular and pedagogical decisions signiﬁcantly, and expected the new criteria to have a
similar inﬂuence.

The College of Engineering’s Advisory Board also inﬂuenced what and how
faculty taught by giving the college feedback on the skills needed in baccalaureate
majors. The board also identiﬁed the strengths and weaknesses they saw in TTech
graduates. The college and departments within it paid close attention to the advice of this

board.

English Department at TTech

The English Department felt. itself in a unique position in a university so focused
on technological degree programs. The department largely served the university’s needs
for general education and advanced composition while maintaining a small baccalaureate

degree program (enrollment of majors at the time was about 60). The degree was seen as

152

immediz
critical 1
althoug
inten‘ie
industr
intems
and th

summ

The
(Bu:
rem
fOu:
1hr:

CQr

Io
tw

\\‘(

immediately applicable to students seeking jobs that required good communication and
critical thinking skills. Most English majors did not go to graduate school in English,
although faculty respondents described one or two “stars” with pride during our
interviews. The department was cultivating an internship program in business and
industry for students not interested in graduate school or teaching certiﬁcation. The
internship was seen as a way to demonstrate to students the useﬁrlness of their degrees
and the career opportunities that would be open to them. The department chair
summarized the roles of the department as follows:
We have some students who are going on to graduate school and we feel that they
should be educated with a g00d basis to go on and start a master's degree in
English. And then, there are the rest of the people who are going to stop with
their bachelor's degree. And, we have been emphasizing that there are lots of
things you can do with an English degree that don't have a thing in the world to do

with literature. It really has to do with your being able to write to express
yourself to assimilate and organize material and to learn.

The department offered degrees in English, English Journalism, and Technical Writing
(Business Communication). It employed 24 full-time tenure-line faculty and several
term-employed instructors. Normal teaching loads for the college and department were
four courses (12 credits) per semester. A few faculty members had their load reduced to
three courses per semester to carry out university service activities. None had research
contracts that provided course buy-out.

Several faculty noted that few of their majors started out in English. They tended
to come to the university in pursuit of other majors and changed to English after a year or
two of classes. As a result, many did not have the prior exposure to literature that faculty
would generally expect of students enrolling for degrees in English. This dynamic, as

well as the homogeneity of the students, inﬂuenced the way faculty approached teaching.

153

COII
Olllt
COLI

COD

accc

Writ
P0111
DKUe

Slllde

FBCUI
bl'adr
that a

S'udy.

Predominant teaching approaches

Faculty in English spoke almost as much about content as they did about teaching
approaches. They were unanimously concerned with exposing students to new ideas and
a diversity of perspectives. Some talked about the need to teach literature in its cultural
context, and to help students who had experienced little outside of their region understand
other cultures. The technological focus of the university was reﬂected in literature
courses that addressed the role of technology in society. Faculty tried to adjust the
content of their courses to meet the greatest student interest and need.

In terms of teaching approaches, faculty taught “every way you can imagine,”
according to the chair.

We have people who do straight lecture, almost exclusively. I don’t think there is

any class that there isn’t some kind of discussion or other going on. We have

other areas in which the teachers organize the courses around a series of

presentations. And, in the last few years, access to the web . . . has started to
make dramatic changes.

Writing instructors used interactive software and workshops with peer editing and
portfolio evaluations. Other faculty incorporated group research projects and team
projects posted on a class website. The department had no capstone courses for senior

students, and was considering them in preparation for curriculum revisions.

Departmental climate for teaching

Respondents indicated that teaching was the top priority in the English department.
Faculty agreed that, in general, they are in control of what they teach and are not “bothered”
by administration. The small number of majors allowed the department to do things for them
that a larger department might not. Students had a lounge in which to gather and talk or

study, and one advisor who took responsibility for all their needs. Students indicated that the

154

adxisc

expen

teachi
afe\v
intens
and.c
leann
Erigli
PTOn‘.
IDOSI

IERU]

rEVe:

Subs

advisor for the department made a signiﬁcant positive difference in their undergraduate
experience through his attention and concern.

The chair was seen as accessible and very open to supporting the faculty in new
teaching or professional development. The dean of the college supported a program by which
a few faculty in the university very competent at computer-assisted learning were working
intensively with other faculty to help them learn the skills necessary to develop web-based
and computer-assisted courses. This was seen as a “seed” program by which the faculty
learners would become resource experts for their departments. One faculty member in
English was chosen for this project and received release time to participate.

The importance of teaching was emphasized in the hiring process and reinforced in
promotion and tenure criteria. The chair mentioned that the message that teaching matters
most was a strong part of the interview process. Some faculty saw the focus of promotion and
tenure moving back toward teaching, after a period in which research was emphasized more.

Unlike its counterpart departments in Business, Engineering, and Physics, the
English Department had few resources available beyond its share of general operating
revenues. As a consequence, the department had not been able to replace departed
tenure-line faculty members.

We are, as a department, suffering. We've had people retire, we've had people

leave, we can't replace them, there's no money to replace them, as a result classes

are getting bigger. . . .We had a serious cut last year and the year before. So, what

has happened in English, we have lost one line outright that was vacant, but it was

taken. And, a second line, which was a vacant chair line, was reduced to an
instructorship.

Substantial salary inequities between English and other departments adversely affected faculty
morale. A full professor explained:

The salaries here are well below average, by the admission of the university, I am
now about $13,000 less than I should be. They admitted ﬁnally that they're going

155

hi

18
bu
inc
prc
C01

Co.

and
rum

feElli

to work with national averages. I'm $13,000 below that, probably $14,000 to be
more precise, and my target salary, which is I'm thinking about $60,000, I'm about
$20,000 below that now. The engineers and the business people get much more
than we do on the notion that it's market demand, supply and demand.

A colleague elaborated:
We don't have merit, we do have equity system in place that we have not been
able to use. We have an agreement that there should be some equity pay because

obviously in Humanities or people in this college make less than people in
Engineering or people in Business and it's not fair.

Funding and salary issues were laid squarely at the feet of the state coordinating board for
higher education, the legislature, and the (then) governor. Faculty viewed the university

as an ally, doing the best it could with the resources it was given.

Fisk University

In response to the Emancipation Proclamation, Fisk University was founded in
1866 as an independent college to provide “the highest standards, not of Negro education,
but of American education at its best” (Fisk University catalog, 2000). From its
inception, the institution focused its educational efforts as much on excellence as on
providing access to African-Americans. The president of the university asserted that Fisk
considered its peers to be top liberal arts colleges rather than other Historically Black
Colleges and Universities (HBCUs).

Faculty and students all mentioned during the course of their interviews that there
was a sense of history and place at Fisk. Students and faculty felt a sense of pride and
legacy in part because of the perception that Fisk prepares students for leadership roles,
and has graduated an impressive number of African-American scholars and leaders.
Further, many students had family members or ﬁ'iends graduate from Fisk, giving them a

feeling of protection for and direct investment in the institution. One administrator

156

 

describe
of fisk)
Brady 1

to Fisk

Uanei
PTOgr
and F
a Yer
had
hav.
facr
d6;

Sit

Vs

described it as “standing on the shoulders of giants” such as W.E.B. DuBois (a graduate
of Fisk), Booker T. Washington (a member of the Fisk Board of Trustees) and St. Almo
Brady (one of the ﬁrst African-Americans to receive the Ph.D. in chemistry). According
to Fisk University published information,
Among currently practicing black physicians, lawyers, and dentists, one in six is a
Fisk graduate. In proportion to its size, Fisk continues to contribute more alumni

to the ranks of doctorally-prepared Aﬁ'ican-American scholars than any
institution, white or black, in the United States.

Fisk enrolled approximately 800 students, most of them undergraduates. The
university employed 63 full-time and 34 part-time or adjunct faculty. Academic
programs were placed into one of four divisions: Business Administration, Humanities
and Fine Arts, Natural Science and Mathematics, and Social Science. The institution had
a very strong history in the sciences, and continued to cultivate those programs. Fisk also
had a considerable commitment to music and to the ﬁne arts, although these areas did not
have the substantial external funding available to the sciences. The small size of the
faculty made it possible to interview all of the faculty members of the selected
departments. In all we conducted 16 individual interviews and three focus groups with
students.

The core curriculum was described as the integrating force of the university — it
was discussed by faculty and administrators in all departments. The President explained
that it was meant to instill an interdisciplinary appreciation for “all human knowledge.”
The core curriculum was a series of 8 courses that all students were required to take.
Courses included Communication 1 and 11: African American Heritage, Mathematics,

Literature, Creative Arts, Natural Science , Humanities, and The World and its Peoples.

157

 

col
per
Opt

fac

Cr

the

fat
Fa
thi
811

I16

Stt
ill .
ave
aim

SIUC

The core curriculum received mixed reviews from faculty and students. The
college received a FIPSE grant to redesign the core, but at the time of our visit,
permanent faculty for the core had not been identiﬁed and the full program was not
operational. The staff for the core curriculum was not separate from other humanities

faculty — people were hired into their departments and “drafted by the core.”

University Culture and Climate

Faculty, administrators, and students uniformly named the culture and climate of
the university as collegial, nurturing, caring, and focused on student learning needs. They
agreed that the size and culture of the school made relationships between students and
faculty much closer than they would be at larger institutions without Fisk’s history.
Faculty professed their responsibility to make certain that students receive the support
they need to succeed. “We are a nurturing environment. We are very close to our
students. We want to fulﬁll them properly and help them in whatever way we can.” A
newer faculty member elaborated:

One of the things that really struck me is that there is a much more interpersonal

interaction between the students and the faculty. Given that pool of students, then

you have to ensure that they will succeed at whatever level you claim that you

want them to be there. So that means if you got to put in extra effort to do the
math training, you do it.

Students get individual attention both academically and socially. Students spoke of being
ill or having family emergencies, and having multiple faculty members or counselors
available to give them support. Students praised that availability as part of the unique
atmosphere at Fisk. Faculty and students mentioned that faculty often take a struggling

student aside to try to understand what may be happening. If students skip class or

158

 

appear tc

do not b1

uti1\'er

enrirc

Vario
felt t
stud
Mos
con
exc
Hu
Ch.

0r

E)

(J)

appear to be engaging in non-productive activities, faculty take them to task in a way they
do not believe is possible at larger schools.
One-on-one, that's one of the strengths of Fisk, we give them individual attention.
If the student is lacking, say, in the area of writing . . .we have a writing lab and
we send that student to it and call the instructor, student so and so is coming,

please take note and see what you can do to help him get better. If he doesn't
show up, you let me know so I follow up.

Faculty saw themselves both as part of a department and as part of the larger
university. When discussing their work, faculty were more likely to refer to the
environment of the university than to their departments.

Faculty mentioned that the level of preparation students have coming out of
various high schools was a factor affecting their approaches to teaching. English faculty
felt that students came unprepared to write critically or creatively. Physics faculty saw
students unprepared mathematically to begin the study of Physics at a university level.
Most faculty took that into account when planning and implementing courses. Another
concern of the Physics faculty was the number of very bright female students who
excelled in undergraduate Physics but chose not to go on to graduate school. The
Humanities dean noted that the majority of Fisk students were highly career oriented and
chose their majors according to job prospects as opposed to graduate school opportunities

or intrinsic interest.

English Department

The department consists of four full-time faculty members (three are tenured) and
one part-time tenured faculty member. One of the four full-time faculty members serves
as the department chair. He teaches a full load of classes. The department has about 25-

30 English majors at any one time. Many students use the English degree as a stepping

159

stone for law, journalism, and other uniting-intensive graduate work. The majority of
students are African-American, and predominantly female.

English faculty members generally teach three 4—credit courses a semester (12
hours), which is considered a full load at the university. They have few opportunities to
buy out of courses to engage in writing. Most faculty members try to complete their
research and writing in the summer when few teach.

English faculty members taught the core curriculum English courses as well as
those for majors. They felt they did not have as many opportunities to offer elective
courses for their majors because of the service load they carried. Because the faculty
group was small, many had to be “generalists” and taught content areas they did not
concentrate on in graduate school. They sometimes used guest teachers to augment their
areas of expertise. Some saw this necessity as a way to enhance their professional
development; others saw it as a detriment to themselves and the students.

Classes were small and faculty members felt free to select their own instructional
styles. They used discussion as their primary teaching approach, but also utilized role-
playing, reading aloud, writing workshops, and peer evaluation of writing. Faculty
focussed on issues of interpersonal interactions with students. Several mentioned moving
to a conversational or discussion-oriented style of teaching, making certain students
understood the rationale behind the material they were studying, and bringing student
needs into the process of the class. “I collaborate with students a lot more than I used to.
I consult with them. If things aren't going right, I'll ask them, you know, how can we

together, what can you do, what can I do to change this.”

160

 

E1
English 1

unexpec‘

freedor
positio
UlllVer
Very a

(16pm-

lhat

alSl

Der

hi1

English faculty used a diversity of materials and texts to help students learn that
English is a broader ﬁeld than they might have imagined. Use of texts in dialect, or

unexpected or non-“canon” texts helped faculty challenge student assumptions.

Departmental climate for teaching

The department was described as “laid back.” Faculty all agreed that they had the
freedom to teach their courses in any way they chose. The chair, who had been in his
position for many years, was the faculty member with the greatest amount of time at the
university. He was described as “the person with experience in how things work” and
very accommodating. The chair described how he acquired his role, and how the
department functioned:

At the time, they were looking for someone to be chair because a lot of teachers

had left and almost everybody there had about a year experience and was new and

I really didn't want to do it, but I did it reluctantly out of more a sense of duty,

probably, I sometimes doubt my sanity, but years ago I thought nobody else had

had experience even with the department. It's not something that people are dying

to do, but we're kind of a, even the chair, we function more or less as a group, you

know, parceling things out and almost all major decisions are shared, you know,
with the department, . . . . and fortunately collegial, in the best sense of the term.

The primary focus of the department was teaching. Faculty and the chair agreed
that service was secondary to teaching in importance. Scholarship was third in
importance. All faculty mentioned book or research projects they had ongoing, but most
also said that they did not have much time for scholarship. They worked on projects as
personal enrichment rather than as a career imperative. The department was careful to
hire faculty that understood the priorities of the university:

. . .they all have Ph.D.‘s, they all have articles or books and, you know, in today's
market, I could probably have the whole faculty Ivy League staffed. I've had
people apply form Ivy League and sometimes I've even turned them down

because I didn't think they'd ﬁt in. Now [we don’t need] somebody who can't ﬁnd
a job and written a whole bunch of articles and some books and then they go to

161

 

'Ihe

univ

prOg
secr
roug

desc

hop off after a year or two and they ﬁnd something more that they want to be in.
So I want teachers who like to teach who want to be with students who not only
like the subject themselves and can communicate that . . .

The size of the faculty necessitated that faculty be able to teach well and ﬁt with the
university’s culture.

. . .students have a lot of contact with them because you have to use them for

more than one class. Of course, if the student doesn't get along with one or more

faculty, then it's very claustrophobic. In a big school, you can always escape from

a teacher you don't want . . .

The department as an entity separate from the division or the core curriculum
program was not well deﬁned or described. The division ofﬁce housed mailboxes,
secretarial staff, and ofﬁce equipment for all division members. English faculty taught
roughly half of their course load in the core curriculum. A relatively new faculty member
described the department in contrast to others:

The English Department, in terms of policy, it's not really policy, it is not as

uniﬁed an entity as it should be. I see some very strong departments where

people are encouraged in their teaching and aided in terms of their research, as
well, and how people support each other in the process of things. You're doing
research here and someone knows you're doing it and there's a culture connection
and in those departments, it works really well and you can deal with the policies
as need be. Here, they don't really get in the way, they're not supportive or not

supportive; they're just kind of vague. So that makes one either you're self-
sufﬁcient, or you just go home early.

Inﬂuences on departmental climate for teaching

Inﬂuences on the department seemed to emanate from its position within the
Division of Humanities and from the university. The English department had limited
access to external research monies. During our site visit, the departmental faculty
complained of paper rationing and other austerity measures. The department did not have

its own funds for travel and professional development. Decisions about pay increases,

162

 

navel

Inghe

ofsu
\erv
cont

tune

tc

travel money, and teaching awards were decided at the Humanities Division level or
higher.

Some faculty expressed their belief that the university had little to offer in the way
of support for travel, release time, or professional development. “It's pretty much very,
very no thrills teaching. It's a lot of teaching, it's a heavy service load, it's a heavy
committee load and it's a not a research institution, that's for sure. It's a very under-
funded institution and under-resourced, severely.”

The lack of library resources was mentioned by faculty and students as a source of
frustration. They reported that the university’s library was not adequate to carry out
research. Students and faculty had extremely limited access to libraries at nearby
institutions, such as Vanderbilt University.

[Y]ou've got no journals, got no access to them. So, yeah, it's not like we can just

zip over to the library and catch up with what's new; just, you know browse the

PN's and PR's and see what's there. You can't do it. So, I would deﬁnitely, I
would like resources.

One administrative respondent indicated that top administrators found it difficult
to provide continuity in improvement efforts at Fisk because of rapid tum-over in deans

over the course of the prior 6 years.

Business Administration

Business Administration was a relatively new department, founded in 1988. Like
many new business programs, credibility (and future enrollments) was dependent on
attaining accreditation from the AACSB. Fisk successfully achieved accredited status
two years prior to our visit. The chair and faculty were strongly inﬂuenced in their

curricular and degree offerings by the accreditation standards.

163

The department was in transition when we visited. The head of the department
was just hired (but had been a part of the faculty). Two faculty positions were open or
about to open (all replacement rather than new positions). There were four full-time
faculty (three tenured) and one part-time instructor shared with another division.

The division had 160 undergraduate majors. Although Fisk did not offer a
graduate program in business, it did have a joint MBA program with Vanderbilt.

Faculty members taught 12 credits per term, almost all in the business program.
Few business faculty members taught in the Core Curriculum. The division head
received one course release for administrative duties. The director of internships taught
only two courses a semester. Because of the small size of the faculty, many taught
outside their area of expertise (e. g. teaching business law or marketing when one’s degree
was in management). The program tried to use experts from the area or Fisk graduates as
guest lecturers to address gaps in the faculty knowledge and experience base. The
department had a very successﬁrl internship program and encouraged students to gain
experience in local and in some cases national companies. The program was so popular
that students outside the business department had begun to seek its assistance in
placement.

The Business Administration division did not heavily emphasize research. The
division head said that promotion and tenure considerations weighted teaching 50
percent, service 25 percent and research or scholarly activity 25 percent. The head would
have liked to encourage more externally funded research activity, but understood the
press on faculty from teaching loads. Faculty saw the university’s centralized system of

handling grants as a disincentive to engage in funded research:

164

We don't have much grant money, we've never had any, and I wasn't, I worked
with grants, I've done that, I do that, but I won't do that here because they only
pay you, there's no incentive there either. You get a two million, three million
dollar grant and you get paid at the rate of two ninths of your salary for the
summer and that's that. . . . So the incentive to do anything is not here. It's too
centralized.

Predominant teaching approaches

Business faculty employed cases and group research projects heavily in courses
for majors. One professor mentioned trying to ﬁnd ways to get students more involved in
learning by moving away from lectures and using discussion more prominently. Others
talked about re-interpreting the material presented in the textbooks and discussing it from
a more personal, experience-based perspective. Faculty mentioned that these approaches
sometimes ran up against assumptions on the part of students that make discussion
difficult:

[T]he system has accustomed the students to the fact that they will come to class

and some of them don't even think they need to buy the book. They will come to

class and the instructor will tell them all they need to know to pass. So sometimes

they look upon discussion as the instructor doesn't know what he's talking about,
doesn't want to do his job.

One faculty member noted that although her overall style (predominantly lecture and
testing) had not changed, she never used the same notes from semester to semester,
continually re-evaluated the material she used, and sought out new texts and material as

often as possible.

Departmental climate for teaching

The division expressed a commitment to teaching and to students. That
commitment was exempliﬁed by the internship program with a director charged with
helping students. The climate for teaching, however, was difﬁcult to gauge. Few faculty

mentioned collegiality or team work among themselves. The number of faculty

165

vacancies increased the teaching and preparation loads of the remaining group. A few
mentioned being rather disengaged from the division and university — concentrating on
students and teaching, but not willing to engage in service as much as they had

previously.

Inﬂuences on climate

Resources entered most conversations regarding inﬂuences on the department and
individuals’ teaching, as did the number of faculty available to teach students.

One of the problems that the typical small university has is not policies, it's a

matter of funds, you know. Can you afford to bring in the amount of people that

it really takes to run a department and that you want to have there and can you

afford to deal with sometimes the ﬂuctuation in students that you might have.

Can you keep this guy on when the student load is maybe down this semester, but
you know it's going to be up a couple years from now. That sort of thing.

Faculty perceived resource issues coming from the university level. The division did not
have an endowment or foundation from which to draw funds, nor did respondents

mention an advisory board or other external inﬂuences.

Physics Department at Fisk

The Physics department was the largest and best funded of the departments we
visited at Fisk, although the number of tenure track teaching faculty was small. The
department included several research faculty members who rarely taught undergraduates.
In this respect, the Physics department at Fisk University resembled the Physics
department at UTK more than it did TTech or other departments at Fisk we visited. The
department was able to bifurcate the faculty into those focused only on research and those

focused on undergraduate teaching and research.

166

The research involvement of the Physics faculty was the highest of the
departments we visited, and may have been the highest in the university (2.5 million in
external funds -— NASA funded about half of the amount). The Natural Sciences division
produced as many Aﬁ'ican-American Ph.D.s between 1990-1995 as any other institution
nationwide, tied with MIT and Stanford. Research was an expectation in this division
and department. The faculty members received more support to develop research
agendas than faculty in the other departments we visited.

The teaching faculty consisted of the Natural Science division head, a Physicist,
and four faculty members. Two of those were assistant professors hired less than 4 years
prior to our visit, one was a tenured professor who served as the department chair, and
one was an instructor who served as the laboratory coordinator. Another tenured
professor was serving as Executive Vice President of the university, and did not teach.

The Natural Sciences Division, of which Physics is a part, had a dual-degree
program in science and engineering with Vanderbilt University. Students in this program
took their ﬁrst three years of courses at Fisk and transferred to Vanderbilt for the ﬁnal
two years. Approximately ﬁve students were participating in this program when we
visited.

There were 19 physics majors. This relatively small number meant a small
advising load for Physics faculty. Over the prior 10 years, about 40 percent of Physics
majors had gone on to graduate school.

Physics faculty taught 12 credits a semester unless they had funded research that
allowed them to buy-out of a course. Faculty teaching loads, therefore, varied by the

amount of grant-funded research in the department. However, unlike their counterparts in

167

biology and chemistry, faculty members in physics did not teach the natural science core
courses. The department was able to grant new faculty a lighter teaching load in their
ﬁrst year to enable them to establish their research programs. The chair received no
compensation, release time, or summer salary for the position, which was on a rotating 3-
year cycle. The chief challenge to the chair was to ﬁnd ways to balance work load
reductions for new faculty and course buy-outs with departmental instructional

responsibilities.

Predominant teaching approaches

The pedagogical approaches of the faculty were typical and traditional to physics
-— lectures, heavy emphasis on homework problems, labs, and research experiences. The
two assistant professors were still learning how to teach and were candid about issues and
difﬁculties they faced in gauging the level of student preparedness, the amount of
material they could have students absorb, and how to interact with students. The

interaction between faculty and students was very high, and classes small.

Departmental climate for teaching

The department climate was tied to the Natural Science division’s and inﬂuenced
more by it than by the university. The department had a small budget for travel,
supplies, and other necessities (not salaries), something that the other departments did not

have. The funded research that the department engaged in shaped its climate and agenda.

Inﬂuences on departmental climate

The division had the greatest internal inﬂuence on the departmental climate. The

division set promotion and tenure criteria, and fostered the teaching and research focus of

168

departments. Teaching was such an expected part of a faculty member’s position that the
division head believed rewards should focus on other expectations:

[Y]ou're an excellent teacher. You will be given demerit or termination if you're

not an excellent teacher, but there we'll be going beyond the expectation of

excellence in teaching. That means if you're doing research we'll reward you by

giving appropriate merit pay increases . . .

The division head was a strong advocate for faculty, and a strong voice in the
scholarly focus of departments in the division. He wanted research to play a larger part
in tenure and promotion than it did at the time, and set up incentives for faculty to engage
in research.

The department was not responsible itself for hiring and reviewing faculty — a
divisional committee made those decisions. The division head made certain new faculty
in Physics and Chemistry were given light teaching loads in their ﬁrst year to foster their

research agendas — something the other departments did not have the luxury or the

research focus to promote.

Summary of Cases

The eleven cases proﬁled in this chapter represent different institutional
environments, different disciplinary approaches to teaching and scholarship, variable
levels of involvement with and obligation to the larger institutional mission, important
contributions from external accreditors, advisory boards, and foundations, and unique
climates shaped in part by external factors and in part by the convergence of interests,
concerns, and expertise of department members. Table 23 presents a synthesis and
comparison of the climates for teaching in the cases as a summary to this expository

chapter.

169

Course loads varied both within and between institutions, and were connected to

the department’s ability and need to have faculty buy out of courses for funded research,

consulting, or university service. Departments differed in how they supported new

faculty. Some could offer reduced teaching loads to new faculty to help them set up a

research program or concentrate on teaching skills. Some offered reductions in non-

teaching obligations, such as committee assignments and advising responsibilities.

Table 23

Predominant Teaching Approaches and Overall Climate for Teaching

 

 

Case Average Service Predominant Overall Climate for UG
teaching load teaching Teaching Teaching
obligation Approaches
UTK University Historical teaching focus
policy — 9 with more recent push for
credits per research university status
semester which creates uneven
quality/focus in departments
Physics 1 — 3 credit Moderate Lectures, Weak and split. UG teaching
course / homework, has not been a priority.
semester. laboratories, and Separate from larger college
Buy out normal out-of-class contact climate.
Civil 3 — 3 credit Light Lectures, Group Strong on innovation and
Engineering courses / year projects, industry- focused. Fostered by strong
Buy out based design college support.
necessary projects, co-ops and
internships
Business 2 — 3 credit Light Lecture/discussion, Relatively weak and split.
Admin. courses / group projects MBA receives more attention
semester if and rewards. College does
involved in not have strong climate
research. reaching down to
Some buy out departments that Engineering
has.
Romance 2 - 3 credit Heavy Reading/Discussion, Focused but defensive;
Languages courses / immersion, role- “plugging holes.” Little
semester. playing, multi- sense of support and
Banking for media and computer guidance from college
time off assisted lessons and

projects

 

170

 

 

TTech 15 credits/ Strong undergraduate focus.
semester Mission-driven to serve
mandated by speciﬁc student groups.
state Deeply ﬁscally constrained

Physics 3 — 3 credit Heavy Lectures, Focused and positive but
courses / homework, relatively weak on
semester laboratory, out-of- innovation. Separate and
Banking for class contact, privileged in college and
time off research with university

faculty

Mech. 5 — 3 credit Light Lecture, laboratory, Weak and somewhat

Engineering courses / year out-of-class contact, reluctant on innovation, but
Can buy out extra-curricular focused and positive on UG

activities teaching

Business 3 — 3 credit Light Lecture/discussion, Very strong and focused on
courses / Group projects, innovation. Positive climate
semester visiting experts fostered by college and
Some buy out furthered in department.
available Separate and privileged in

university.

English 4 — 3 credit Heavy Reading/discussion, Strong and focused on
courses / writing portfolios, innovation. Defensive within
semester peer editing, group university technology
Some reduction research projects, climate, but some sense of
for service lntemships support and guidance.

Fisk 12 credits / Strong historical mission and

University semester overall identity that foster core

values and focus. Nurturing
and caring for students.
Recovering from past ﬁscal
crises.
Physics 3 - 4 credit Light Lecture/homework, Relatively weak on
courses / laboratory, out-of- innovation. Somewhat
semester. class contact, separate from university due
Can buy out research to high funded research
Business 4 — 3 credit Light lntemships, visiting Interested in innovation but
courses / experts, group in transition.
semester projects, lecture /
No buy out discussion
English 3 — 4 credit Heavy Writing workshops, Focused on undergraduate
courses per peer editing, teaching; somewhat
semester reading/discussion, innovative. Strongly tied to
No buy out use of “non-canon” university climate through
texts core curriculum.

 

171

Departmental obligations to service teaching varied by discipline. Business and
engineering departments carried no service courses for the larger university community —
they taught only their own aspiring majors in lower divisions. English and languages
across all three institutions had the highest service obligation. Physics varied in its
obligations as a result of university general education or core curriculum requirements,
and requirements for other majors. Physics faculty at Fisk had no service teaching
obligation because the core curriculum focused on interdisciplinary science themes and
was taught from another department. TTech largely served the College of Engineering,
since the university did not have a general education requirement for Physics. The
Physics department at UTK offered lower division courses to fulﬁl university general
education options, as well as requirements for pre-medicine and engineering degrees.

Predominant teaching approaches all included lecture or lecture/discussion to
some degree. That degree varied predictably by discipline, but less predictably by
department. Finally, departmental climates also varied by discipline, and by institution to
an extent, but also varied due to other factors highlighted above. I will explore those

differences in depth in the next chapter.

172

CHAPTER 6

CROSS CASE ANALYSIS

Important similarities and differences emerged among the three institutions and
11 cases studied. Just as the predominant teaching approaches among different
departments in the same institution vary from traditional lecture and testing to more
innovative collaborative methods, climates in those departments varied in degrees of their
focus on and support for undergraduate teaching. The case analysis was undertaken to
answer the third research question in this study: How departmental climates for teaching
are created and fostered, what inﬂuences them, and how they mediate the effects of
factors at other levels on departments and individual faculty. This chapter uses the case
proﬁles presented in Chapter 5 as the basis for a discussion of each part of the question.
The ﬁrst section examines characteristics of departments and their teaching climates,
compares their differences, and when possible, traces their origins. The second section
explores organizational actions, policies, and other factors that inﬂuence departmental

climates. The third section discusses how departmental climates mediate other factors in

the institution that can affect faculty teaching approaches.

Dimensions of Departmental Climate

The cases illustrated the variety among similar departments in different
institutions and different departments in single institutions with regard to undergraduate

teaching, commitment to innovation, and key elements of departmental teaching climate.

173

Academic discipline, leadership, resources, collegiality, teaching loads and obligations,

and engagement in teaching improvement were all important, and varied in the ways they

affected teaching.

Discipline

Academic discipline was signiﬁcantly associated with predominant teaching
approaches. Physics departments at all three institutions employed homogeneous
classroom teaching approaches, largely lectures, homework problems, traditional testing
situations. All three relied on student contact with faculty outside of the classroom - one-
on-one tutorials for homework or research projects and jobs — for what they considered
the “real” learning that students achieve. Business departments all focused on group
projects and formal presentations for helping students learn to work in the kinds of
settings they will enter after graduation. Engineering departments integrated group
design projects into their courses to a greater or lesser degree. English and language
departments utilized discussion, peer work, and writing workshops and portfolios.

Differences emerged in the level of commitment to innovative teaching
approaches among departments. In this study, Civil Engineering at UTK was much more
committed to incorporating design throughout the curriculum than was Mechanical
Engineering. Many faculty in the Civil Engineering department used group design
projects and other collaborative approaches in numerous courses. In the Mechanical
Engineering department at TTech, only the few faculty teaching senior capstone courses
were engaging students in group design projects. Faculty in the College of Business at
UTK used group projects in many classes, but many were not looking beyond them for

other active and collaborative approaches. As a result, students were fatigued by the

174

repeated use of that one approach, and the out of class time needed for it. One faculty
member in Romance Languages had developed computer-based tutorials that students
could work on alone or in groups that increased their enthusiasm and proﬁciency. While
her colleagues were using discussion and other peer interactions, few were interested in
following in her footsteps. These differences in commitment had less to do with
disciplinary norms than with other factors within departments, such as leadership,
resources, collegiality, and teaching obligations. Similarities in teaching approaches
appeared to be inﬂuenced by academic discipline, but differences appeared to be

inﬂuenced by other factors.

Leadership

Massey, Wilger, & Colbeck (1994) noted the importance of leadership from
chairs of departments they labeled collegial. Respondents in departments with the
strongest climate for teaching in this analysis described department chairs and heads as
catalysts and supporters of that climate. For example, Civil Engineering faculty at UTK
indicated that their chair and the college provided strong leadership and support for their
focus on innovative undergraduate teaching and learning. The Chair of Decision
Sciences in the College of Business at TTech was a visible leader for excellence and
innovation for the department.

Leadership also played an important role in departments in which a relatively
weak climate seemed to be in transition to a stronger focus on undergraduate teaching
and learning. The head of Physics at UTK was noted for his and his associate’s efforts to
focus on undergraduate majors, even though the department as a whole had not

historically given attention to them. They described their roles in terms of refocusing the

175

attention of largely research-oriented faculty back toward the classroom and toward
approaches other than lecture.

Chairs as leaders served as buffers against the negative inﬂuences of institutional
or state factors that might disrupt the teaching climate of the departments. The chair of
Romance Languages at UTK was described as sensitive to faculty needs and stresses
under constrained circumstances. He did what was within his power to support faculty
teaching in a resource-poor department that did not beneﬁt from substantial college or
institutional-level support. The chair of Physics at TTech played a similar role, although
he and his faculty felt much more support and leadership from their college.

Lack of leadership from the chair could result in a weak climate for teaching.
Business faculty at UTK did not discuss leadership on the parts of chairs in their
departments, nor did faculty in Mechanical Engineering at TTech. The chair of that
department seemed unable to think of ways to motivate faculty to change. His was the
“thankless job” by his own and others’ opinions, rather than a leadership role. The
climate for teaching in that department was attentive to undergraduates but unenthusiastic
about change.

This is a climate factor not modeled quantitatively; no variables in the HERI data
set adequately addressed the issue of departmental or institutional leadership in
undergraduate teaching and learning. The cases, however, illustrate the powerful role

departmental leaders play in the climate for teaching.

Resources and Rewards

All three institutions had faced ﬁscal decline and budget reductions prior to our

site visits. UTK and TTech were weathering cuts in state funding and the vagaries of state

176

funding policy. Fisk, which was dependent on tuition dollars and did not have a large
endowment, was recovering from enrollment ﬂuctuations. The discussions with all
respondents were suffused with references to ﬁnancial constraints.

Departments within UTK differed greatly in their ﬁscal health and support from
externally funded research and endowments. The same dynamic was evident at TTech
and at Fisk. Departments able to harness resources external to the budgets allocated to
them by the institution could better support faculty research and teaching, encourage
professional development, and provide more instructors to spread the teaching load more
evenly. The collective perception in many departments was that these additional
resources made the difference between adequate and excellent teaching. Business
Administration at TTech used foundation funds primarily to improve undergraduate
education and support faculty teaching efforts. Civil Engineering at UTK shifted the
burden of supporting graduate education onto faculty while protecting university funds
for undergraduate education. The department utilized an unconventional collaborative
budgeting process by which a certain percentage of all grant recoveries were pooled and
then divided evenly across faculty to give each faculty member a small account within
the department. The College of Engineering at UTK also pooled funds that otherwise
would have offered little to individual departments into college-wide labs and student
learning resources.

External resources were not necessarily a factor in teaching climates in all
departments. Physics at UTK, possibly the most resource-rich department proﬁled,
focused most of its resources on graduate education and funded research. The Physics

department at Fisk had a similar proﬁle. The use of foundation funds in the College of

177

Business Administration at UTK had some focus on undergraduate education
improvement. Other funds, however, primarily supported more general faculty needs the
university could not, e.g., computers and travel funds.

The importance of externally generated resources to departmental climates is best
highlighted by departments lacking such resources. Romance Languages at UTK,
English at TTech, and English and Business at Fisk all relied almost completely on
university funds for operation. As a result, all had faculty lines left unﬁlled or recently
eliminated, the highest teaching loads, little ability to allow faculty to buy out of courses,
fewer technology resources for faculty and students, and a “no frills” environment that
bordered on crisis. The impact on faculty teaching included fewer elective courses for
students, less technology to assist instruction, and a perception by faculty that, while their
departments might be supportive of innovative teaching, ﬁnding the time and resources to
undertake such innovation was a large challenge.

The cases illustrate an interaction between resources and other factors in
departmental climate. By themselves, resources impact teaching and learning through
faculty access to equipment, materials, and training and development. Resources also
play a role in rewards for teaching. Departments at UTK and TTech reported having no
way to reward teaching through merit salary increases because the state had not approved
funds for merit in a number of years. Lack of resources translated into the inability to
reward faculty in the most fundamental way — through raises. For some departments, this
resource constraint felt insurmountable. Administrators in Mechanical Engineering at
TTech were uncertain how to motivate and reward good teaching without offering salary

increases. Other departments found ways to reward teaching by means not connected to

178

salaries such as departmental recognition and awards, positive tenure and promotion
decisions, support for new ideas, time off for banked courses, and other low- and no-cost
approaches.

The perception that resources were tight pervaded all departments in the case
analysis in large part because of the state funding climate for higher education. Some
departments were able to mediate the effects of funding shortages through externally
generated resources. Others did not have access to such resources and attempted to
mediate the effects of funding shortages through means that did not require money.
Departmental perceptions of what “rewarding good teaching” entailed was often
connected to perceptions of resource constraints, especially in departments for whom

rewards were equated with salary increases.

C ollegiality

The role of collegiality in departmental teaching climate is not clear from the
cases. In terms of commitment to instructional innovation, some highly collegial
departments were the most innovative, for example, Civil Engineering at UTK and the
Decision Sciences in Business at TTech. Both sets of faculty and administrators
expressed the depth of the collegial nature of their respective departments. Other
departments that were highly collegial were not very committed to instructional
innovation. Physics faculty at TTech felt that the level of collegiality they shared was
noticed even outside the department. As a group, however, they were very satisﬁed with
teaching the way physics has traditionally been taught — lecture and problems. Their
perception that students self-select or are chosen to be Physics majors added to their

sense of collegiality, but also reinforced traditional teaching approaches.

179

The converse of the collegiality/innovation relationship is easier to see. Cases in
which respondents spoke little about the collegiality within the department and most
about “being left alone” — either the value of it or the reality of it — were the least focused
on undergraduate teaching and innovation. The Physics department at UTK is a good
example. Faculty spoke most about the freedom they had to teach anything and any way
they wished, but had little to say about working with colleagues on issues of teaching and
learning (as did Civil Engineering at UTK) or feeling a part of a collegial group (as did
Romance Languages at UTK and Physics at TTech). The College of Business at UTK fell
into this category as well. The collegial anchor for this college was the MBA program,
not the departments. Faculty use of active and collaborative teaching in undergraduate
courses was moderate. Mechanical Engineering at TTech was focused on undergraduate
education, but respondents were not enthusiastic about new teaching approaches or the

kind of collaborative efforts with which the Civil Engineering department at UTK was

involved.

Teaching Loads, Service Teaching, and Satisfaction with Teaching Loads

Teaching loads in departments were largely a function of institutional or state
policy and external resources, and were highly department-speciﬁc. No two departments
in any institution had the same set of criteria for assigning courses to faculty. Each
institution had a requirement that faculty teach a certain number of credits per semester:
12 at UTK, 15 at TTech, 12 at Fisk. Actual course loads were determined by the amount
of research (funded and bought out, or in general) in which faculty were involved, the
number of vacant faculty positions in the department, whether or not the department had

a course banking system, and the departmental service teaching obligation.

180

Service teaching obligations, perceptions about them, and the ways they were
addressed differed by institution as well as by department. A department’s obligation to
teach courses that were tied to the general education and core curricular requirements of
the larger university was closely associated with discipline. Particular science and
humanities departments carried the burden of planning and stafﬁng lower division and
general education courses in addition to addressing the needs of their majors. In this case
analysis, service courses in Physics, Romance Languages, and English were seen as both
the mainstay of departments and a hindrance to offering advanced courses for majors.
These departments depended on the service obligation and the faculty positions it created
in the department. Respondents in physics departments at all institutions pointed out that
the size of their faculties was disproportionately large for the number of undergraduate
majors they served. Fisk had research faculty on grant funds that were separate from the
smaller teaching and research faculty. The department did not have a service obligation
to the larger university. Physics at UTK hired instructors to teach service courses and
free up the time of tenure-stream faculty. Physics faculty at TTech shared the load and
saw it as part of their teaching commitment.

Whether a department hired extra instructors or used graduate assistants to teach
service courses depended somewhat on the institution. Fisk University had no graduate
programs except in selected sciences. English faculty taught both the core and their own
major courses. Physics and English faculty at TTech taught both service and major
courses, but the English department had several instructors and adjuncts to augment the
full-time faculty. Although Romance Languages at UTK relied on service courses for

departmental revenue, tenure-track faculty did not teach many of those courses.

181

Teaching assistants, under the direction of one faculty member, taught ﬁrst and second
year language courses. Department faculty taught majors and minors beyond the second
year.

Fisk faculty felt that the quality of the English major they could offer students was
adversely impacted by their obligation to the core. Their approaches to teaching,
however, did not seem to differ between the two types of courses. Even core courses at
Fisk were as small or smaller than upper level courses at UTK. Faculty members were
able to use discussion, writing workshops, and other active and collaborative approaches
in those courses

Some of the more innovative efforts in less innovative departments were
employed in service courses. The web-assisted astronomy course taught in the UTK
Physics department attempted to capture the interest of non-science students by focussing
on the most apparent and mysterious evidence of theories of physics — the stars and the
universe. The courses were large (200+ students) but the instructor and her assistants
were in the process of creating materials, images, and interactive learning modules for the
web to support student learning. No other physics faculty at UTK we spoke with showed
an interest in this kind of teaching approach. Likewise the Physics for Teachers course at
TTech employed experiential learning approaches that allowed students to discover
principles through exploration of active experiments.

Some departments with the lightest teaching loads, and whose faculty were most
satisﬁed with their teaching loads, were least focused on undergraduate teaching and least
committed to instructional innovation. Faculty in Physics at UTK and TTech, Business

at UTK, and Mechanical Engineering at TTech expressed the least difﬁculty in balancing

182

their teaching and research obligations, and the greatest satisfaction with their teaching
loads. Those departments whose faculty taught more in general used more active and
collaborative approaches. These case ﬁndings parallel those of the quantitative analysis,

and are most likely tied to disciplinary norms for teaching, course loads, and research.

Engagement in Teaching Improvement

The inﬂuence of departmental engagement in teaching enhancement — an
important factor in the quantitative model — was difficult to assess in these cases. The
interview protocols did not probe for faculty development engagement in a way that
could elicit clear patterns. Some administrators and faculty commented on the
availability of faculty development at the institution. At Fisk, administrators indicated
that the university offered a variety of faculty development and teaching improvement
seminars and workshops. Faculty respondents, however, felt that the institution did not
offer much professional development or provide support for faculty to attend workshops
outside the institution. Some Civil Engineering faculty at UTK discussed ideas about
teaching they had picked up at national meetings. Romance Language faculty at UTK
also talked about incorporating ideas they had learned about through teaching workshops
and national meetings. The lack of systematic discussion among faculty and
administrators in all departments, however, makes it difficult to elaborate on the ﬁndings
of the quantitative analysis. This is an area of inﬂuence on faculty teaching practice that

bears further exploration.

183

Inﬂuences on Departmental Climate

The case department climates were inﬂuenced to varying degrees by factors at
distinct organizational levels. The strongest inﬂuences came from colleges, and ﬁ'om
external sources, such as accrediting bodies and advisory boards. Institution-level
inﬂuences on departmental climates included the university’s recent ﬁnancial health and
its consequences, such as hiring freezes, leadership for teaching and learning, and

institutional history, mission, and culture.

College Support

Departments with strong climates for teaching beneﬁted from the support of
colleges with similarly strong climates. Civil Engineering at UTK, Decision Sciences at
TTech, and Physics at Fisk University all resided in colleges that gave departments and
faculty a clear message about expectations for teaching excellence, strong leadership in
the form of visible, proactive deans, and support for teaching expectations through
college policies and resources.

The Dean of the College of Engineering at UTK set expectations for attention to
undergraduate education for departments, was visibly involved with the change efforts,
and found funding for those change efforts. Departments in the college that followed his
lead were rewarded.

In contrast, the Dean of the College of Business at UTK, as well as his
administrative staff, acknowledged that the MBA program was the priority of the college,
seemed to work largely in the background on issues of undergraduate teaching and
learning, and did not connect rewards in the college to undergraduate teaching efforts.

Likewise, the Dean of Engineering at TTech sm'mised that the college’s approach to

184

teaching could change “over the next 10 years” as old faculty retired and new faculty
were hired. He was new to the position, and had not yet created a leadership role for
himself or a clear message about undergraduate teaching for the college.

An administrator in the College of Arts and Science at UTK noted that
departments differed signiﬁcantly in their commitment to and engagement in teaching
excellence, and that the college on the whole did not interfere with that dynamic. Such
an approach at the college level, especially a college made up of such divergent
departments, could be interpreted as enlightened, allowing departments to ﬁnd their own
strengths. The confusion about expectations expressed by Romance Language faculty at
UTK (as well as the department’s precarious footing), however, and the inattention to
undergraduate teaching evident in Physics, indicate a need for strong college support and
reward for teaching.

Colleges within larger universities could buffer departments from ﬁscal problems,
foster attention to and rewards for teaching and learning through leadership, and set the
tone for departmental climates by maintaining a strong college-level climate for teaching.
Colleges without strong climates for teaching can send mixed signals to departments
about what activities are valued and rewarded, and whether or not departments can look

outside themselves for support and leadership.

Institutional Inﬂuences

The cases demonstrated the inﬂuence of institutional mission, history, culture, and
recent policy, as well as leadership for teaching and learning, on departmental-level
climates. The mission and history of the institutions shaped the general parameters

within which departments existed, and as such, had an inﬂuence on the focus of

185

departments. The strongest example is Fisk University, whose historic mission as one of
the country’s ﬁnest HBCUs, size, and core curriculum heavily inﬂuenced faculty focus
on undergraduate teaching and learning. Departments were small, and for the most part,
looked to the overall university for direction and focus.

UTK’s historical mission as a teaching-oriented land-grant university changed to
that of a Research I land-grant. This recent history affected both faculty perspectives and
institutional expectations for teaching and research, salary structures, and tenure and
promotion criteria. Much like Finnegan’s (1993) typology of faculty generations, I found
distinct groups of faculty based in part on when they joined the institution. Finnegan
connected cohorts to the academic labor markets at various time periods over the last 30
years. Some were hired during the institution’s teaching-oriented era, and did not have
expectations of research. These correspond with Finnegan’s Boomers, those hired prior to
1972, who were part of the tremendous expansion of universities that took place after
World War 11. Others hired to increase the institution’s research proﬁle had fewer
expectations about teaching. These correspond to Finnegan’s Brahmins, hired between
1972 and 1982, who entered the academic labor market at a time of rapid recession.
Proteans, those hired after 1983, are part of a replacement trend as older faculty retire.
Finnegan found that cohort membership may directly inﬂuence faculty preferences and
expectations for research and teaching. Faculty members hired prior to the shift to a
stronger research orientation at UTK complained of salary compression caused by
increases in the starting salaries offered newer faculty, stagnant merit structures, and
shifting priorities for raises. Departments in the sciences and business were particularly

affected by this phenomenon because they competed with the private sector for good

186

Ph.D.s. Massey, Wilger, & Colbeck (1994) found that large discrepancies in salaries and
assignments were associated with departments that exhibited low levels of collegiality.
Priorities and expectations for tenure and promotion were affected by the shift to a
research orientation. Recently hired faculty faced higher expectations for balancing good
teaching with a research agenda than did senior faculty in their departments.

TTech’s mission as a regional institution shaped its approach and commitment to
students who might not be prepared for college-level work. At the same time, as the only
technological university in the state, TTech also had high expectations for student
performance. These elements of the institution’s mission inﬂuenced departmental
climates through funding, salary differentials, and prestige of programs. By
benchmarking the university against other comprehensive universities rather than other
technological universities, the state board neglected to take into account the higher costs
of supporting science, engineering, and technology education. Combined with a state
formula that was not fully funded for years, the ﬁnancial situation at the university
created salary inequities between senior and junior faculty as well as between
Engineering and Sciences and the Humanities. The “prestige gap” between Engineering
and Humanities was a result of this funding and salary inequity as well as of the overall
technological mission of the university.

Leadership for teaching and learning from senior administrators, or a perceived
lack of leadership, can shape a department’s climate for teaching because institutional
leaders who are visible advocates for teaching send important messages to the
departments about what activities are valued. Departments in UTK had the most faculty

and administrators who said that institutional and college messages about the value of

187

teaching were unclear, or that the leadership for instructional innovation at the
institutional level had not been strong. A senior-level academic leader acknowledged
that he felt “too far away” from the faculty and from the activity of teaching and learning
to be an inﬂuence. He stated that inﬂuence would have to come “from the departments,
since that is where the reward structures are.”

Faculty and administrators at TTech, in general, saw both college and university
level leaders as advocates for teaching and learning. Deans of some colleges were very
visible leaders, especially the Dean of Business Administration (who, in 2000, became
the president of the university). Theobservation by a Physics faculty member that all
administrative levels at TTech supported teaching and learning is a contrast to the
comments faculty and some administrators had for UTK leadership. In part, the contrast
reﬂects their different institutional missions. It also reﬂects differences in the clarity of
leadership messages regarding the value of teaching.

Institutions can inﬂuence departmental climates for teaching by giving consistent
messages about the value and rewards for teaching. There is somewhat less evidence
from the cases that programmatic support for teaching enhancement at the institutional
level can inﬂuence departmental climates for teaching. This is an area that needs further

exploration.

Inﬂuences from Outside the Institution
The most prevalent inﬂuences on departmental climates from outside the
university came from accreditation agencies and the standards to which they hold

programs, and from advisory boards created by colleges and invited to critique programs

and graduates. Both types of oversight bodies inﬂuenced departments either directly or

188

through colleges, bypassing the institution level. In contrast, state-level inﬂuences such

as funding priorities affected departmental climates through the university and college

levels, rather than directly.

Accrediting agencies

Disciplines and departments for which accreditation is either possible or
necessary (largely in the “professions” such as engineering, business, and health care)
depend on their continued accreditation to attract faculty and students. As a result,
accrediting agencies may be their largest single inﬂuence on departmental teaching
climates. Accreditors set minimum standards for curriculum content and evaluation that
programs must meet, so a shift in philosophy or priorities on their part redirects the
priorities of departments. The standards set forth by ABET for design oriented curricula
that incorporate active and collaborative teaching and learning approaches was clearly
pushing the Mechanical Engineering department at TTech in directions it would not have
taken on its own. Civil Engineering at UTK took the opportunity early to use ABET 2000
to revise courses, incorporate design projects throughout the curriculum, and have
discussions about teaching and learning that have changed faculty teaching approaches.

Departments in under-funded institutions can also protect faculty lines, course
offerings, and resources for undergraduate teaching and learning by linking them to
accreditation criteria. The Division of Business Administration at Fisk is a good
example. The division had received accreditation shortly before our visit. Although it
had a number of positions in transition, it was able to protect the time and focus of the
internship director, as well as the open faculty lines. Departments without external

standards to meet may not fare as well in times of ﬁscal constraint.

189

Oversight and advisory boards
Advisory Boards were another external inﬂuence found largely in the professional

colleges and departments, and created by them as a link to the communities in which their
graduates seek careers. They were most often made up of representatives from local and
regional industry, often also alumni. These boards have strongly inﬂuenced
departmental curricula and teaching approaches — they advise departments on the kinds of
skills and knowledge they expect and hope for in graduates. Departments and colleges in
turn review and revise curricula and teaching approaches to emphasize priorities put
forward by boards. Engineering at UTK and Business at TTech both had strong positive
relationships with their advisory boards. Because these boards were initiated and
fostered by departments and colleges, their advice seemed more welcome than the
standards set by accrediting bodies or mandates from the state or institution.

The College of Business Administration at UTK was utilizing a grant given by an
alumnus to form an initiative on undergraduate curricular reform. The effort was still in

initial committee stage, so had not yet inﬂuenced the climates of departments or the

actions of faculty.

Departmental Climates as Mediators of Inﬂuence

I have highlighted the important mediating inﬂuences of departmental climates
for teaching throughout this cross-case comparison. Resource-rich departments protect
faculty ﬁom institutional and state budget constraints. Departments and colleges with
endowments, outside contracts, and signiﬁcant funded research were able to augment the
resources for undergraduate teaching provided by the institution and state. Others created

their own climates that were different from the larger college or university climate for

190

teaching. The Physics departments at all three institutions are the best example.
Resource-poor departments attempted to offset ﬁscal austerity with other compensation
such as time off from teaching after course-banking, protection from committee or

advising work for new faculty, or collegial work environments.

Summary

This cross-case analysis reveals the importance of academic discipline,
leadership, resources, collegiality, and teaching loads and obligations to departmental
teaching climate. These elements of climate combined and varied among the case
departments in both predictable and'unpredictable ways. They were inﬂuenced by
college-level leadership and climate, institutional history, culture, and leadership, and the
priorities of accrediting agencies and advisory boards.

Levels of inﬂuence are not completely linear and hierarchical. Extra-institutional
inﬂuences, such as accrediting criteria and advisory board mandates, can bypass
institutions to affect divisions and colleges, and can bypass them to inﬂuence speciﬁc
departments. Institutional and college-level climates can mediate inﬂuences coming
from outside, such as state-level budget cuts and assessment criteria, so that departments
do not feel their direct effects. College and department levels can maintain separate

climates from each other and the institution within which they reside.

191

CHAPTER 7

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

This study used a two-stage, mixed methods approach to examine the impact of
departmental climate for teaching on faculty teaching approaches, as well as the inﬂuence
of factors at other organizational levels that may affect both teaching approaches and
departmental climate. This chapter discusses the overall ﬁndings of the study, integrating
the quantitative and qualitative analyses, proposes a revised model of organizational
inﬂuence on teaching and discuss issues involved in exploring that model, and discusses

implications for policy and change strategies suggested by the ﬁndings.

Results

The results of the quantitative and qualitative analyses complemented each other
and provided a breadth and depth of analysis not possible in a single method approach
(Tashakorri & Teddlie, 1998). In some cases, such as with the inﬂuence of departmental
collegiality, the qualitative ﬁndings clariﬁed relationships and provided possible
explanations for results that were counter to those the model proposed. In other cases, as
with the role of leadership and resources in climate, the qualitative cases explored and
demonstrated the importance of dimensions of climate that the quantitative model could
not address. Likewise, the quantitative analysis modeled some inﬂuences that were not
addressed in the case data. For example, the interview protocol for the case data did not
contain direct questions about faculty development. The primary ﬁndings of both

analyses are discussed below.

192

Relative Inﬂuence of Departmental Climate for Teaching

This study conﬁrmed the assertions of researchers that the department is an
important nexus of extra-institutional, institutional, disciplinary, and personal inﬂuences
on faculty (Colbeck et al., 2001; Massey, Wilger & Colbeck, 1995), that departmental
climates are unique (Moran & Volkwein, 1988; Volkwein & Carbone, 1994), and that
they inﬂuence the use of active and collaborative teaching by individual faculty. It also
demonstrates that disciplines strongly inﬂuence department climates for teaching, but do
not determine them completely. Scholars have demonstrated the ways that disciplines
shape the values and ideas faculty bring to teaching (Becher & Trowler, 2001; Braxton,
1995). This study demonstrated that the climate created by a group of colleagues at a
particular institution also shapes teaching.

The dimensions of departmental climate for teaching that emerged from both
analyses as most important included the extent that departments engaged in faculty
development for teaching improvement, the leadership and support of departmental
chairs, the resources available to departments, and the perceptions of resources available
to the department. Departmental collegiality by itself was not a signiﬁcant predictor, but
its interaction with high-use disciplines was a signiﬁcant negative predictor of active and
collaborative teaching. Collective perceptions of student preparedness and departmental
membership in a high use discipline were positively associated with active and
collaborative teaching. Satisfaction with teaching loads, membership in a low-use
discipline, and departmental remedial education obligations were negatively associated

With use of active and collaborative teaching.

193

Departmental faculty development

Departmental engagement in faculty development was a dimension of climate for
teaching strongly associated with individual faculty teaching practice. Individual faculty
in departments with high levels of faculty engagement in teaching enhancement
workshops used active and collaborative teaching approaches more than faculty in
departments with lower engagement in teaching enhancement. This ﬁnding is true for all
faculty, but especially for male faculty. Males in such “high engagement” departments
used active and collaborative methods as much or nearly as much as their female
colleagues. Other studies (Antony & Boatsman, 1994; Einarson, 2000, 2001;
Fairweather, 2002; Milem & Wakai, 1996a and b) have found that women use active and
collaborative approaches more than men. As a dimension of departmental climate,
faculty development may have the power to encourage more involvement by male faculty
in active and collaborative teaching. This, as well as other quantitative ﬁndings in the
study, is based on corelational data. The study cannot fully distinguish the direction of the
association between faculty development and teaching approaches or determine a causal
relationship. It is possible that clusters of faculty already using active and collaborative
teaching are more inclined to attend teaching enhancement activities, rather than that
individual and collective engagement in teaching enhancement encourages greater use of

such approaches. As I discuss later, further research could clarify this relationship.

Leadership
The case analysis demonstrated the importance of leadership by department chairs

in promoting positive climates for teaching. Chairs had the power to foster strong
climates for teaching as well as to shift the departmental climates from weak and

inattentive to more focused on teaching. Chairs served as leaders for teaching climate by

194

giving faculty clear messages that excellent teaching was a departmental expectation,
consistently including discussion of teaching issues in department meetings, supporting
faculty teaching initiatives with funds and recognition, creating other rewards for good
teaching, and shaping departmental perceptions about resources. Departments in which
chairs were not able to enact such leadership seemed to have weaker climates for
teaching.

The impact of leadership was also apparent at other levels of colleges and
universities. College and institution-level leaders shaped the climate within which
departments operated, provided resources, and set expectations for departmental teaching

and research productivity.

Resources

The cases illustrated the differences between departments with externally funded
teaching supports and those without. The perception of how resources were spent, the
kinds of activities they funded, and their role in departmental success were also
important. All respondents discussed the tight budgets under which they operated. Some
departments viewed these constraints as almost insurmountable; others sought ways to
work around them. Those willing to seek ways around budgetary constraints seemed to

have stronger teaching climates.

Departmental collegiality
Departmental collegiality played a complex role in departmental teaching climate

in this study. Quantitative results indicated that faculty in departments with higher levels
of departmental collegiality at Research and Baccalaureate institutions reported lower use

of active and collaborative teaching than their colleagues in departments with lower

195

levels of collegiality. Likewise, faculty in departments in “high-use” disciplines that had
high levels of collegiality reported lower use of active and collaborative methods. The 11
cases did not necessarily support the interaction pattern modeled quantitatively. Many
faculty in Civil Engineering at UTK, a department with high collegiality at a research
university, used active and collaborative teaching approaches. Faculty in Physics at
TTech, a highly collegial department in a Comprehensive university and also a
department in the “low-use” disciplinary category, were very comfortable with traditional
teaching approaches and not eager to change. The case analysis also illustrated that
departments in which faculty were most satisﬁed with their teaching loads at both
baccalaureate and research institutions could be characterized as low-use. The Physics
departments at Fisk and UTK were similar in this respect.

One could interpret these ﬁndings in several ways. Departmental collegiality, as
modeled and operationalized quantitatively, did not have positive direct effects on active
and collaborative teaching. It inﬂuenced teaching in combination with disciplinary
constructs, and that interaction had a negative inﬂuence on use of such teaching methods.
The relationship of collegiality to teaching outcomes might be non-linear, or might be
dependent upon disciplines. Disciplinary variables were highly collinear with
departmental focus on teaching or research. It could be that departmental collegiality can
center on disciplinary norms for teaching and research.

The cases highlighted some departments that perceived themselves to have high
levels of collegiality but exhibited low use of active and collaborative teaching.
Departments with high use of active and collaborative teaching also perceived themselves

as highly collegial. Collegiality could reinforce the status quo in departments. Those

196

with high collegiality supporting the status quo of inattention to teaching issues and lack
of discussion around teaching change would still see themselves as highly collegial. This
scenario is very similar to what Massey, Wilger, and Colbeck (1994) described as
"hollowed" collegiality: lacking a true collegiality in which departments work together
on hard issues and collectively challenge themselves toward excellence. Collegiality
could also be a necessary, but not sufﬁcient, dimension of departmental teaching climate,
or may interact with other dimensions of departmental climate not modeled in this study.
It is possible that the cenceptualization and operationalization of departmental
collegiality for this study was not sufﬁciently related to teaching (Massey, Wilger &
Colbeck, 1994; Peterson & Spencer, 1990). There may be different kinds of collegiality
centering on teaching, research, administration, intellectual interactions, or social aspects
of departments, that do not necessarily overlap or play a part in faculty decision-making
about teaching approaches. The variables used in this study were general and oriented
toward professional and social relationships in departments. Perhaps the counter-
intuitive ﬁndings are a result of imprecise measurement. This dimension of departmental
teaching climate should be explored to clarify not only the relationships among
institutions, disciplines, and collegiality, but whether several kinds of collegiality exist in

departments, and what outcomes they may inﬂuence.

External Inﬂuences

Accrediting agencies, especially for business and engineering, have increasingly
required academic programs to develop curricula, teaching, and evaluation approaches
based on learning outcomes and on the development of student competencies (Colbeck et

al., 2001). The cases demonstrated an intersection of discipline and accreditation in many

197

departments — particularly those in the professions. The disciplinary effect on teaching in
those departments may have as much to do with accreditation as with disciplinary culture
and tradition. Engineering and business departments may be exhibiting higher use or
discussion of active and collaborative teaching as a result of their accreditation standards.
Accreditation standards appear to be in the process of shifting the climate for teaching in
some departments. Likewise, advisory boards in professional ﬁelds, which directly link
departments to the needs of the sectors hiring students, inﬂuence faculty teaching through
feedback on student preparedness for work. The quantitative model did not represent
these external inﬂuences, but the cases demonstrated their importance to departments in

professional ﬁelds.

Inﬂuences at Other Organizational Levels

The results of HLM indicated that only 2% of the variance in active and
collaborative teaching could be attributable to differences between institutions. The
institutional type variables modeled, and their interactions with lower-level predictors,
accounted for 30% of that variance. Institutional types were signiﬁcant as individual
predictors of active and collaborative teaching. When modeled with departmental and
individual level variables, however, they were signiﬁcant predictors only when
interactions with departmental factors were also modeled. An institution’s Carnegie
classiﬁcation appears to have less to do with faculty use of active and collaborative
teaching than its history, mission, reward policies, and leadership. The cases illustrated
the inﬂuences of speciﬁc institutional contexts on departmental climates and individual

faculty. UTK’s shift in teaching and research focus, TTech’s commitment to regional

198

students, and Fisk’s history as a springboard for doctoral study for African-American
students were important inﬂuences on departrnents' teaching climates.

Institutional leadership and policies also inﬂuenced departments. Institutional
leaders can set the agenda for teaching and learning, and can be powerful advocates for
innovation. College deans especially appeared to have the ability to inﬂuence the
climates in departments. Institutional leaders at TTech and Fisk took on that advocacy
role, but institutional leaders at UTK did not seem to feel they could reach individual
faculty. They left advocacy for teaching to lower administrative levels of the institution.
Although all administrators at UTK voiced the opinion that undergraduate teaching
should be important, some college-level leaders were visible advocates for attention to
undergraduate teaching, and others were not. Faculty in departments in colleges without
strong leadership for teaching (Physics, Romance Languages, and the departments within
the College of Business) expressed greater confusion about expectations for teaching and
research, and less identiﬁcation with a discemable departmental climate supporting
teaching.

An organizational level that was not explored by either approach in this study was
the departmental sub-group. Specialty areas, centers for research, and academic
programs all reside within departments, and may serve as the primary climate group for
faculty. Especially in large departments or those with divergent academic programs,
faculty may see their sub-group as more salient and inﬂuential than the department as a
whole. This sub-group identiﬁcation could lead to mismeasurement of departmental
climate dimensions such as collegiality when groups within departments vary in their

levels of collegiality around issues of teaching.

199

The existence of college-level and departmental sub-group inﬂuences and
climates for teaching may change the variance found in active and collaborative teaching.
For example, the variance accounted for by institutions (2%) might include important
variance attributable to colleges within universities. The variance at the department level
(17%) could be an over-estimation that includes college-level inﬂuences. The large
amount of variance attributed to the individual level might contain important
departmental sub-group variance and therefore underestimate group variances. Modeling
these levels could lead to a more precise understanding of the roles of all levels in

individual teaching practices.

Inﬂuences at the Individual Level

The individual variables modeled and examined in this study accounted for only
4% of the possible 81% of the variance in active and collaborative teaching that exists at
the individual level. This means that very few of the factors that vary among individual
faculty to inﬂuence their use of active and collaborative teaching were modeled.

Some of the modeled variables yielded results that may be connected to higher
level inﬂuences. An individual faculty member's total number of courses is positively
associated with his or her use of active and collaborative teaching. As one goes up, so
does the other. This could be interpreted to mean that if faculty were assigned a higher
course load, their use of active and collaborative teaching would increase. More likely is
that course loads are associated with disciplines, departmental structures, rank, and other
factors that were not fully modeled, and that those factors inﬂuence both the number of
courses an individual faculty member is assigned and his or her willingness to engage in

active and collaborative teaching.

200

The study ﬁndings indicate that active and collaborative teaching use is higher in
upper—division undergraduate courses, and that individual faculty perceptions of student
preparedness for college-level work is associated with its use. Further, faculty teaching
more general education courses and in departments with higher remedial courses use
active and collaborative approaches in fewer of their classes. These ﬁndings point to the
need to explore faculty beliefs about teaching and learning in general and the value of
active and collaborative teaching for particular student groups or course topics. Some
faculty interviewed for the cases held strong views that there were unacceptable trade-
offs in using active and collaborative approaches; content was lost in the attempt to
approach teaching and learning differently. These beliefs can consciously or
unconsciously contribute to departmental teaching climates that view active and
collaborative teaching as a luxury for other faculty or departments with less content to
"cover" or with students who already know how to work collaboratively.

An alternative interpretation of the results of this study involves overloaded
faculty using group projects, peer evaluation, and other active and collaborative
approaches as defensive teaching measures. A faculty member with higher course loads,
lower satisfaction with their course loads, and a lower sense of collegiality within their
departments, might engage in active and collaborative teaching as a way to "off-load"
their own preparations and better manage their own time spent on teaching. The research
questions and design of this study did not challenge an implicit assumption that faculty
who report the use of active and collaborative teaching practices use them well and in

ways consistent with the philosophical arguments that promote them. The results of the

201

study, however, call into question any simple explanation for reasons that faculty chose
different pedagogical approaches.

Exploring faculty beliefs about and reasons for using active and collaborative
teaching could add to the individual variance explained in faculty teaching practices. It
could also form a dimension of departmental climate directly and indirectly in
combination with other factors such as collegiality. This study demonstrated the
importance of individual and collective perceptions of student preparedness. Individual
and collective views of the usefulness and relevance of active and collaborative teaching
approaches, as well as the reasons faculty give for using these approaches, should be

modeled.

Creating, Fostering, and Inﬂuencing Departmental Teaching Climates

Collective perceptions and actions of faculty largely create the climate for
teaching in departments. The quantitative model and the qualitative cases both support
the idea that departmental climate is created and fostered by the members of the
department. Departmental chairs play key roles in fostering departmental climate,
serving as catalysts for climate change, and protecting departmental climates from
external inﬂuences. Structural dimensions of departments such as teaching loads and
obligations are also important to climate. Faculty development and other departmental
and institutional initiatives to support teaching may affect departmental climates when a
critical mass of faculty in a department engage in such initiatives. Institutional leaders
and policy-makers inﬂuence departmental climates, as do accreditation and advisory
boards, through messages about the importance of teaching and learning at the

undergraduate level, whether or not the institution will reward and recognize teaching

202

excellence, the kinds of skills and knowledge graduates should have, and the resources

available to support teaching and learning.

Revised Model and Future Research

The ﬁndings of this study warrant a review of the proposed model of
departmental climate for teaching, and revision of the dimensions and relationships it
represents. Figure 5 contains the revised model. Some factors proposed in the initial
model were ultimately poor predictors of active and collaborative teaching and are
removed from the revised model. Other factors should remain in the model but be
operationalized differently in future research. New factors and potential dimensions of
climate for teaching are proposed in the revised model based on the ﬁndings of this study.
Departmental sub-group, college, and external levels are also added to the model. The
model is discussed in detail below, as are issues attendant with its use in future studies.
Further research directions are also discussed.

The results of the case study indicate that predictors at the institutional level could
be expanded to include dimensions such as recent ﬁnancial circumstances (as distinct
from its total revenues or expenditures), leadership, historic focus on teaching and
research, and current policies regarding teaching and learning. Institutional type should
be modeled, but may not be as signiﬁcant a factor at the institutional level if other
dimensions of institutions are modeled. Also important are faculty members’ perceptions
of their department’s and institution’s ﬁnancial health. Prior studies have examined
faculty perceptions of available resources (Einarson, 2001), but not how faculty perceive

those resources affecting them and their departments.

203

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

INSTITUTION EXTERNAL
CHARACTERISTICS INFLUENCES
o Carnegie Classiﬁcation 0 Accreditation
0 Financial Health Standards
0 Leadership, History 0 Endowments and
Resources
0 Advisorv Grouns
COLLEGE
CHARACTERISTICS
0 Leadership
0 Resources
0 Homogeneity

 

 

 

 

DEPARTMENT LEVEL

DEPARTMENT COLLECTIVE CLIMATE
CHARACTERISTICS o Perceptions of rewards and

0 Departmental teaching _' resources
focus and pnorrtres o Collegiality (multiple

 

 

0 Departmental teaching measures)
399. 1' f 0 Leadership
0 rscrp Inary ocus on D artm tal t' f
teaching \ o stigma en percep Ions o
0 Engagement in teaching
enhancement
DEPARTMENTAL . Collective beliefabout
SUB'G ROUP active and collaborative
CHARACTERISTICS

teaching and learning

 
 

- Subogroup teaching
focus and priorities
0 teaching load

 

 

 

 

 

\ INDIVIDUAL

 

 

 

INDIVIDUAL OUTCOME .
CHARACTERISTICS 0 Faculty use of active
0 Rank, Gender a teaching methods

 

0 Other teaching

 

0 Personal focus on

 

 

teaching or research

0 Engagement in teaching
enhancement

0 Beliefs about active and
collaborative teaching

0 Beliefs about students

- Perceptions of rewards

0 Perception of influences

 

 

 

 

Figure 5. Revised Model of Departmental Climate for Teaching

204

Individual level predictors excluded from the revised model include: an
individual's perception that his or her research is valued by his or her department, the
total hours per week one spends on teaching activities, and work prior to one's present
teaching position. Race and age were not associated with the use of active and
collaborative teaching when tested hierarchically with other variables taken into account.
Individual factors could be expanded to include beliefs about active and collaborative
teaching and learning, perceptions of internal and external inﬂuences on teaching, and
perceptions of leadership at the department and institutional level regarding teaching.
The model indicated that 81% of the variance in active and collaborative teaching resides
at the individual level, but this study only explained 4% of that variance. It would be
fruitful to identify individual-level factors that both directly affect a faculty member’s
teaching approaches and aggregate to the departmental level as climate constructs.

The department level represents 17% of the variance in active and collaborative
teaching. The dimensions of departments modeled in this study explained 45% of that
variance. Predictors that were not retained as dimensions of departmental climate for
teaching include perceptions of the value of faculty members’ research by departments.
This ﬁnding supports previous research that identiﬁed separate research and teaching
climates in departments (Volkwein & Carbone, 1994). Also dropped from the revised
model are collective hours spent on teaching activities, prior work, collective perceptions
that faculty research is valued, and satisfaction with teaching loads.

The role of departmental collegiality in teaching climate should be explored with
different predictors that represent more teaching-related collegial interactions, rather than

general collegial relations. Examples might be: the frequency of conversations about

205

teaching and learning, perceptions of collective agreement about the kinds of teaching
and learning best suited to the department's students, perceptions of the level of collegial
intellectual interaction in the department, faculty members' respect for each other as
teachers, and their level of willingness to open their teaching to the critique of their
colleagues. Testing such dimensions of collegiality might yield clearer relationships
between collegiality, discipline, institutional type, and teaching approaches.

Some individual and departmental factors modeled best viewed as interacting
with discipline. For example, course loads, time spent on teaching, departmental focus
on research or teaching, collegiality, and satisfaction with teaching were all affected by
the disciplinary variables in the models. The parameters and contents of the disciplinary
dimension of departmental teaching climate should be further speciﬁed.

Climate for teaching and other factors used at the departmental level can be tested
at the department sub-group level to assess their salience. Factors that were weak or
contradictory at the department level may have systematic sub-group effects. Likewise,
college-level factors such as leadership, resources, and the homogeneity of departments
within colleges can be tested as potential inﬂuences on teaching outcomes and on
departmental climates for teaching. The association of external inﬂuences such as
accreditation standards, advisory boards, and endowments and resources with colleges as

well as on departments are represented in the revised model in light of their importance in

the case analysis.

Issues Involved in Testing the Revised Model

Taken as a whole, the revised model represents six potential levels of inﬂuence on

an individual faculty member's use of active and collaborative teaching. These levels are

206

conceptually sound, and ideal research would account for all of them. That prospect,
however, is daunting. Currently, no analytic method exists that can simultaneously
examine and hold constant factors at that many levels. HLM is capable of testing models
with only two or three levels. The relatively small amount of variance between
institutions would support the removal of that level from future models. Single
institution data could be used to examine college, department, sub-department, and
individual-level data, but those levels would have to be tested in different three-level
conﬁgurations and their results extrapolated instead of directly assessed.

The HERI faculty survey data used in this study would not be appropriate to test
college-level or sub-departmental inﬂuences since neither intra-institutional college
affiliations nor departmental sub-groups were speciﬁed by survey respondents. Such
model testing would require data collected speciﬁcally for testing levels of inﬂuence.
Again, single institution data could provide those levels. Allowing faculty to identify the
groups they most identify with rather than arbitrarily grouping them into departments
would provide sub-departmental groups.

The qualitative case data used in this study addressed all levels to a certain extent.
A qualitative approach to exploration of new levels in this model could yield insight into
the most important levels on which to focus. In addition, qualitative inquiry could be
used to examine faculty beliefs and attitudes about active and collaborative teaching,
dimensions of disciplines that affect departments, and possible variants of collegiality
prior to attempts to quantitatively operationalize them. Constructs created through this
kind of thick descriptive approach will have a stronger conceptual grounding than was

possible using the data available for this study.

207

Further Research

This research proposed and tested dimensions of climate for teaching. Given the
nature of the data used and the inherent limitations of secondary data analysis, the results
are quite promising for further research into teaching climates in college and universities.
Peterson et al. (1986) expressed concern about the dated nature of organizational climate
instruments created for higher education use. To date, no instrument has been created and
tested that addresses speciﬁc dimensions and outcomes of teaching climates. Given the
current concern about fostering faculty engagement in effective undergraduate teaching,
such an instrument could be an important tool for institutional examination and change.
The results of this study point to several dimensions of teaching climate at departmental
and institutional levels that should be further deﬁned and explored. Most were discussed
in detail above. Qualitative exploration of those dimensions prior to creation and testing
of an instrument would provide details regarding their parameters not possible with a
quantitative study.

I used aetive and collaborative teaching as the outcome of this climate model.
Other teaching behaviors and attitudes - both at the individual and at the departmental
level — could be explored to determine their relationship with departmental teaching
climate. For example, this study did not explore technology factors, either as predictors
of teaching practice or as outcomes such as technology integration into teaching. Given
the sea-change that technology has already affected in higher education, and its potential
for facilitating active and collaborative teaching and learning in classrooms and at a
distance, this line of inquiry would be timely and relevant. Another timely outcome that

could by examined using this model is faculty choice to address multi-cultural issues in

208

their courses. Department outcomes in such areas could also be explored by aggregating
individual outcome data to the departmental level and assessing collective departmental
inﬂuences on group practices. Doing so may provide a more accurate portrait of the

collective practices of departments.

Implications for Policy and Change Strategies

This study aimed to identify organizational inﬂuences on faculty engagement in
active and collaborative teaching that could potentially inform more effective strategies
and policies to support such teaching. The study results suggest that several important
inﬂuences are amenable to change, and strategies that institutional policy-makers might
consider to support faculty attention to undergraduate teaching. They include faculty
development, leadership, resource allocation and articulation, active and collaborative
teaching for all students, and the need to focus strategies on departments within speciﬁc

institutional contexts.

Faculty Development

The multi-level analysis identiﬁed engagement in teaching improvement as the
greatest individual and departmental association with the way faculty teach beyond
disciplinary membership. The importance of this ﬁnding lies in the potentially innovative
approaches to faculty development it suggests. Although faculty development programs
have long advocated active and collaborative learning, they have traditionally focused on
the needs and interests of individual faculty (Austin, Beach, Eddy & Sorcinelli, 2002;
Centra, 1976; Erickson, 1986). Programs for teaching improvement might be extensive,

but individual faculty must motivate themselves to attend and participate. Most faculty

209

development programs have not been used strategically by their institutions to change
teaching climates or foster teaching change in departmental groups (Austin, Sorcinelli,
Eddy & Beach, 2002). If departmental climates for teaching can inﬂuence the teaching
choices of faculty, focusing on groups rather than individuals and fostering strong
teaching climates as a speciﬁc faculty development approach may achieve greater results.

Such an approach to faculty development might involve faculty developers
working long-term with department chairs, teaching them the leadership skills they need
to foster strong teaching climates in their departments. Developers might work with
departmental groups or sub-groups to help them examine their teaching practice, the
beliefs about teaching and learning that inform that practice, the assumptions they hold
about what does and does not work in the classroom, and the level of their collegiality
around issues of teaching. These kinds of discussions would foster the "true collegiality"
that Massey, Wilger & Colbeck found in only a few isolated academic departments.
Those few departments, however, were the most committed to teaching excellence.
Faculty developers hoping to change departmental climates for teaching might work to
foster collegiality within departments around issues of teaching and learning as well as
provide instruction into different approaches to teaching.

Viewing developers as "process consultants" to departments is very different from
current faculty development practices (Austin, Beach, Eddy & Sorcinelli, 2002; Centra,
1976; Erickson, 1986). This focus on group process is more organizational development
than faculty development, and would require both the active cooperation of department

groups and a shift in focus, training, and perhaps philosophy for faculty developers.

210

The results of this study indicate that the potential of faculty development as an
intentional lever for organizational as well as individual change in teaching is very
promising. No other studies have demonstrated such a strong link between collective
engagement in faculty development and use of particular teaching approaches. These
ﬁndings raise questions about alternative ways faculty development might be
approached: departmentally rather than individually, as a process of group learning
rather than as individual consultation and improvement, and as a lever for climate change

and institutional improvement.

Leadership

Leaders, at the department and institution levels, play a key role in creating and
sustaining teaching climates. The cases demonstrate that departmental leaders are
critical to creating and fostering strong climates for teaching. Institutional leaders who
convey clear ideas about how important undergraduate teaching and learning is in the
institution, and who support reward systems that do not contradict or water down that
message, can inﬂuence and foster college and department climates for teaching. This
ﬁnding suggests that leaders may need to rethink their assumptions about how involved
they can and should be with the priorities and reward systems of colleges and
departments, and how much affect they can have. An institutional leader may not be able
to inﬂuence each individual faculty member, but that leader’s message and actions can
inﬂuence deans and chairs, and through them, enough faculty to foster teaching climates
within departments. To do so, leaders must be willing to have a consistent message about

the importance of undergraduate education and active and collaborative teaching. They

211

must also be willing to shape the institution’s resources and rewards to support teaching,

or at least not to oppose it.

Resources

Even small increases or shifts of resources can make a difference in departmental
climates for teaching. All departments discussed their tight ﬁnances, but some believed
they could leverage funds from the institution and from endowments and foundations to
improve the climate for teaching anyway. UTK and TTech both instituted a technology
fee that was not large for individual students, but in the aggregate meant considerable
resources for the university and its departments. “Now that we have the technology fee .
. .” was a common statement across both institutions. Faculty felt that the funds
generated by the fee would improve their ability to teach collaboratively because it would
improve the technological infrastructure of the university. Institutions hoping to support
active and collaborative teaching could consider small increases in fees or tuition

earmarked publicly and visibly to teaching enhancement.

Institutions, Not Institutional Types

Both analyses supported the premise that individual colleges and universities
display a variety not captured by categories of institutional type (Fairweather & Beach,
2002; Colbeck et al., 2001). Further, institutional types do not have as strong a
connection to teaching practices as found in other studies (F airweather, 1997) when
individual institutions and departmental and individual factors within them are also
modeled. Institutional missions, numbers of courses taught, and other factors may appear

to differ by institutional type, but one cannot assume that teaching practices differ by

212

institutional type. The multi-level model demonstrated that when departmental
inﬂuences on teaching practices are taken into effect, apparent institutional type
inﬂuences operate only when interacting with other, intra-institutional variables. The
case analysis demonstrated that three institutions with different stated missions, student
body sizes, research focus and obligations, and institutional cultures, ultimately did not
differ dramatically in the teaching approaches faculty in different departments used.
Physic faculty at Fisk University were just as likely to use “chalk talk” as Physics faculty
at UTK. Policy makers must consider intra-institutional conditions to be primary when
developing strategies to support effective teaching. This ﬁnding supports modifying
assumptions about the usefulness of institutional typologies in characterizing the teaching

practices of faculty in different colleges and universities.

Active and Collaborative Teaching and Learning Across the Curriculum

The quantitative model demonstrated that individual and collective departmental
perceptions of students’ preparedness for college-level work inﬂuences faculty choices of
teaching approaches. Faculty in departments that have a higher remedial education
obligation do not use active and collaborative teaching approaches as much as their
colleagues in departments with lower remedial obligations. Faculty who teach more
general education courses use such methods less than their colleagues who do not teach
general education classes. The cases demonstrated that active and collaborative teaching
approaches were used most in senior-level design and capstone courses, late in students’
college experiences, and were incorporated more into major courses than lower-division
courses. These ﬁndings are important because one of the justiﬁcations for using active

and collaborative teaching approaches is to reach students at all levels of academic

213

preparedness (Johnson, Johnson, & Smith, 1991). In large lecture courses often
associated with general education, incorporating active and collaborative teaching
approaches can be challenging, but is by no means impossible (Johnson, Johnson, &
Smith, 1991). Remedial education courses should be opportunities to use these teaching
methods, especially given the outcomes in student development associated with them

(e. g., greater student conﬁdence, ability to transfer learning, responsibility for work)
(Johnson, Johnson, & Smith, 1991, 1998).

If the climate for teaching includes the perception that active and collaborative
teaching is best used with students best prepared for college work, a signiﬁcant portion of
students may be missing out on the beneﬁts of these teaching and learning approaches.
Institutional and departmental policy makers might help change this dimension of the
teaching climate through messages that active and collaborative teaching and learning is
useful for all students at all levels of education and preparedness, and through reward
structures that do not marginalize general and remedial education. For example,
institutions could provide teaching development support for faculty who teach such
courses or offer incentives to departments to collectively undertake general and remedial
education as a meaningful and important activity of the department. This could involve
giving equal time and energy to planning general and remedial course curricula and
teaching approaches as goes into addressing major courses. It could also involve having
a mix of faculty teach such courses under that guidance and responsibility of a full-time,
tenure-track faculty member.

Faculty developers might address uses and successes of active and collaborative

approaches speciﬁcally in general education and remedial courses as part collective

214

departmental discussions about the incorporation of such approaches within disciplinary
contexts of teaching and learning. They can also help departments experiment with

different active and collaborative practices.

Focus on Departments

This results of this study indicate that departments are the most important focal
point for policy to support effective teaching and learning. They have the power to block
institutional policy if it does not ﬁt with their internal priorities and climate (Colbeck et
al, 2001), and can augment those policies if given the support and incentive to do so.
Policies meant to foster and support active and collaborative teaching might be more
effectively implemented by focusing on supporting departments. This result might mean
funding faculty and professional development initiatives that engage departmental groups
in discussion, experimentation, and collective strategy-building related to incorporating
active and collaborative approaches into courses. It could also mean creating
departmental teaching awards, such as that bestowed on Decision Sciences at TTech.

The focus of such an award on collective excellence in teaching sends a very different
message about how an institution envisions the enactment of teaching and learning than
the message behind bestowing a limited number of individual awards.

Although the quantitative analysis conﬁrmed that the largest portion of variance
in teaching approaches among faculty is individual, both analyses demonstrated the
important role of departments in individual faculty work. Variance among individuals is
difficult to identify, expensive to target, and slow to build to a level of institutional
change. The variance among department is more systematic and more easily targeted.

This study and others before it (Massey, Wilger, & Colbeck, 1994) demonstrate the

215

synergistic quality of relationships in departments — groups of colleagues supported by an
effective chair can more fully engage in innovation.

Examining and targeting departrnents' teaching climates might help institutional
leaders and policy makers best use limited resources to foster teaching excellence on
campus by helping them identify departments that could be visible models on campus,
departments that might be currently shifting their teaching climate and need only a small
amount of support, and departments that might need the greatest assistance through
development of chairs, process consultation by faculty developers, or other direct
intervention. Dimensions of departments and departmental teaching climates that could
be examined include: the group's general and remedial education load; the commitment
of the chair to actively support teaching excellence, and foster a departmental climate in
which teaching issues and approaches are openly discussed; and the level of engagement

in teaching enhancement opportunities offered by the institution exhibited by the faculty.

Conclusion

This study was designed to assess the relative importance of departmental climate
for teaching on individual faculty use of active and collaborative teaching, and to explore
the dimensions of climate for teaching. The departmental level represents 17% of the
variance in active and collaborative teaching, and the dimensions of departments modeled
in this study explained 45% of that variance. The case analysis revealed other important
dimensions of climate for teaching, and provided a contextual portrait of the inﬂuence
departmental teaching climates on faculty practice. Together, the analyses provided
evidence of the importance of departmental climate, as well as the ability of factors at the

college, institution, and extra-institution levels to inﬂuence departmental climates.

216

Institutions and policy-makers might increase faculty attention to and use of
active and collaborative teaching by targeting strategies to improve teaching at
departments. Such strategies could include clear messages about the value of these
approaches, support and rewards that are consistent with that message, and professional
development that encourages group engagement in issues of teaching (Massey, Wilger &
Colbeck, 1994).

This study is one of the ﬁrst to propose and test dimensions of departmental
climate for teaching (Volkwein & Carbone, 1994) and their inﬂuence on individual
faculty teaching approaches. The results suggest that further deﬁnition of departmental
teaching climate constructs would be fruitful. An instrument focused on climate for
teaching could serve as a useful diagnostic tool for institutions and systems seeking

effective strategies to support and encourage faculty excellence in teaching.

217

REFERENCES

Abbey, A. & Dickson, J. W. (1983). R&D work climate and innovation in
semiconductors. Academy of Management Journal, 26(2), 362-368.

Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (1998). ABET 2000: Criteria for
accrediting programs in engineering in the United States. Baltimore, MD: ABET.

Allport, F. H. (1954). The structuring of events: Outline of a general theory with
applications to psychology. Psychological Review, 61, 281-303.

Alpert, D. (1985). Performance and paralysis: The organizational context of the
American research university. Journal of Higher Education, 56, 214-81.

Antony, J ., & Boatsman, K. (1994, November). Deﬁning the teaching-learningﬂmction
in terms of cooperative pedagogy: An empirical taxonomy of faculty practices.
Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Association for the Study of Higher
Education, Tucson, AZ.

Ashkanasy, N. M., Wilderom, C. P., & Peterson, M. F. (Eds.) (2000). Handbook of
organizational culture and climate. London: Sage Publications.

Augistine, N. R. (1996). Rebuilding engineering education. Chronicle of Higher
Education, May 24, 1996, B1-2.

Auster, C. J ., & MacRone, M. (1994). The classroom as a negotiated social setting: An
empirical study of the effects of faculty members’ behavior on students’
participation. Teaching Sociology, 22, 289-300.

Austin, A. E. (1990). Faculty cultures, faculty values. In W. G. Tierney (ed.), Assessing
academic climates and cultures (pp. 61-74). New Directions for Institutional
Research , no. 68. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Austin, A. E. (1994). Understanding and assessing faculty cultures and climates. In M.
K. Kinnick (Ed.), Providing useful information for dean and department chairs (pp.
47-63). New Directions for Institutional Research, No. 84. San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.

Austin, A. E. (1996). Institutional and departmental cultures: The relationship between
research and teaching. In Braxton, R. T. (ed.), Faculty teaching and research: Is
there a conﬂict (pp. 57-66)? New Directions for Institutional Research, no. 90. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Austin, A. E., Beach, A. L., Eddy, P. L., & Sorcinelli, M. D. (2002, January). Faculty
development to support faculty work: Monitoring the present and conceptualizing

218

the future. Paper presented at the American Association of Higher Education
Faculty Roles and Rewards Conference, Tuscon, AZ.

Baird, L. L. (1990). Campus climate: Using surveys for policy-making and
understanding. In W. G. Tierney (ed.), Assessing academic climates and cultures
(pp. 35-45). New Directions for Institutional Research , no. 68. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.

Baldwin, R. G. (1979). Faculty career development. Current Issues in Higher
Education, no. 2. Washington, DC: American Association for Higher Education.

Baldwin, R. G. (1990). Faculty career stages and implications for professional
development. In J. H. Schuster, D. W. Wheeler, and Associates, Enhancing faculty
careers: Strategies for development and renewal. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Barr, R., & Tagg, J. (1995). From teaching to learning: A new paradigm for
undergraduate education. Change, 27(6), 12-25.

Bauer, K. W. (Ed.)(1998). Campus climate: Understanding today ’s colleges and
universities. New Directions for Institutional Research, no. 98. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.

Beach, A.L., Salerno, C., and Colbeck, CL. (1999, April). How and why teachers
change: A case study of university faculty. Paper presented at the American
Educational Research Association Annual Conference, Montreal, Canada.

Becher, T. (1987). The disciplinary shaping of the profession. In B. R. Clark (ed.), The
academic profession: National, disciplinary, and institutional settings (pp.271-303).
Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.

Bess, J. L. (ed.) (1997). Teaching well and liking it: Motivating faculty to teach
effectively. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

Biglan, A. (1973). The characteristics of subject matter in different academic areas.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 5 7(3), 195-203.

Bimbaum, R. (1988). How colleges work. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass.

Black, K. M. (1994). An industry View of engineering education. Journal of
Engineering Education, 83(1), 26-28.

Blackburn, R. T. & Lawrence, J. H. (1986). Aging and the quality of faculty job
performance. Review of Higher Education, 23(3), 265-290.

Blackburn, R. T., & Lawrence, J. H. (1988). Age as a predictor of faculty productivity:
three conceptual approaches. Journal of Higher Education, 59(1), 22-38.

219

Blackburn, R. T., & Lawrence, J. H. (1995). Faculty at work: Motivation, expectation,
satisfaction. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Bliese, P. D. (2000). Within-group agreement, non-independence, and reliability:
Implications for data aggregation and analysis. In K. J. Klein & S. W. Kozlowski
(Eds), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations (pp. 349-381).
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Boyer, E. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. Princeton,
NJ: Princeton University Press and the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement
of Teaching.

Braxton, J. M. (1995). Disciplines with an afﬁnity for the improvement of undergraduate
education. In N. Hativa & M. Marincovich (Eds), Disciplinary diﬂerences in
teaching and learning: Implications for practice (pp. 59-64). New Directions for
Teaching and Learning No. 64. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Braxton, J. M., Eimers, M. T., & Bayer, A. E. (1996). The implications for teaching
norms for the improvement of undergraduate education. Journal of Higher
Education, 67, 603-625.

Braxton, J. M., Olsen, D., & Simmons, A. (1998). Affinity disciplines and the use of
principles of good practice for undergraduate education. Research in Higher
Education, 39(3), 299-318.

Bruffee, K. A. (1984). Collaborative learning and the “conversation of mankind.”
College English, 46, 635-652.

Bruffee, K. A. (1993). Collaborative learning: Higher education, interdependence, and
the authority of knowledge. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Burke, M., Borucki, C., & Hurley, A. (1992). Reconceptualizing psychological climate
in a retail service environment: A multiple stakeholder perspective. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 77, 717-729.

Cabrera, A. F ., Nora, A., Terenzini, P. T., Pascarella, E., & Hagadom, L. S. (1999).

Campus racial climate and the adjustment of students to college: A comparison
between White students and African-American students. Journal of Higher
Education, 70, 134-160.

Cameron, K. S. (1978). Measuring organizational effectiveness in institutions of higher
education. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23, 604-629.

Cameron, K. S. (1985). Institutional effectiveness in higher education: An introduction.
The Review of Higher Education, 9, 1-4.

220

Canada, K. & Pringle, R. (1995). The role of gender in college classroom interactions:
A social context approach. Sociology of Education, 68, 161-168.

Chelberg, G., Harbour, W., & Juarez, R. L. (1998). Assessing student life: Steps to
improving campus climate for disabled students. Minneapolis: University of
Minnesota Disability Services.

Clark, B. R. (Ed.). (1984). Perspectives in higher education: Eight disciplinary and
comparative views. Berkely, CA: University of California Press.

Clark, B. R. (1987). The academic life: Small worlds, dijﬁrent worlds. Princeton, NJ:
Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.

Colbeck, C. L. (1994, November). The contexts of academic work: What matters to
faculty. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Association for the Study
of Higher Education, Tuscon, AZ.

Colbeck, C. L. (2002). State Policies to Improve Undergraduate Teaching:
Administrator and Faculty Responses. Journal of Higher Education, 73(1), 3-25.

Colbeck, C. L., Fairweather, J. S., Brown, D. F., Beach, A. L., & Fingers, E. A. (2001).

Enhancing faculty contributions to learning productivity: Final report. University
Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Center for the Study of Higher Education.

Conley, V. M. & Hyer, P. B. (1999, November). A faculty assessment for campus
climate for diversity. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Association
for the Study of Higher Education, San Antonio, TX.

Dansereau, F. & Alluto, J. A. (1990). Level-of-analysis issues in climate and culture
research. In B. Schneider (ed.), Organizational climate and culture (pp. 193-236).
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Denison, D. R. (1996). What is the difference between organizational culture and
organizational climate? A native’s point of View on a decade of paradigm wars.
Academy of Management Review, 21(3), 619-654.

Drexler, J. A. (1977). Organizational climate: Its homogeneity within organizations.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 62, 38-42.

Dunkin, M. J ., & Barnes, J. (1986). Research on teaching in higher education. In M. C.
Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 754-777). New
York: MacMillan.

Einarson, M. K. (2000, November). Inﬂuences on undergraduate teaching methods: A
conceptual ﬁ-amework and comparison of personal, disciplinary and organizational

221

contexts across types of postsecondary institutions. Paper presented at the annual
meeting of the Association for the Study of Higher Education, Sacramento, CA.

Einarson, M. K. (2001, April). Path analytic study of personal, disciplinary and
organizational inﬂuences on undergraduate teaching methods. Paper presented at
the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle,
WA.

Fairweather, J. S. (1993a). Academic values and faculty rewards. The Review of Higher
Education, 1 7(1), 43-68.

Fairweather, J .S. (1993b). Faculty reward structures: Toward institutional and
professional homogenization. Research in Higher Education, 34, 603-624.

Fairweather, J. S. (1996). Faculty work and public trust: Restoring the value of teaching
and public service in American academic life. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Fairweather, J. S. (1997, November). The highly productive faculty member:
Confronting the mythologies of faculty work Paper presented at the Annual Meeting
of the Association for the Study of Higher Education, Albuquerque, NM.

Fairweather, J. S. (2002). The mythologies of faculty productivity: Implications for
institutional policy and decision making. Journal of Higher Education, 73, 26-48.

F airweather, J. S. and Beach, A. L. (2000, November) Variation in faculty work within
research universities: Policy implications for achieving balance between teaching,
research, and service. Paper presented at the Association for the Study of Higher
Education Annual Conference, Sacramento, CA.

Fairweather, J. S., & Beach, A. L. (2002). Variation in faculty work within research

universities: Implications for state and institutional Policy. Review of Higher
Education, 26(1), 97-1 1 5.

Fairweather, J. S., & Rhoads, R. (1995). Teaching and the faculty role: Enhancing the
commitment to instruction in American college and universities. Educational
Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 1 7(2), 179-194.

Feldman, K. A. & Newcomb, T. M. (1969). The impact of college on students. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Finkelstein, M. J. (1984). The American academic profession: A synthesis of social
scientiﬁc inquiry since World War 11. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press.

F inkelstein, M. J ., Seal, R. K., & Schuster, J. H. (1998). The new academic generation:

A profession in transformation. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University
Press.

222

Finnegan, D. T. (1993). Segmentation in the academic labor market: hiring cohorts in
comprehensive universities. Journal of Higher Education, 64(6), 621-656.

Fitzgerald, L. F ., Drasgow, F. Hulin, C. L., Gelfand, M. J ., & Magley, V. J. (1997).
Antecedents and consequences of sexual harassment in organizations: A test of an
integrated model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 578-589.

Guion, R. M. (1973). A note on organizational climate. Organizational Behavior and
Human Performance, 9, 120-125.

Guskin, A. E. (1994). Reducing student costs and enhancing student learning:
Restructuring the role of faculty. Change (September-October): 16-25.

Hellriegel, D. & Slocum, J. W., Jr. (1974). Organizational climate: Measures, research,
and contingencies. Academy of Management Journal, I 7, 255-280.

Hofmann, D. A., Grifﬁn, M. A., & Gavin, M. B. (2000). The application of hierarchical
linear modeling to organizational research. In K. J. Klein & S. W. Kozlowski (Eds),
Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations (pp. 467-511). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Hofmann, D. A., & Stetzer, A. (1996). A cross-level investigation of factors inﬂuencing
unsafe behaviors and accidents. Personnel Psychology, 49, 307-338.

Howe, J. G. (1977). Group climate: An exploratory analysis of construct validity.
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 1 9, 106-125.

Hurtado, S. (1992). The campus racial climate: Contexts for conﬂict. Journal of
Higher Education, 63(5), 539-569.

Hurtado, S. (1994). The institutional climate for talented Latino students. Research in
Higher Education, 35(1), 21-41.

Hurtado, S., Milem, J. F., Clayton-Pederson, A. R., & Allen, W. R. (1998). Enhancing
campus climates for racial/ethnic diversity through educational policy and practice.
Review of Higher Education, 21, 279-302.

James, L. R., Damaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. (1984). Estimating within-group interrater
reliability with and without response bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 85-
98.

James, L. R., Damaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. (1993). rwg: An assessment of within-group
interrater agreement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 306-309.

223

James, L. R. & Jones, A. P. (1974). Organizational climate: A review of theory and
research. Psychological Bulletin, 81, 1096-1112.

Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Smith, K. A. (1991). Cooperative learning:
Increasing college faculty instructional productivity. ASHE-ERIC Higher
Education Report No. 4. Washingtong, DC: The George Washington University,
School of Education and Human Development.

Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Smith, K. A. (1998). Cooperative learning returns to
the classroom: What evidence is there that it works? Change, 30(4), 26-35.

Johnston, H. R. (1976). A new conceptualization of source of organizational climate.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 21 , 95-103.

Jones, E. A. (Ed.) (1996). Preparing competent college graduates: Setting new and
higher expectations for student learning. New Directions for Higher Education, No.
96. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Jones, A. P., & James, L. R. (1979). Psychological climate: Dimensions and
relationships of individual and aggregated work environment perceptions.
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 23 , 201-250.

Joyce, W. F ., & Slocum, J. W. (1984). Collective climate: Agreement as a basis for
deﬁning aggregate climates in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 27,
721-742.

Katz, D. & Kahn, R. L. (1966). The social psychology of organizations. New York:
John Wiley.

Karabenick, S. A., & Sharma, R. (1994). Perceived teacher support of student
questioning in the college classroom: Its relation to student characteristics and role

in the classroom questioning process. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 90-
103.

Kellogg Commission on the Future of State and Land-Grant Universities (1997).
Returning to our roots: The student experience. Washington, DC: National
Association of State and Land-Grant Colleges.

Klein, K. J ., & Kozlowski, S. W. J. (Eds) (2000). Multilevel theory, research, and
methods in organizations. San-Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Kozlowski, S. W. J ., & Farr, J. L. (1988). An integrative model of updating and
performance. Human Performance, 1, 5-29.

Kozlowski, S. W. J ., & Hults, B. M. (1987). An exploration of climates for technical
updating and performance. Personnel Psychology, 40, 539-563.

224

Kozlowski, S. W. J ., & Klein, K. J. (2000). A levels approach to theory and research in
organizations: contextual, temporal, and emergent processes. In K. J. Klein and S.
W. J. Kozlowski (Eds), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations
(pp. 3-90). San-Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Krupnick, C. G. (1985). Women and men in the classroom: Inequality and its remedies.
On Teaching and Learning, 1, 18-25.

Kuh, G. D., Pace, C. R., & Vesper, N. (1997). A comparison of student experiences

with good practices in undergraduate education between 1990 and 1994. The
Review of Higher Education, 21(1), 43-61.

Kuh, G. D. & Whitt, E. J. (1988). The invisible tapestry: Culture in American colleges
and universities. Washington, DC: Association for the Study of Higher Education.

Kulick, J. & Kulick, C. L. (1979). College teaching. In P. Peterson & H. Walberg
(Eds), Research on teaching: Concepts, findings and implications (pp.70-93).
Berkeley, CA: McCutcheon.

Lawler, E. E., Hall, D. T., & Oldham, G. R. (1974). Organizational climate:
Relationship to organizational structure, process, and performance. Organizational
Behavior and Human Performance, 11 , 139-155.

Lindell, M. K. & Brandt, C. J. (2000). Climate quality and climate consensus as

mediators of the relationship between organizational antecedents and outcomes.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(3), 331-348.

Long, J. S. (1990). The origin of sex differences in science. Social Forces, 68(4), 1297-
1315.

Long, J. 8., Allison, P. D., & McGinnis, R. (1993). Rank advancement in academic
careers: Sex differences and the effects of productivity. American Sociological
Review, 58, 703-722.

Massey, W. F., Wilger, A. K., & Colbeck, C. L. (1994). Overcoming “hollowed”
collegiality. Change, 26(1), 10-20.

McKeatchie, W. J. (1990). Research on college teaching: The historical background.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(2), 189-200.

McKeachie, W. J ., Pintrich, P. R., ,& Lin, Y. G. (1986). Teaching and learning in the
college classroom: A review of the research literature. Ann Arbor: University of
Michigan, National Center for Research to Improve Postsecondary Teaching and
Learning.

225

Menges, R. & Austin, A. E. (2001). Teaching in higher education. In V. Richardson
(Ed.), AERA handbook of research on teaching. Washington, DC: AERA.

McRee, T. K. & Cooper, D. L. (1998). Environments for gay, lesbian, and bisexual
students at southeastern institutions of higher education. NASPA Journal, 36(1),
48-60.

Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Milem, J. F. (2001). Teaching diverstity beneﬁts: How campus climate and teaching
methods affect student outcomes. In Oldﬁeld, G. (Ed.), Diversity challenged:
Evidence on the impact of aﬂirmative action (pp. 233-249). Cambridge: Harvard
Education Publishing Group.

Milem, J. F. & Astin, H. (1992, April). Science faculty: Culture, roles, and pedagogy.
Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, New York.

Milem, J. F., & Wakai, S. (1996a, April). Student centered approaches to teaching and
learning: Lessons to be learned ﬁom faculty at historically black colleges and
women ’s colleges. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, New York.

Milem, J. F. & Wakai, S. (1996b, November). Understanding how faculty teach:
Facilitators and inhibitors of student-centered pedagogy. Paper presented at the
annual meeting of the Association for the Study of Higher Education, Memphis.

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded
sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Moran, E. T., & Volkwein, J. F. (1987, November). Organizational climate of
institutions of higher education: Construct determination and relationship to
organizational effectiveness criteria. Paper presented at the annual conference of the
Association for the Study of Higher Education, San Diego, CA.

Moran, E. T., & Volkwein, J. F. (1988). Examining organizational climate in institutions
of higher education. Research in Higher Education, 28(4), 367-3 83.

Morgan, G. (1997). Images of Organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Murray, H. G., & Renaud, R. D. (1995). Disciplinary differences in classroom teaching
behaviors. In N. Hativa & M. Marincovich (Eds), Disciplinary diﬂerences in

teaching and learning: Implications for practice (pp. 31-39).. New Directions for
Teaching and Learning, No. 64. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

226

National Education Goals Panel (1992). The national education goals report: Building
a nation of learners. Washington, DC: US. Government Printing Ofﬁce.

National Science Foundation, Directorate for Education and Human Resources (1996).
Shaping the ﬁrture: New expectations for undergraduate education in science,
mathematics, engineering and technology (NSF 96-139).

Olsen, D., Maple, S. A., & Stage, F. K. (1995). Women and minority faculty job
satisfaction. Journal of Higher Education, 66(3), 267-293.

Pace, C. R. (1969). College and university environment scales: Technical manual.
(2nd ed.). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.

Pace, C. R. & Stern, G. G. (1958). An approach to the measurement of psychological
characteristics of college environments. Journal of Educational Psychology, 49,
269-277.

Parsons, T. (1960). Structure and process in modern societies. New York: Free Press.
Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (1991 ). How college affects students: Findings and
insights from twenty years of research. San Francisco: J ossey-Bass.

Paulson, K. (1996). The inﬂuence of gender on perceptions of and preferences for the
classroom environment and their relationship with persistence in engineering.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation. State College, PA: The Pennsylvania State
University.

Paulsen, M. B., & Feldman, K. A. (1995). Taking teaching seriously: meeting the
challenge of instructional improvement. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No.
2. Washington, D. C.: The George Washington University, Graduate School of
Education and Human Development.

Payne, R. L. & Mansﬁeld, R. (1973). Relationships of perceptions of organizational
climate to organizational structure, context, and hierarchical position.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 18, 515-526.

Peterson, M. W. (1988). The organizational environment for student learning. In J. S.
Stark & L. A. Mets (Eds), Improving teaching and learning through research (pp.
23-37). New Directions for Institutional Research, no. 57. San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.

Peterson, M. W., Cameron, K. S., Mets, L. A., Jones, R, & Ettington, D. (1986). The
organizational context for teaching and learning: A review of the research

literature. Ann Arbor: National Center for Research to Improve Postsecondary
Teaching and Learning.

227

Peterson, M. W., & Spencer, M. G. (1990). Understanding academic culture and
climate. In W. G. Tierney (Ed.), Assessing academic climates and cultures (pp. 3-
18). New Directions for Institutional Research, No. 68. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Porter, S. R. & Umbach, P. D. (2001). Analyzing faculty workload data using
multilevel modeling. Research in Higher Education, 42(2), 171-196.

Powell, G. N. & Butterﬁeld, D. (1978). The case for subsystem climates in
organizations. Academy of Management Review, 3,151-157.

Pritchard, R. D. & Karasick, B. W. (1973). The effects of organizational climate on
managerial job performance and job satisfaction. Organizational Behavior and
Human Performance, 9, 126-146.

Rankin, S. (1999). Queering campus: Understanding and transforming climate.
Metr0politan Universities: An International Forum, 9(4), 29-38.

Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications
and data analysis methods (2 ed. Vol. 1). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Reichers, A. E. & Scheider, B. (1990). Climate and culture: An evolution of constructs.
In B. Schneider (ed.). Organizational climate and culture (pp. 5-39). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Reskin, B, F. (1979). Age and scientiﬁc productivity. In M. S. McPherson (Ed.), The
demand for new faculty in science and engineering. Washington, DC: National
Research Council, Communication on Human Resources.

Rousseau, D. M. (1985). Issues of level in organizational research: multi-level and
cross-level perspectives. Research in Organizational Behavior, 7, 1-37.

Sax, L. J ., Astin, A. W., Arredondo, M., & Korn, W. S. (1996). The American college
teacher: National norms for the 1995-96 HERI faculty survey. Los Angeles: Higher
Education Research Institute, UCLA.

Sax, L. J ., Astin, A. W., Korn, W. S., & Gilmartin, S. K. (1999). The American College
Teacher: National Norms for the 1998-99 HERI Faculty Survey. Los Angeles:
Higher Education Research Institute, UCLA.

Schneider, B. (1975). Organizational climates: An essay. Personnel Psychology, 56,
211-217.

Schneider, B. (Ed.) (1990). Organizational climate and culture. San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.

228

Schneider, B., & Bowen, D. E. (1985). Employee and customer perceptions of service
in banks: Replication and extension. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, 423-433.

Schneider, B., Bowen, D. E., Erhardt, M. G., & Holcombe, K. M. (2001). The climate
for service. In N. M. Ashkanasy, C. P. M. Wilderom, & M. F. Peterson (Eds),
Handbook of organizational culture and climate (pp. 21-36). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications.

Schneider, B., Parkington, J. J., & Buxton, V. M. (1980). Employee and customer
perceptions of service in banks. Administrative Science Quarterly, 25, 252-267.

Schneider, B. & Reichers, A. E. (1983). On the etiology of climates. Personnel
Psychology, 36, 19-39.

Schneider, B. & Snyder, R. A. (1975). Some relationships between job satisfaction and
organizational climate. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, 318-328.

Snijders, T., & Bosker, R. (1999). Multilevel analysis: An introduction to basic and
advanced multilevel modeling. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Springer, L., Stanne, M. E., & Donovan, S. S. (1999). Effects of small-group learning
on undergraduates in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology: A meta-
analysis. Review of Educational Research, 69(1), 21-51.

Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (1998). Mixed methodology: Combining qualitative and
quantitative approaches. Applied Social Research Methods, Vol. 46. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Tierney, W. (1988). Organizational culture in higher education: Deﬁning the essentials.
Journal of Higher Education, 5 9(1), 2-21.

Tierney, W. (Ed.) (1990). Assessing academic climates and cultures. New Directions
for Institutional Research, No. 68. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Volkwein, J. F. & Carbone, D. A. (1994). The impact of departmental research and
teaching climates on undergraduate grth and satisfaction. Journal of Higher
Education, 65, 147-167.

Volkwein, J. F. & Lorang, W. (1996). Characteristics of extenders: Full-time students
who take light credit loads and graduate in more than four years. Research in
Higher Education, 37(1), 43-68.

Yin, R. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods (2 ed. Vol. 5). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

229

Zimbler, L. (2001). Background characteristics, work activities, and compensation of
faculty and instructional staff in postsecondary institutions: Fall I 998. Washington,
DC: National Center for Educational Statistics.

Zohar, D. (1980). Safety climate in industrial organizations: Theoretical and applied
implications. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65, 96-102.

 

 

 

230

 

APPENDICES

 

 

231

APPENDIX A — 1998 HERI FACULTY SURVEY CODE BOOK

232

 

Higher Education Research Institute

Graduate School of Education & Information Studies
University of California, Los Angeles

3005 Moore Hall / Mailbox 951528

Los Angeles, California 90095-1528

FILE DOCUMENTATION

1998 FACULTY SURVEY

File Name: FAC1998.DAT

Record Length: 318

1-4 ACE: College (ACE) I.D.

5-5 SAMPTPYE: Sample Type
l=paid participant
2=supplemental

6-6 NORMSTAT: Norms Status
1=in norms
2=not in norms

7-12 FID: Subject l.D.

13-13 PRINACT: Principal Activity
1 =administration
2=teaching
3=research
4=services to clients and patients
5=other

14-14 FULLSTAT: F ull-time Employee?
1=no
2=yes

15-15 SEX: Respondent's Gender
1=male
2=female

16-16 ACADRANK: Academic Rank
1=professor

=associate professor

3=assistant professor
4=lecturer
5=instructor
6=other

17-17 ADMTITLE: Administrative Title
1=not applicable
2=director or coordinator
3=department chair

233

4=dean
5=associate or assistant dean
6=vice-pres, provost, vice-Chane
7=president, chancellor
8=other

18-18 MARITAL: Current Marital Status
1=married
2mmarried, living with partner
3=single

Divorced, Widowed, Separated?

1=not marked
2=marked

19-19 DIVWSEPI: divorced

20-20 DIVWSEP2: widowed

21-21 DIVWSEP3: separated

22-22 DO_OVER: Still Want to Be College

Professor?
1=deﬁnitely no
2=probably no
3=not sure
4=probably yes
5=deﬁnitely yes

Racial Background

1=not marked

Zmarked
23-23 RACE01: White/Caucasian
24-24 RACE02: African American/Black
25-25 RACE03: American Indian
26-26 RACE04: Asian American/Asian
27-27 RACEOS: Mexican American/Chicano
28-28 RACE06: Puerto Rican American
29-29 RACE07: other Latino
30-30 RACE08: other

Number of Children Aged:
1=none
2=one
3=two
4=three
5=four or more
31-31 NCHILDI: 0 to 4
32-32 NCHILDZ: 5 to 12
33-33 NCHILDB: 13 to 17
34-34 NCHILD4: 18 to 23
35-35 NCHILDS: 24 or older
36-36 PRIMINT: Primary Interest
1=very heavily in teaching
2=leaning toward teaching
3=leaning toward research
4=very heavily in research

Degree Status

37-37
38-38

1=bachelor's (B.A., B.S., etc.)
2=master's (M.A., M.S., etc.)
3=LL.B., J.D.
4=M.D., D.D.S. (or equivalent)
5=other ﬁrst professional
=Ed.D.
7=Ph.D.
8=other degree
9=none
DEGEARN: Highest Earned
DEGWORK: Currently Working Toward

Teaching Activities in the Last Two Years

39-39
40-40
41-4 1
42-42
43-43
44-44
course
45-45
project
46-46
47-47

1=no

2=yes

TCHACTOI: taught honors cours
TCHACTOZ: taught interdisciplinary course
TCHACT03: taught ethnic studies course
TCHACT04: taught women's studies course
TCHACTOS: team-taught a course
TCHACT06: taught a service learning

TCHACT07: worked w/students on res

TCHACT08: used funds for research
TCHACT09: in teaching enhancement

workshop

48-48
49-49

TCHACTIO: placed/coll assign on Internet
TCHACTl 1: taught course excl on Internet

Degree F ield/Department

1=agriculture
=architecture/urban planning

3=bacteriology, molecular biology
4=biochemistry

5=biophysics

6=botany

7=environmental science
8=marine life sciences
9=physiology, anatomy
10=zoology

1 1=genera1, other biological science
1 2=accountin g

13=ﬁnance

14=intemational business
15=marketing
16=management
l7=secretarial studies
18=general, other business
19=computer science
20=business education
21 =elementary education
22=educational administration

234

23=educational psych/counseling
24=higher education

25=music or art education
26=physical or health education
27=secondary education
28=special education

29=general, other education ﬁelds
30=aeronauticallastronautical eng
3 l=chemical engineering
32=civil engineering
33=electrical engineering
34=industrial engineering
35=mechanical engineering
36=nuclear engineering
37=general, other engineering ﬁelds
38=ethnic studies

39=art

40=dramatics or speech
41=music

42=other ﬁne arts

43=forestry

44=geogmphy

45=dentistry

46=health technology
47=medicine or surgery
48=nursing

49=pharmacy, pharmacology
50=therapy (speech,physical,occup)
51=veterinary medicine
52=general, other health ﬁelds
53=home economics

54=English language & literature
55=foreign languages & literature
56=French

57=German

58=Spanish

59=other foreign languages
60=history

61 =linguistics

62=philosophy

63=religion or theology
64=general, other humanities ﬁelds
65=joumalism

66=law

67=law enforcement

68=library science
69=mathematics and/or statistics
70=military science
71=astronomy

72=atmospheric sciences
73=chemistry

74=earth sciences

75=marine sciences (including oceanography)

 

76=physics 70-70 HRSPWK04: Committee Work & Meetings

77=general, other physical sciences 71-71 HRSPWKOS: Other Administration
78=clinical psychology 72-72 HRSPWK06: Research and Scholarly
79=counseling and guidance Writing
80=experimental psychology 73-73 HRSPWK07: Creative
8l=social psychology Products/Performances
82=general, other psychology 74-74 HRSPWK08: Consultation with
83=anthropology Clients/Patients
84=archaeology 75-75 HRSPWK09: Community or Public Service
85=economics 76-76 HRSPWKIO: Outside Consulting/Freelance
86=political science, government Work
87=sociology 77-77 HRSPWKI 1: Household/Childcare Duties
88=general, other social sciences NUMBER OF COURSES TAUGHT IN:
89=social work, social welfare lﬁone
=building trades 2=one
91 =data processing, computer prog 3=two
92=dra1ting/design 4=three
93=electronics 5=four
94=industrial arts 6=ﬁve or more
95=mechanics 78-78 COURSES]: General Education
96=other technical 79-79 COURSESZ: Other BA or BS
97=other vocational Undergraduate Credit Courses
98=women's studies 80-80 COURSES3: Non-BA Credit Courses
99=all other ﬁelds (developmental or remedial)
50-51 MAJORD: Field of Highest Degree Held 81-81 COURSES4: Graduate Courses
52-53 DEPTD: Department of Current Faculty Goals for Undergraduates
Appointment 1=not important
54-56 SALARYD: Base Salary (in thousands) 2=somewhat important
57-57 SALBASE: Salary is Based On 3=very important
l=9/10 months 4=essential
2=1 1/12 months 82-82 UGGOALOI: develop ability to think
Year: clearly
58-59 BIRTHYRD: of Birth 83-83 UGGOAL02: prepare for employment
60-61 DEGYRD: Highest Degree Earned 84-84 UGGOAL03: prepare for graduate education
62-63 APPTYRD: of Current Appointment 85-85 UGGOAL04: develop moral character
64-64 TENURED: Tenured? 86-86 UGGOALOS: provide for emotional
1 =no development
2=yes 87-87 UGGOAL06: prepare for family living
65-66 TENYRD: Year Tenure Awarded 88-88 UGGOAL07: teach classics of western civ
HOURS PER WEEK SPENT ON: 89-89 UGGOAL08: help develop personal values
1=none 90-90 UGGOAL09: enhance out-of-class
2=1 to 4 experience
3=5 to 8 91-91 UGGOALIO: enhance self-understanding
4=9 to 12 92-92 UGGOALI 1: instill commitment to cmty
5=13 to 16 svc
6=17 to 20 93-93 UGGOAL12: prepare for respons
7=21 to 34 citizenship
8=35 to 44 94-94 UGGOAL13: enhance knowledge of
9:45 or more race/eth grps
67-67 HRSPWKOI: Scheduled Teaching
68-68 HRSPWKOZ: Preparing for Teaching Signiﬁcant Institutional Changes In?
69-69 HRSPWK03: Advising/Counseling of l=no
Students 2=yes

235

 

 

95-95
96-96
97-97
98-98

INSTCHG 1: overall mission, purpose
INSTCHGZ: general education
INSTCHG3: faculty role/reward
INSTCHG4: governance

NUMBER OF:

1=none

2=1 to 2

3=3 to 4

4=5 to 10

5=11 to 20

6=21 to 50

7=51+
99-99 PUBLISHI: Articles in Academic or
Professional Journals
100-100 PUBLISHZ: Chapters in Edited Volumes
101-101 PUBLISH3: Books, Manuals, Monographs
102-102 PUBLISH4: Exhibitions or Performances
Presented
103-103 PUBLISHS: Prof Writings Accepted or
Published in Last Two Years

Publishing/Scholarly Work Done

1=none

2=some

3=most

4=all
104-104 WORKTYPI: alone
105-105 WORKTYPZ: with one other person
106-106 WORKTYPB: with two or more people
107-107 Work Before Taking Current Position

1=taught at college/university

2=full-time non-teaching research position

3=postdoctoral fellowship

4=full-time acad admin position

5=professional pos outside higher ed

=student
7=other

General Activities

l=no

2=yes
108-108 GENACTOI: held academic admin
position
109-109
teaching
110-110
work
111-111
112-112
city
113-113
114-114
115-115

GENACTOZ: award for outstanding
GENACTOB: commute a lnog distance to

GENACT04: research/writing on women
GENACTOS: spouse/partner work in same

GENACT06: spouse/partner an academic
GENACT07: res/writing on race/ethnicity
GENACT08: born in the U.S.A.

236

116-116
117-117
hlth/fam
118-118
119-119

GENACT09: am a US. citizen
GENACTIO: interrupted career for

GENACTI 1: sexually harassed at this inst
GENACTIZ: plan working beyond age 70

General Activities in the Last Two Years

1=no

2=yes
120-120 GENACT13: had one or more ﬁrm job
offers
121-121 GENACT14: developed a new course
122-122 GENACTI 5: considered early retirement
123-123 GENACT16: considered leaving academe
124-124 GENACT17: taught at more than one inst
in same term
125-125 GENACTI 8: served as a paid consultant

Institutional Priorities
l=low
2=rnedium
3=high
4=highest

126-126 INSPRIOI:

development

127-127 INSPRIOZ:

128-128 INSPR103:

faculty/admin

129-129 INSPR104:

students/fac

130-130 INSPRIOS:

131-131 INSPR106:

faculty/admin

132-132 INSPR107:

133-133 INSPR108:

134-134 INSPR109:

135-135 INSPRIIO:

136-136 INSPRIl l: recruit more minority students

137-137 IN SPRI 12: enhance insts' national image

138-138 INSPR113: create multi-cultural environ

promote intellectual

help students understand values
hire more minority

devel community among

dev leadership ability in stdnts
hire more women

involvement in community svcs
teach stdents how to change soc
increase/maintain inst prestige
hire faculty 'stars'

Opinions About the Institution

l=disagree strongly

2=disagree somewhat

3=agree somewhat

=agree strongly

139-139 INSOPNOI: fac interested in students' prob
140-140 IN SOPN02: people don‘t respect each other
141-141 INSOPN03: students well prep
academically
142-142 INSOPN04: Stdnt Aff staff supported by
fac

143-143
inst
144-144
145-145
146-146
perspect
147-147
148-148
149-149
svc
150-150
svc
151-151
fairly
152-152
dept

INSOPNOS:
IN SOPN06:
IN SOPN07:
INSOPN08:
INSOPN09:
INSOPN l 0:
INSOPN] l :
INSOPN l 2:
INSOPN] 3:

INSOPN14:

fac committed to welfare of
fee interest in stdnts acad prob
a lot of racial conﬂict here
courses include feminist
faculty of color treated fairly
women faculty treated fairly
courses involve studs in cmty
students committed to cmty

gay/lesbian faculty treated

my research valued by fac in

Reasons for Pursuing Academic Career

1=not important

2=somewhat important
3=very important

153-153
154-154
155-155
156-156
157-157
158-158
159-159
160-160
161-161

REASCARk
REASCARZ:
REASCARB:
REASCAR4:
REASCARE
REASCARm
REASCAR%
REASCAR&
REASCAR?

Education Level of

autonomy

ﬂelxible schedule
intellectual challenge
intellectual freedom

freedom to pursue interests
opportunities for teaching
opportunities for research
occupational prestige/status
optty to inﬂuence soc change

l=8th grade or less

2=some high school
3=completed high school
4=some college

5=graduated from college
6=attended grad/prof school
7=attained advanced degree
8=does not apply [spouse only]

162-162
163-163
164-164

spouse
father
mother

Sources of Stress

1=not at all

2=somewhat
3=extensive
165-165 STRESSOI : household responsibilities
166-166 STRESSOZ: child care
167-167 STRESSO3: care of elderly parent
168-168 STRESS04: my physical health
169-169 STRESSOS: review/promotion process

170-170 STRESSO6: subtle discrimination
171-171 STRESSO7: personal ﬁnances
172-172 STRESSO8: committee work

173-173 STRESSO9: faculty meetings

174-174 STRESSIO: colleagues

175-175 STRESSI 1: students

176-176 STRESSIZ: research or publishing
demands

177-177 STRESSI3: inst procedures & ‘red tape'
178-178 STRESSI4: teaching load

1 79-179 STRESS 1 5: children's problems
180-180 STRESS 1 6: marital friction

181-181 STRESSI7: time pressures

182-182 STRESSIS: lack of personal life
183-183 STRESSI9: illness or death of spouse
184-184 STRESSZO: keeping up with info tech

Satisfaction

1=not applicable

2=not satisﬁed

3=marginally satisﬁed

=satisﬁed

5=very satisﬁed
185-185 SATISOI: salary and ﬁ'inge beneﬁts
186-186 SATISOZ: oppty for scholarly pursuits
187-187 SATISOB: teaching load
188-188 SATISO4: quality of students
189-189 SATISOS: working conditions
190-190 SATISO6: autonomy and independence
191-191 SATISO7: prof relations w/other faculty
192-192 SATIS08: social relations w/other faculty
193-193 SATISO9: competency of colleagues
194-194 SATIS10: visibility for jobs
195-195 SATISI 1: job security
196-196 SATIS12: relationships with admin
197-197 SATISI3: overall job satisfaction
198-198 SATISI4: oppty to develop new ideas

Attributes of the Institution

1=not descriptive

2=somewhat descriptive

3=very descriptive
199-199 INSDSCOI: easy to see fac outside ofc
hour
200-200 INSDSC02: great conformity among
students
201-201 INSDSC03: faculty at odds with admin
202-202 INSDSC04: faculty respect each other
203-203 INSDSCOS: most stdnts treated like
numbers
204-204 INSDSCO6: social activities
overemphasized

 

205-205 INSDSC07: intercoll sports
overemphasized

206-206 INSDSC08: stdnts don't socialize regularly
207-207 INSDSC09: fac rewarded for good
teaching

Evaluation Methods
1 =none
=some

3=most
4=all

208-208

EVLREQOI :

terms/ﬁnals

209-209
210-210
211-211
212-212
213-213
214-214
215-215
work

216-216
217-217

EVLREQOZ:
EVLREQO3 :
EVLREQ04:
EVLREQOS:
EVLREQOé:
EVLREQO7:
EVLREQO8:

EVLREQO9:
EVLREQI 0:

Instructional Methods
1 =none
2=some
3most
4=all

21 8-2 18
2 19-2 19
instruct
220-220
22 1 -22 1
222-222
223-223
224-224
225-225
226-226
227-227
228-228
issues
229-229
issues
230-230
23 1-23 1

INSREQOI:
INSREQOZ:

INSREQO3:
INSREQO4:
INSREQOS:
INSREQO6:
INSREQO7:
INSREQO8:
INSREQO9:
INSREQIO:
INSREQI l:

INSREQIZ:

INSREQ13:
INSREQI4:

multiple-choice mid-

essay mid-terms/fmals
short-answer mid-terms/ﬁnals
quizzes

weekly essay assignments
student presentations
temr/research paperrs

stdnt evals of each others'

grading on a curve
competency-based grading

class discussions
computer/machine-aided

cooperative learning
experiential leaming/ﬁeld stud
teaching assistants

recitals or demonstrations
group projects

independent projects

extensive lecturing

multiple drafts of written work
readings on racial/ethnic

readings on women/gender

student-developed activities
student-selected topics

Used lnforrnation Technology/Computer to:
l=never
2=1-2 times/month
3=once a week
4=2-3 times/week
5=daily

238

232-232
233-233
234-234
235-235
236-236
237-237
238-238
239-239

ITUSEI :
ITUSE2:
ITUSE3:
ITUSE4:
ITUSES:
ITUSE6:
ITUSE7:
ITUSE8:

communicate using e-mail
conduct research with Internet
use on-line discussion groups
work from home

write memos/letters

conduct scholarly research
conduct data analysis

create presentations

General Opinions

l=disagree strongly

2=disagree somewhat

3=agree somewhat

4=agree strongly
240-240 GENOPNO]: West Civ foundation of UG
curric
241-241 GENOPNOZ: college can ban extreme
speakers
242-242
power
243-243
stdnts
244-244
probs
245-245
concept
246-246
cmty svc
247-247 GENOPNOB: give cmty svc weight in
admissions
248-248 GENOPN09: tenure essential to attract best
minds
249-249 GENOPNIO: computers enhance student
learning
250-250 GENOPNI 1: diverse student body
enhances education
251-251 POLIVIEW: Political Orientation

1=far right

2=conservative

3=middle-of-the-road

4=liberal

5=far left

GENOPN03: college increases earning
GENOPN04: diversity yields underprep
GENOPNOS: coll should help solve soc
GENOPN06: tenure is an outmoded

GENOPN07: encourage students to do

Personal Goals
1=not important
==somewhat important
3=very important
4=esscntial

252-252 GOALSOI:

253-253 GOALSOZ:

254-254 GOALSOB:

255-255 GOALSO4:

256-256 GOALSOS:

become authority in own ﬁeld
inﬂuence political structure
inﬂuence social values

raise a family

be very well-off ﬁnancially

257-257
258-258
259-259
260-260
261-261
262-262
263-263
264-264

GOALSO6:
GOALS07:
GOALSO8:
GOALSO9:
GOALS 1 0:
GOALSl 1 :
GOALS 12:
GOALS 1 3:

Optional Questions

1=a

2=b
3=c
4=d
5=e

265-265
266-266
267-267
268-268
269-269
270-270
271 -27 1
272-272
273-273
274-274
275-275
276-276
277-277
278-278
279-279
280-280
28 l -281
282-282
283-283
284-284
285-285

OPTQOI :
OPTQOZ:
OPTQO3:
OPTQO4:
OPT 005:
OPTQO6:
OPTQO7:
OPTQO8:
OPTQO9:
OPTQ10:
OPTQ] 1:
OPTQ l 2:
OPTQI 3:
OPTQ 14:
OPTQ 1 5:
OPTQ 1 6:
OPTQI 7:
OPTQ] 8:
OPTQ 1 9:
OPT 020:

RESPACE: Responded to Race Question?
1=no

2=yes
Base Salary (recoded)

2=20 to 29
3=30 to 39
4=40 to 49
5=50 to 59
6=60 to 69
7=70 to 79
8=80 to 89
9=90 to 99

help others in difficulty

be involved in envir clean-up
develop philosophy of life
promote racial understanding
obtain recog from colleagues
integrate spirituality into life
be a good colleague

be a good teacher

Question #40
Question #41
Question #42
Question #43
Question #44
Question #45
Question #46
Question #47
Question #48
Question #49
Question #50
Question #51
Question #52
Question #53
Question #54
Question #55
Question #56
Question #57
Question #58
Question #59

1=1ess than 20

10=100 to 124
11=125 to 149
12=150 or more

286-287 SALARY09: 9/10 month contract
288-289 SALARY12: 11/12 month contract

239

290-291 AGE:
(recoded)
1=1ess than 30
2=30 to 34
3=35 to 39
4=40 to 44
5=45 to 49
=50 to 54
7=55 to 59
8=60 to 64
9=65 to 69
10=70 or more
Year (recoded)
l=before 1961
2=1961 to 1965
3=1966 to 1970
4=1971 to 1975
5=1976 to 1980
6=1981 to 1985
7=1986 to 1990
8=1991 to 1995
9=l996 to 1998
292-292 DEGYRA: Highest Degree Earned
293-293 APPTYRA: Appointed to Current Position
294-294 TENYRA: Received Tenure
Major Field/Department (recoded)
1=agriculmm or forestry
2=biological sciences
3=business
4=education
5=engineering
6=English
7=health related
8=history or political science
9=humanities
10=ﬁne arts
1 1=mathematics or statistics
12=physical sciences
13=social sciences
14=other technical
15=other non-technical
295-296 MAJORA: Field of Highest Degree
297-298 DEPTA: Department of Current Faculty
Appointment
Respondent Type
1=no
2=yes
299-299 RESTYPEI: full-time undergraduate
faculty
300-300 RESTYPEZ: part-time undergraduate
faculty
301-301 RESTYPE3: ﬁrll-time academic
administrator

Age as ofDecember 31,1998

318-318 WGTRANK: Revised Academic Rank for
use with Weighting Procedure
1=professor

302-302 RESTYPE4: graduate-only faclty
303-303 RESTYPES: other
304-305 STRAT: Stratiﬁcation Cell

1=public universities: low selectivity
2= medium selectivity
3= high selectivity

2=associate professor
3=assistant professor
4=all other

4=private universities: low selectivity

5= medium selectivity

6= high selectivity

7=public 4-year colleges: low selectivity

8= medium selectivity

9= high selectivity

10= unknown selectivity

1 l=nonsectarian 4-year colleges: low
selectivity

l2= medium selectivity

13= high selectivity

14= very high selectivity

15= unknown selectivity

16=Catholic 4-year colleges: low selectivity

17= medium selectivity

18= high selectivity

19= unknown selectivity

20=Protestant 4-year colleges: very low
selectivity

21 = low selectivity

22= medium selectivity

23= high selectivity

24= unknown selectivity

25=public 2-year colleges: very low enroll

26=low enrollment

27medium enrollment

28=high enrollment

29=very high enrollment

30=private 2-year colleges: very low
enrollment

31=low enrollment

32=medium enrollment

33=high enrollment

34=predominantly black: public 4-year
colleges

35= nonsectarian 4-year colleges

36= public 2-year colleges

37= private 2-year colleges

38=Protestant 4-year colleges

39=Catholic 4-year colleges

40=public universities

41= private universities
306-310 INSTWGT: Institution Weighting Factor
(F5 .2)
31 1-317 STRATWGT: Strat Cell Weighting Factor

(F72)

 

240

APPENDIX B— INSTITUTIONS USED FOR MODEL TESTING, AND RESPONSE

RATES WITHIN THEM

241

Table 24

Institutions Used for Model Testing, and Response Rates Within Them

 

 

Carnegie Classiﬁcation Institutional Number of Number of Response Average by
1D Faculty Responses Rate Institutional
Type
Research I and II 30%
56 1530 437 2996
61 1370 396 2996
511 581 172 3096
584 638 267 4296
835 1016 261 2696
1207 1154 287 2596
2088 1979 550 2896
2278 397 141 3696
2458 1032 226 2296
2596 606 150 2596
2645 436 125 2996
2726 1328 546 4196
2764 531 147 2896
Doctoral l and II 39%
414 456 158 3596
631 519 186 3696
678 891 259 2996
1215 204 64 3196
1508 267 153 5796
1616 376 141 3896
1748 154 61 4096
1773 569 205 3696
1864 447 144 3296
1987 383 153 4096
2051 646 233 3696
2079 750 290 3996
2302 127 57 4596
2546 699 322 4696
2609 246 102 4196
Comprehensive l and II 53%
2 128 70 5596
31 432 206 4896
83 377 188 5096
141 184 82 4596
218 108 63 5896
605 300 134 4596
700 482 194 4096
763 136 76 5696
767 183 108 5996
1274 94 53 5696
1333 317 161 5196
1362 275 142 5296
1413 152 83 5596
1456 432 200 4696
1465 90 67 7496
1486 356 179 5096
1502 673 355 5396

242

Baccalaureate l and 11

1573
1586
1659
1664
1675
1841
1869
1871
1873
1878
1939
1946
1947
1991
2144
2195
2343
2494
2591
2665
2696
2816
2942
5329
5330
5751
6079
7034

219
274
582
597
707
747
752
769
783
834
944
956
965
1100
1109
1189
1344
1355
1491
1776
1846
1929
2049
2063
2065
2080
2247

373
314
323
362
118
99

276
206
246
200
643
808
158
382
66

134
244
361
189
402
199
225
73

49

400
416
138
161

152
78
81
I45
170
136
153
68
106
142
86
85
48
288
65
259
143
227
181
138
154
156
65
128
I49
89
149

174
170
163
150
85
52
137
101
104
97
260
288
95
192
49
75
143
198
111
I44
106
106
50
49
216
144
62
69

104
52
49
93
84
76
85
53
93
76
59
52
26
240
52
129
88
134
135
83
96
93
46
69
84
59
90

243

4796
5496
5096
4196
7296
5396
5096
4996
4296
4996
4096
3696
6096
5096
7496
5696
5996
5596
5996
3696
5396
4796
6896
10096
5496
3596
4596
4396

6896
6796
6096
6496
4996
5696
5696
7896
8896
5496
6996
6196
5496
8396
8096
5096
6296
5996
7596
6096
6296
6096
7196
5496
5696
6696
6096

6896

2259 155 82 5396
2290 139 99 7196
2446 191 120 6396
2461 38 35 9296
2562 110 69 6396
2814 65 55 8596
2934 74 59 8096
5194 58 53 9196
5353 69 61 8896
5657 52 47 9096
6332 166 100 6096
6542 66 59 8996

 

244

 

APPENDIX C -— INTERVIEW PROTOCOLS FOR "ENHANCING FACULTY

CONTRIBUTIONS TO LEARNING PRODUCTIVITY"

 

245

EFCLP FACULTY INTERVIEW GUIDE

Good morning. I’m [INTERVIEWER], one of the team of researchers investigating
ways to enhance faculty contributions to undergraduate learning. The federal Ofﬁce of
Educational Research and Improvement is funding this study. We are talking with faculty,
administrators, and students in four departments on this campus and at eight other institutions.
We are in [STATE] because the state legislature has been rather active in the policy arena
regarding faculty work. We feel that policies regulating faculty work should be informed by the
people who actually teach undergraduates. That’s why we want to talk with you. We are
interested in your views about what undergraduates should learn, about good teaching practices,
and about the organizational context in which all this occurs. Our goal is to develop policy

recommendations to enhance undergraduate learning that are grounded in the day-to-day reality
of faculty work.

We want to have a complete and accurate record of our conversation, so I’m asking your
permission to record it. Of course, your comments will remain anonymous, and our reports will
be written so that individuals cannot be identiﬁed. Please read and sign a copy of this consent
form while I set up the recorder. One copy is for me and one is for you to keep.

 

FIRST, I WANT To ASK YOU A FEW QUICK QUESTIONS ABOUT YOUR HISTORY AS A FACULTY
MEMBER [APPROXIMATELY 5 MINUTES].

[COMPLETE PA RTICIPANT FACT SHEET]

 

 

 

 

NEXT, I WANT TO ASK YOU A FEW QUESTIONS ABOUT LEARNING AND TEACHING IN THE
[DISCIPLINE] DEPARTMENT [APPROXIMATELY 15 MINUTES].

 

1. In your View, what are the most important things students majoring in [discipline] at
[institution] should learn by the time they graduate? In particular, we are interested in
ﬁve areas of learning: content knowledge, skills, integration of knowledge, application of
knowledge, and attitudes about future learning. Lets take them one at a time.
1a. What content knowledge should new graduates have mastered?
1b. What skills should new graduates have mastered?

1c. In what ways should new graduates be able to integrate knowledge? [Pull
together what they have learned in meaningful ways]

Id. In what ways should new graduates be able to apply knowledge?

Page 1 of 4

246

 

5a.

5b.

1e. What do you hope new graduates’ attitudes will be about future learning in
[discipline]?

1f. In your view, is there anything else important that new graduates should know?

Since [institution] is a [research university, comprehensive university, liberal arts
college], is there anything different that [discipline] graduates from [institution] should
learn compared to students at other types of institutions?

We’ve just discussed several areas in which students should learn. I’m interested in
your ideas about how faculty in the [discipline] department can contribute most
effectively to students’ learning in each of these areas. In your view:

3a. What is the most effective way to teach so students will master content
knowledge?

36. What is the most effective way to teach so students will develop essential skills?

3c. How can faculty teach most effectively so students will pull together what they
have learned in a meaningful way?

3d. How can faculty teach most effectively so students will apply their knowledge to
real world situations? '

3e. What is the most effective way to teach so students will develop positive attitudes
about future learning in [discipline]?

 

Now I HAVE SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT YOUR OWN WORK WITH UNDERGRADUATES
[APPROXIMATELY 15 MINUTES].

 

Your mentioned [P]. [Q] and [R] as effective ways to teach so students will learn. Please
tell me about the ways that you use [P]. [Q] or [R] methods in your own undergraduate
teaching. Please share an example or two.

What are your particular strengths in working with undergraduates?

How would you like to improve the ways you work with undergraduates?

Page 2 of 4

247

How—if at all—has your approach to working with undergraduates to enhance their
learning changed over the last ﬁve to ten years?

NOTE: If the faculty member reports that her/his teaching methods have changed,
ask:

6a. What factors contributed to changes in the way you work with undergraduates?

How do you balance undergraduate teaching with your other faculty responsibilities?

 

NOW I’D LIKE YOU DISCUSS THE WAYS THAT YOUR DEPARTMENT, YOUR INSTITUTION, AND
EVEN THE [STATE] POLICY CONTEXT INFLUENCE YOUR WORK [APPROXIMATELY 15
MINUTES].

 

 

8a.

8b.

10.

How do the formal policies of [discipline] department facilitate your ability to promote
undergraduate learning? .

Probe: workload policies, teaching assignments, faculty involvement in decision
making, rewards '

How do the formal policies of [discipline] department constrain your ability to promote
undergraduate learning?

Probe: workload policies, teaching assignments, faculty in volvement in decision
making, rewards

We have talked about formal policies affecting faculty work at [institution]. In every
organization. there are also unwritten guides for work behavior that emerge from daily
interactions.

9a. How do informal rules for faculty work in [discipline] department facilitate your
ability to promote undergraduate learning?

9b. How do informal rules for faculty work in [discipline] department constrain your
ability to promote undergraduate learning? '

It might be helpful if we made this more concrete. Let’s take the example of
collaborative learning. By collaborative learning, I refer to students working together.
helping one another learn. Suppose you wanted to begin using collaborative learning in
your undergraduate courses or to use it more extensively.

10a. How would the department and institutional environment facilitate your doing
that?

10b. How would the environment inhibit you from doing it?

Page 3 of 4

248

 

11. Tell me about state policies related to faculty work in [state].

lla. In your view. how have these policies influenced the environment for faculty
work at [institution] and in the [discipline] department]?

1 lb. How—if at all-have [state] state policies inﬂuenced the way you work with
undergraduates?

11c. How—if at all—have [state] state policies influenced any other aspect of your
work as a faculty member in [discipline] department at [institution]?

12. Please share with me anything else you think I should know about the contexts for
teaching and learning here in [discipline] department at [institution].

That concludes my questions. Thanks so much for taking time to meet with me. As you
may know, we are talking with other faculty. students and administrators here. We will have a
report in six months or so. The report will be given to your chair. and should also be available
to you. If you have anything else to share in the meantime. please use the email address on my

card.

— THANK YOU —

Page 4 of 4

249

EFCLP CHAIRS & DEANS INTERVIEW GUIDE

Good morning. I’m [INTERVIEWER], one of the team of researchers investigating ways
to enhance faculty contributions to undergraduate learning. The federal Office of Educational
Research and Improvement is funding this study. We are talking with faculty, administrators, and
students in four departments on this campus and at eight other institutions. We are in [STATE]
because the state legislature has been rather active in the policy arena regarding faculty work. We
feel that policies regulating faculty work should be informed by the people who actually teach
undergraduates. That’s why we want to talk with you. We are interested in your views about
what undergraduates should learn, about good teaching practices, and about the organizational
context in which all this occurs. Our goal is to develop policy recommendations to enhance
undergraduate learning that are grounded in the day-to-day reality of faculty work.

We want to have a complete and accurate record of our conversation, so I’m asking your
permission to record it. Since there is only one [chair, dean] of [discipline] at [institution], we
cannot guarantee your anonymity. So any time you would like your remarks to remain off the
record, please let me know, and I will turn off the recorder or ensure the remarks are deleted
before this tape is transcribed. In addition, we will consult you before attributing any direct quote
to you in all written reports prepared from the findings of this study. Please read and sign a copy
of this consent form while I set up the recorder. One copy is for me and one is for you to keep.

 

FIRST, I WANT TO ASK YOU A FEW QUICK QUESTIONS ABOUT YOUR HISTORY AS A FACULTY
MEMBER (APPROXIMATELY 5 MINUTES).

[COMPLETE PARTICIPANT FACT SHEET]

 

 

 

 

TO PROVIDE SOME PERSPECTIVE ON HOW YOUR ROLE RELATES To UNDERGRADUATE
TEACHING AND LEARNING AT [INSTITUTION], I’D LIKE TO ASK A FEW QUESTIONS ABOUT
YOUR JOB RESPONSIBILITIES (APPROXIMATELY 5 MINUTES).

 

 

 

1a. Please tell me how long you have been [chair], [dean]?
1b. How is the [chair], [dean] selected?
1c. Is there a term limit to the office of [chair], [dean]?

1d. CHAIRS: How many full-time, tenure-track faculty are there in the [discipline]
department? Approximately how many undergraduate majors

2a. Please describe your major responsibilities as [chair], [dean].

Page 1 of 4

250

2b.

3a.

3b.

Tell me how you integrate attention to undergraduate teaching and learning with your
other responsibilities.

As [chair], [dean], what formal authority do you have over the work of faculty?

In what other formal or informal ways do you work with faculty about issues of
undergraduate teaching and learning?

 

I’M INTERESTED IN YOUR VIEWS ABOUT LEARNING AND TEACHING AT [INSTITUTION]
(APPROXIMATELY 15 MINUTES).

 

In your View, what are the most important things students at [institution] should learn by
the time they graduate? In particular, we are interested in five areas of learning: content
knowledge, skills, integration of knowledge, application of knowledge, and attitudes about
future learning. Lets take them one at a time.

4a. What content knowledge should new graduates have mastered?

4b. What skills should new graduates have mastered?

4c. In what ways should new graduates be able to integrate knowledge? [Pull together
what they have learned in meaningful ways.]

4d. In what ways should new graduates be able to apply knowledge?

4e. What do you hope new graduates’ attitudes will be about future learning in
[discipline]?

41”. In your View, is there anything else important that new graduates should know?
Since [institution] is a [research university, comprehensive university, liberal arts college],
is there anything different that graduates from [institution] should learn compared to
students at other types of institutions?

We’ve just discussed several areas in which students should learn. I’m interested in your
ideas about how faculty can contribute most effectively to students’ learning in each of

these areas. In your view:

6a. What is the most effective way to teach so students will master content
knowledge?

6b. What is the most effective way to teach so students‘will develop essential skills?

Page 2 of 4

251

 

6c. How can faculty teach most effectively so students will pull together what they
have learned in a meaningful way?

6d. How can faculty teach most effectively so students will apply their knowledge to
real world situations?

6e. What is the most effective way to teach so students will develop positive attitudes
about future learning in [discipline]?

7. In your View, to what extent are faculty at [institution] currently using the effective
teaching practices you have described?

8a. How—if at all—have faculty approaches to work with undergraduates at [institution]
changed over the last ﬁve to ten years?

8b. What factors have contributed to the changes (or lack of changes)?

9. In your View, in what ways do faculty at [institution] balance undergraduate teaching with
their other faculty responsibilities?

 

NOW I’M INTERESTED IN YOUR VIEWS ABOUT THE CONTEXTS FOR UNDERGRADUATE
LEARNING AND TEACHING AT [INSTITUTION] (APPROXIMATELY 15 MINUTES).

 

10a. How do the formal policies of [discipline] facilitate faculty members’ ability to promote
undergraduate learning?
Probe: workload policies, teaching assignments, faculty involvement in decision
making, rewards

10b. How do the formal policies of [discipline] constrain faculty members’ ability to promote
undergraduate learning?
Probe: workload policies, teaching assignments, faculty involvement in decision
making, rewards

11. We have talked about formal policies affecting faculty work at [institution]. In every
organization, there are also unwritten guides for work behavior that emerge from daily
interactions.

11a. How do informal rules for faculty work at [discipline] facilitate faculty members’
ability to promote undergraduate learning?

11a. How do informal rules for faculty work at [discipline] constrain faculty members’
ability to promote undergraduate learning?

Page 3 of 4

252

12.

It might be helpful if we made this more concrete. Let’s take the example of collaborative
learning. By collaborative learning, I refer to students working together, helping one
another learn. Suppose you wanted more faculty at [institution] to use collaborative
learning In their undergraduate courses.

12a. What inducements or policies might you employ to encourage more faculty to use
collaborative learning.

12b. What features of the institutional environment would support your actions?

12c. What features of the institutional environment would inhibit your actions?

 

FINALLY, I’M INTERESTED IN THE WAYS THAT STATE POLICIES INFLUENCE FACULTY WORK
AT [INSTITUTION] (APPROXIMATELY 15 MINUTES). .

 

13a.

13b.

13c.

13d.

l3e.

14.

Tell me about state policies related to faculty work in [state].

How—if at all—have [state] state policies enhanced the way you work with faculty, chairs
and deans to promote undergraduate learning?

How—if at all—have [state] state policies constrained the way you work with faculty,

chairs and deans to promote undergraduate learning?

How—if at all—have [state] state policies inﬂuenced any other aspect of faculty work at
[institution]?

In your view, what are some unintended consequences of state policies for faculty work?

Please share with me anything else you think I should know about the contexts for
teaching and learning here at [institution].

That concludes my questions. Thanks so much for taking time to meet with me. As you

may know, we are talking with other faculty, students and administrators here. We will have a
report in six months or so. The report will be given to your chair, and Should also be available to
you. If you have anything else to share in the meantime. please use the email address on my card.

— THANK YOU —

Page 4 of 4

253

 

EFCLP ADMINISTRATORS INTERVIEW GUIDE

 

Good morning. I’m [INTERVIEWER], one of the team of researchers investigating ways
to enhance faculty contributions to undergraduate learning. The federal Office of Educational
Research and Improvement is funding this study. We are talking with faculty, administrators, and
students in four departments on this campus and at eight other institutions. We are in [STATE]
because the state legislature has been rather active in the policy arena regarding faculty work. We
feel that policies regulating faculty work should be informed by the people who actually teach
undergraduates. That’s why we want to talk with you. We are interested in your views about
what undergraduates should learn, about good teaching practices, and about the organizational
context in which all this occurs. Our goal is to develop policy recommendations to enhance
undergraduate learning that are grounded in the day-to-day reality of faculty work.

We want to have a complete and accurate record of our conversation, so I’m asking your
permission to record it. Since there is only one [administrator] at [institution], we cannot
guarantee your anonymity. So any time you would like your remarks to remain off the record,
please let me know, and I will turn off the recorder or ensure the remarks are deleted before this
tape is transcribed. In addition, we will consult you before attributing any direct quote to you in
all written reports prepared from the findings of this study. Please read and sign a copy of this
consent form while I set up the recorder. One copy is for me and one is for you to keep.

 

TO PROVIDE SOME PERSPECTIVE ON HOW YOUR ROLE RELATES TO UNDERGRADUATE
TEACHING AND LEARNING AT [INSTITUTION], I’D LIKE TO ASK A FEW QUESTIONS ABOUT
YOUR JOB RESPONSIBILITIES (APPROXIMATELY S MINUTEs).

 

 

 

la. Please tell me how long you have been [administrator]?

1b. How is the [administrator], selected?

1c. Is there a term limit to the office of [administrator]?

Id. In what discipline did you receive your terminal degree?

2a. Please describe your major responsibilities as [administrator].

2b. Tell me how you integrate attention to undergraduate teaching and learning with your
other responsibilities. '

3a. As [administrator]. what formal authority do you have over the work of faculty?

3b. In what other formal or informal ways do you work with faculty about issues of
undergraduate teaching and learning?

Page 1 of 4

254

 

I’M INTERESTED IN YOUR VIEWS ABOUT LEARNING AND TEACHING AT [INSTITUTION]
(APPROXIMATELY 15 MINUTES).

 

In your view, what are the most important things students at [institution] should learn by
the time they graduate? In particular, we are interested in five areas of learning: content
knowledge, skills, integration of knowledge, application of knowledge, and attitudes about
future learning. Lets take them one at a time.

4a.

4b.

4c.

4d.

46.

4f.

What content knowledge should new graduates have mastered?
What skills should new graduates have mastered?

In what ways should new graduates be able to integrate knowledge? [Pull together
what they have learned in meaningful ways]

In what ways should new graduates be able to apply knowledge?

What do you hope new graduates’ attitudes will be about future learning in
[discipline]?

In your view, is there anything else important that new graduates should know?

Since [institution] is a [research University, comprehensive university, liberal arts college],
is there anything different that graduates from [institution] should learn compared to
students at other types of institutions?

We’ve just discussed several areas in which students should learn. I’m interested in your
ideas about how faculty can contribute most effectively to students’ learning in each of
these areas. In your View:

6a.

6b.

6c.

6d.

What is the most effective way to teach so students will master content
knowledge?

What is the most effective way to teach so students will develop essential skills?

How can faculty teach most effectively so students will pull together what they
have learned in a meaningful way?

How can faculty teach most effectively so students will apply their knowledge to
real world situations?

Page 2 of 4

255

 

be. What is the most effective way to teach so students will develop positive attitudes
about future learning in [discipline]?

7. In your view, to what extent are faculty at [institution] currently using the effective
teaching practices you have described?

8a. How—if at all—have faculty approaches to work with undergraduates at [institution]
changed over the last five to ten years?

8b. What factors have contributed to the changes (or lack of changes)?

9. In your View, in what ways do faculty at [institution] balance undergraduate teaching with
their other faculty responsibilities?

 

NOW I’M INTERESTED IN YOUR VIEWS ABOUT THE CONTEXTS FOR UNDERGRADUATE
LEARNING AND TEACHING AT [INSTITUTION] (APPROXIMATELY 15 MINUTES).

 

 

10a. How do the formal policies of [institution] facilitate faculty members’ ability to promote
undergraduate learning?
Probe: workload policies, teaching assignments, faculty involvement in decision
making, rewards

10b. How do the formal policies of [institution] constrain faculty members’ ability to promote
undergraduate learning?
Probe: workload policies, teaching assignments, faculty involvement in decision
making, rewards

11. We have talked about formal policies affecting faculty work at [institution]. In every
organization, there are also unwritten guides for work behavior that emerge from daily
interactions.

11a. How do informal rules for faculty work at [institution] facilitate faculty members’
ability to promote undergraduate learning?

11a. How do informal rules for faculty work at [institution] constrain faculty members’
ability to promote undergraduate learning?

Page 3 of 4

256

 

 

 

 

12.

12.

It might be helpful if we made this more concrete. Let’s take the example of collaborative
learning. By collaborative learning, I refer to students working together, helping one
another learn. Suppose you wanted more faculty at [institution] to use collaborative
learning in their undergraduate courses.

12a. What inducements or policies might you employ to encourage more faculty to use
collaborative learning.

12b. What features of the institutional environment would support your actions?

12c. What features of the institutional environment would inhibit your actions?

 

FINALLY, I’M INTERESTED IN THE WAYS THAT STATE POLICIES INFLUENCE FACULTY WORK
AT [INSTITUTION] (APPROXIMATELY 15 MINUTES). .

 

1 3a.

13b.

13c.

13d.

l3e.

14.

Tell me about state policies related to faculty work in [state].

How—if at all—have [state] state policies enhanced the way you work with faculty, chairs
and deans to promote undergraduate learning?

I-Iow—if at all—have [state] state policies constrained the way you work with faculty, ‘
chairs and deans to promote undergraduate learning?

How—if at all—have [state] state policies inﬂuenced any other aspect of faculty work at
[institution]?

In your view, what are some unintended consequences of state policies for faculty work?

Please share with me anything else you think I should know about the contexts for
teaching and learning here at [institution].

That concludes my questions. Thanks so much for taking time to meet with me. As you

may know, we are talking with other faculty, students and administrators here. We will have a
report in six months or so. The report will be given to your chair, and should also be available to
you. If you have anything else to share in the meantime, please use the email address on my card.

— THANK YOU —

Page 4 of 4

257

 

EFCLP STUDENTS INTERVIEW GUIDE

Good morning. I’m [INTERVIEWER], one of the team of researchers investigating
ways to enhance faculty contributions to undergraduate learning. The federal Ofﬁce of
Educational Research and Improvement is funding this study. We are talking with faculty,
administrators, and students in four departments on this campus and at eight other institutions.
We are in [STATE] because the state legislature has been rather active in the policy arena
regarding faculty work. We feel that policies regulating faculty work should be informed by the
people who actually teach undergraduates. We also feel that learning should be assessed by the
people doing the leaming—students. That’s why we want to talk with you. We are interested in
your views about what undergraduates should learn, about good teaching practices, and about the
organizational context in which all this occurs. Our goal is to develop policy recommendations
to enhance undergraduate learning that are grounded in the day-to-day reality of learning and
teaching. '

We want to have a complete and accurate record of our conversation, so I’m asking your
permission to record it. Of course, your comments will remain anonymous, and our reports will
be written so that individuals cannot be identified. We also ask, however, that you respect the
conﬁdentiality of your colleagues. Everything said in this room should remain strictly
confidential. Please read and sign a copy of this consent form while I set up the recorder. One
copy is for me and one is for you to keep.

 

FIRST, I’D LIKE TO GET TO KNOW YOU ALL A LITTLE BETTER (APPROXIMATELY 10 1
MINUTES).

1. Please tell me your name, and the date you expect to graduate.
2. What contributed to your decision to attend [institution]?
3. What conuibuted to your decision to major in [discipline]?

4. What do you plan to do in the ﬁrst year or so after you graduate?

 

NEXT, I’D LIKE TO KNOW YOUR VIEWS ABOUT LEARNING AND TEACHING IN YOUR
[DISCIPLINE] MAJOR (APPROXIMATELY 25 MINUTES).

5. I’d like to ask you about the most important things you have learned as a [discipline]
major? My questions will focus on ﬁve areas: content knowledge, skills, integration of
knowledge, application of knowledge, and attitudes about future learning. Lets take
them one at a time.

5a. What content knowledge have you mastered?

Page I of 3

258

 

5b. What skills have you developed?

5c. Describe ways you have been able to pull this knowledge together in a
meaningful way.

5d. Describe ways you have been able to apply this knowledge to real world issues.

5e. Is there anything you feel you should have learned here in [discipline] that you
haven’t learned?

5f. Now that you are close to graduation, how do you feel about [discipline]?

5g. As far as you can tell now, how will your experiences in the [discipline]
department help with your career?

 

NOW I’M INTERESTED IN THE WAYS THAT FACULTY IN [DISCIPLINE] AT [INSTITUTION]
CONTRIBUTED TO YOUR LEARNING (APPROXIMATELY 20 MINUTEs).

 

Describe ways that faculty in this department were most effective at helping you learn
important knowledge in [discipline].

What kinds of faculty teaching practices did you find least helpful as you were learning
knowledge in [discipline]?

Describe ways that faculty in this department were most effective at helping you develop
skills in [discipline].

What kinds of faculty teaching practices did you find least helpful as you were
developing skills in [discipline]?

Describe ways that faculty in this department helped you pull all that you have learned
together in a meaningful and practical way?

In what ways did faculty teaching efforts interfere with your ability to integrate what you
have learned?

Describe ways that faculty in this department helped you apply your knowledge to real-
world issues?

Page 2 of 3

259

9b. In what ways did faculty teaching efforts interfere with your ability to apply what you
have learned?

10a. Tell be about ways that faculty efforts contributed to your long-term interest in
[discipline].

10b. In your view, what aspects of your work with faculty in this department turned you off to
[discipline]? ‘

 

NOW I’D LIKE YOUR IMPRESSIONS OF WHAT MIGHT INFLUENCE FACULTY MEMBERs’
EFFECTIVENESS AS UNDERGRADUATE TEACHERS (APPROXIMATELY 15 MINUTES).

 

11a. From your perspective, what aspects of the [discipline] department or of [institution]
encourage faculty to use the types of teaching methods that really enhanced your learning

llb. From your perspective, what aspects of the [discipline] department or of [institution]
discourage faculty from using the types of teaching methods that enhance your learning?

12. Tell me about any state policies you are aware of in [state] that are related to faculty
work or to teaching and learning.

13. In your view, how—if at all—have [state] state policies inﬂuenced the way faculty work
with undergraduates in [discipline] department at [institution]?

14. Please share with me anything else you think I should know about the contexts for
teaching and learning in the [discipline] department at [institution].

— THANK YOU ——

Page 3 of_ 3

260